PLACE IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL REFLECTION

Headnote

Abstract

Each place possesses characteristics that confer on if a sense of place and identity through the meanings and values that they provide. The role of the physical built environment in place and identity development has not received adequate attention in built environment literature. This paper attempts to identify the unique and exceptional characteristics of places which create a unique environment and make a continuing contribution to the overall sense of the place. A preliminary survey was conducted in Kuala Kubu Bharu (KKB), a small town in the northern part of the Malaysian state of Selangor; to examine the characteristics of the place that influence and contribute to the identify of the town. The survey results demonstrate that the cultural heritage of the physical built environment acts as an important trigger for the town's identity. While if is undeniable that cultural heritage is indeed greatly the product of non-visual sources; subjective meanings, experiences, beliefs, ideology and past history of the place, this paper highlights the significance of the physical built environment in influencing the very individuality of the place.

Keywords: Place identity, Place, Small town, Built heritage, Kuala Kubu Bharu.

1 .0 Introduction

Over the eight decades of its existence, the small town of Kuala Kubu Bharu (or KKB as it is commonly known} has remained largely untouched by development and thus retained many of the remnants and traces from the second World War, such as bombed buildings. Many Garden City design elements including the green belts and playgrounds introduced by Malaya's first town planner, Charles Crompton Reade, are also still in place. As stated by Yuksel & Ida I (2005), it is the small towns where the original historical heritage is protected. The potential importance of this heritage does not lie only in the intrinsic beauty of what is being preserved, the immediate revenue it may bring from tourism based in history, but above all in the identity conferred. The inherent architectural, historical, and cultural significance of the buildings are what makes them unique and subsequently connote the very individuality of a place from other places in the world (Noor Suzaini 2007). Apart from these factors, functional qualities of the buildings also serve as one of the critical elements in constructing a city's image and identity (Tiesdell et al. 1996). Therefore, historic urban features are a salient source for both local and national identity (Goad & Ngiom 2007; Mansfield 2008).

The role in identity development of historic buildings, the physical built environment or more generally a place has not received adequate attention in built environment literature. Furthermore, it has largely been negleded in psychology literature that has dominated the debate on place identity (Ffauge 2007). According to Graham et al. (2009), there is a promising tie between historic building and the place identity. Ffauge (2007) and TwiggerRoss & Uzzell (1996) argued that discussions related to identity are, generally concerned with, and accompanied by, place reference.

Therefore, this paper attempts to identify the unique and exceptional characteristics of places which create unique environments and contribute to the overall sense of place. To achieve this aim, this paper briefly examines the theory and concepts of place, place identity, and the fundamental elements of the identity of places. Based on the theoretical characteristics, the paper further attempts to identify unique built heritage and other physical elements; which in the researcher's view are prominent in relation to a study area selected through a preliminary field survey.

2.0 Conceptual foundation of place and place identity

2.1 Place

A place is distinguished from the associated con- cept of space by the former being endowed with meaning and value (Puren et al. 2008; Relph 1976; Tuan 1977}. As argued by Harner (2001) and Shuhana (2011), it is human experience that confers meaning to places. In Relph's (1976:29) term, place is seen as a multifaceted phenomenon of personal experiences rather than entities that can be defined simply in terms of their location or appearance. While developed, understood and experienced differently among different people, one single place may have a range of meanings and values at a particular time (Australia ICOMOS 2000; Harner 2001; Hubbard et al. 2004). Although 'place' is often characterized by meanings and intentions people associate with a particular setting, the importance of physical characteristics whether of buildings or natural features in describing a place is undeniable.

Pearson & Sullivan (1995) for example, describe place as the area of concentration of in situ cultural material or region of land where past human activity is manifested physically in the form of structures or buildings. Norberg-Schulz (1 980) in his discussion of the theory of Identity and place, emphasized concrete things with material substance, shape, texture and colour in defining place. Moreover, place definition also includes any fixed part of an historic environment with a distinctive identity (English Heritage 2008). The extent of place in building identity can be found by considering the place as whole entities or fusions of physical features, and activities to which people have deep emotional and psychological ties (Relph 1976). The following notion of place by Donat (1967) reflected the concept of identity:

"Places occur at all levels of identity; my place, your place, street, community, town, city, county, region, country and continent, but places never conform to the tidy hierarchies of classification. They all overlap and interpenetrate one another and are wide open to a variety of interpretation".

The combination of physical setting, activities and meanings as constituent elements of place is central for identity formation, and this will be discussed in the following section.

2.2 Place identity

The term place identity has its roots in the association between place and the concept of identity (Hauge 2007; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell 1996). Despite the lack of attention to the influence of the physical built environment on identity, the concept of place identity has been discussed implicitly, if not explicitly in various academic research. Place identity has many interpretations (Lewicka 2008; Lynch 1960; Marcouyeux & Fleury-Bahi 2011; Tavakoli 2010; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell 1996). For example, Lewicka (2008) defined place identity as "a set of place features that guarantee the place's distinctiveness and continuity in time". Within the context of urban sustainability, identity is defined by Tavakoli (2010) as the physical structure of a city that is unique and subsequently increases recognition ofthat city. Similarly, Lynch (I960) conceptualized the identity of a place as that which provides its individuality, oneness or distinction from other places, and thus is intrinsic to its recognition as a separable entity. On the other hand, place identity also focuses on how people see or define themselves with reference to the physical environment (Marcouyeux & Fleury-Bahi 2011). Using the Breakwell's identity process model, Twigger-Ross & Uzzell (1996) demonstrated the use of place in gaining positive distinctiveness over people in other settlements as well as in providing and maintaining individual's continuity, self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Collectively, place identity can be defined differently by either the ways people expressed identifications with reference to the physical environment or the distinctiveness of the environment itself. However the most important part of identity according to Shuhana (201 1:18), relates to '...distinctiveness of the physical environment and the ability for it to be recognized and recalled vividly by the observer'. For the purpose of this paper, place identity is confined to the unique or distinct character of a place.

Regardless of size, every city or town has beauty, unique and distinct characteristics of its own. Nevertheless, despite having rich historical and architectural reserves, towns of a small scale in South-East Asian countries including Malaysia have been relatively overlooked (Jackson 1973). According to Yuksel & Ida I (2005), they are now subject to the triple threat of dilapidation, exhaustion and disappearance. In Malaysia, this problem is further exacerbated by the absence of specific legislation that deals diredly with the development and conservation of small historic towns. However, this does not necessarily imply that the town has no significance (English Heritage 2008). In places where the overall significance and importance is unclear and poorly understood, detailed study and analysis involving assessment of cultural significance should be undertaken. This should lead to preparation of a statement of significance establishing the particular value of the place (Australia ICOMOS 2000). The former particularly entails the determination of the elements that made the places identifiable together with the values they hold (Pearson & Sullivan 1995).

These discussions of place identity raise the question of what are the contributing elements of the identity of a place. Relph (1976) and Shuhana & Norsidah (2008) identified the physical setting, the activities, and the meanings given by intentions as three fundamental components that constitute the very individuality of places. This notion is also supported by Hauge (2007) who emphasized the importance of place in identity development by means of physical settings, as well as social, psychological and cultural meanings attached to it.

2.2.1 Elements of place identity

2.2.1 .1 Physical elements and activities

One of the most significant elements influencing the identity of places is the physical form of human works. According to Oktay (2002:261) cities, like individuals, should have character and distinctions; like individuals, this flavor is made up of numerous characteristics, or identifiable elements. As supported by Shuhana (2011), distinct elements present in a place are the qualities that one should consider when describing identity. For Stubbs (2004), these may include familiar landmarks and neighbourhoods. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government (2010) provides some examples of the former, such as natural features of outstanding beauty, iconic buildings, activity nodes, heritage routes with rich memories and gathering places people can easily identify and be proud of.

Furthermore, Izuandi (2010) highlighted ten physical elements of townscapes that are critical in constructing identity fora town. These specifically refer to the enclosure, or outdoor room, gateways and changes of level, closed vistas, deflection, incident, punctuation, narrowing, fluctuation, projection or recession, and the public and private space of the town. Similarly, the value of townscape as opined by Feilden (2005) depends upon ensembles of buildings, the spaces they stand in, roads, public spaces, and the views from significant reference points and vistas. From a historical perspective, Shuhana (2011) offered some expansion of the concept by referring to an historic townscape as an area with historical significance, which enriches people's sensory experience through many of its heritage buildings as well as the on-going traditional activities.

Relph (1976) argued that the physical environment provides the backdrop to activities of the people, yet the inverse is also true in which it is complemented and influenced by such activities. According to Norsidah (2010), attributes of physical environment in making places accessible, more readable, unique, and comfortable including physical, environmental and psychological comfort play a vital role in influencing the identity of a place.

Despite the plethora of notions on what constitutes place distinctiveness, many authors have referred to these vivid or unique characters of the historic buildings present in heritage places (Heritage of Malaysia Trust 2011 ; Mansfield 2008; Kamarul Syahril et al. 2008; Noor Suzaini, 2007; Goad & Ngiom, 2007; Logan et al. 2002; Muhamad Khairuddin, 1 996; Syed Zainol, 1996). Kamarul Syahril et al. (2008) and Syed Zainol (1996) for instance, argued that historic buildings which are of immense architectural and historical value provide a sense of identity and continuity, especially in the face of globalization. Along with collective memory and social value, historic urban features are believed to be salient sources for both local and national identity (Goad & Ngiom 2007; Mansfield 2008). According to Logan (2002), cultural heritage has been used to create the sense of identity in several Asian countries such as China, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. For a small town, Muhamad Khairuddin (1996) argued that the physical elements of the old historical buildings make the most significant contribution in conferring on such a town its unique image. Thus, it is evident that built heritage does not only contribute to national but also local distinctiveness (Heritage of Malaysia Trust 2011).

Therefore, the most enduring justification for considering historic buildings as physical indicators of place identity has been their conservation; in itself which is largely inspired by its role in instigating, preserving and promoting the identity of a place (Arazi et al. 2010; Kamarul Syahril et al. 2008; Lee & Lim 2010; Noor Amila et al. 2010; Suhana et al. 2011). While it is true that the architectural distinctiveness of historic buildings heightens the sense of place, it is the meaning or values embedded in places that bind people intimately and make ordinary places unique from elsewhere (Chang 2010; The Getty Conservation Institute 2000). The latter is discussed in the following section.

2.2.1.2 Meanings and values

The articulation of identity is also related to the feelings and perceptions developed through experiences people have with a place (Hauge 2007; Norsidah 2010; Relph 1976; Shuhana 2011). Arreola (1995) argued that the readiness and distinctiveness of physical structures are essential pre- requisites for building identity but people's perceptions or meanings always form the very basis for this construct. According to Hamer (2001), identity building could be achieved through the process of hegemony, orto be more precise, creation of place identity when meaning of a place for the majority of its residents matches the ideological beliefs of those in power. However, it does not imply that those with power necessarily determine the meanings of a place as the process is about dominance obtained by consent rather than coercion or counter-hegemony.

As discussed in Section 2.2, meanings, physical form and intensity of activities constitute distinctiveness and uniqueness of a place. This distinctiveness in turn develops multiple experiences, meanings and emotions among people, which Puren et al. (2008) referred to as a sense of place. The term which is referred to as place attachment in other studies (Lewicka 2008; Marcouyeux & FleuryBahi 2011; Shuhana & Norsidah 2008) is commonly referred to as positive-affective bonds to a place.

Similarly, in discussing the concept in the historical context, Graham et al. (2009) advocated that the senses of place developed by heritage places are mostly positive. The significant role in creating the sense of place was noted as one of the inherent qualities of historic places (Pearson & Sullivan 1995; Rodwell 2007). For the Heritage Council of Western Australia (2012), local people's positive sense of place and identity is developed when the place is felt significant by the inhabitants for social, cultural, educational or spiritual reasons. This implies that it is the cultural significance that makes places unique and valued by the community and society as a whole. Therefore, retaining the cultural significance of a place becomes the ultimate aim of conservation (Heritage of Malaysia Trust 2007; Australia ICOMOS 1999; Pearson & Sullivan 1995; the Getty Conservation Institute 2000).

The cultural heritage value of a place is not static, it is multi-faceted and dependent on human perceptions (Mason 2002; Pearson & Sullivan 1995). However, there is no internationally agreed typology of values, nor any definitive method for assessing them (Mason 2002; Pearson & Sullivan 1995). Diversity in interpretation of the values embedded in cultural property (as illustrated in Table 1) is therefore needed to simply establish some ground in finding agreement for these values. In most instances, there is a great overlap among the values devised among individuals from different disciplines and backgrounds. For instance, scientific or technological value outlined in Feilden's (as an architect) typology of value is minimized in the category suggested by Mason (as preservationist) as it is seen to be derived from historical value.

Despite the diversity of notions of value, it is noted that they are largely based on the definition of cultural significance by the Australian ICOMOS's Burra Charter 1999. The Charter stated that the terms aesthetic, historic, scientific and social can encompass all other values (Australia ICOMOS 2000). This statement can be seen from the real international practice for local heritage place assessment. As demonstrated in Table 2, the four values of the Burra Charter are essentially used as main criteria in assessing local heritage places across Australia and England.

Similarly in Malaysia, the criteria outlined under Section 67 of the National Heritage Act 2005 are also found to be consistent with the four generic values given in the interpretation of cultural significance in the Charter. Nevertheless, while being too broad to be used in real assessment practices in Malaysia, the criteria are only pertinent for assessing places at the national level and thus, not readily adapted for local use (Heritage of Malaysia Trust 2007). The absence of provision for their identification and protection in some cases causes the significance of locally significant places to be underestimated. Nevertheless, it is argued in this paper that the assessment of cultural significance and preparation of the statement of significance are the right steps to be undertaken in establishing value for these places. Therefore, comparing the value with existing criteria for assessment as has been devised in Australia and England, can make the process more efficient and hence be a bridge to value establishment.

Further to this, it is imperative to have some idea of what the criteria mean before the assessment takes place. The Burra Charter, as argued by Pearson & Sullivan (1 995), is widely accepted and therefore it is '...helpful, where appropriate, to use the terms and processes laid down there'. It is worth noting that the headings of the criteria below are also drawn from the Burra Charter 1 999:

(i) Aesthetic value

A place with aesthetic value is important in demonstrating creative or design excellence, decoration or craftsmanship, and particular taste, style or technology. Therefore, it often exhibits landmark qualities and subsequently makes a contribution to important vistas and the overall quality of a setting. According to Mason (2002), this value may also be derived from the sensory experience (smell, sound, feeling, and sight) of a place.

(ii) Historic value

A place may have historic value if it is associated with past events, developments or cultural places that are significant to the place's history, epitomizes technical or creative achievement from a particular period, or has strong association with the life or works of a person, group of persons or organization in shaping that place. The existences of physical evidence of such association do strengthen and contribute to the claimed historical significance.

(Hi) Scientific value

A place of scientific value (also variously called research, archaeological or informational value) should demonstrate a likelihood of providing new or further substantial information that will contribute to an understanding of people regarding their past history, culture, environment, behaviour, earlier technology or architecture.

(iv) Social value

A place included under this criterion must be of importance in its association with a community or cultural group in a particular area for social, cultural, educational or spiritual reasons. For this reason, it tends to develop local's positive sense of place and identity. In contrast with other values, social value is less dependent on the survival of physical fabric. While being the hardest criterion to identify, people often mistakenly believe that places are socially valuable for amenity reasons.

Of the four organizations reviewed in Table 2 above, only the Heritage Council of South Australia considers economic value as one of the criteria in assessing places that are important to their locality. Mason, (2002) argued that economic value is often taken for granted because it differs from other cultural values established in the traditional modes of the assessment process. Notwithstanding the fact, this paper tends to address economic value as one of the important criteria to be considered, especially in the face of globalization. As modernization or globalization brings about much strain on old historical reserves present in a particular place (Tung 2001), there must be an economic opportunity for these historical buildings to continue to be revered and preserved (Tiesdell etal. 1996).

Moreover, the term 'valuable' which often correlates to historical reserves itself holds these resources to be meaningful in economic globalization (Rypkema 2002). This is especially true when linking heritage conservation with tourism (Chang 2010; Henderson 2002; Rypkema 2001; 2002; Feilden 2005). This notion can be seen in Henderson's (2002) work in which a majority of the principal urban heritage places found in the former colonial cities of Malacca and Penang in Malaysia and also Singapore are transformed into places for tourists to visit; though it might regard as a new form of imperialism. Clearly, it is wise to preserve the quality of irreplaceable historic resources while obtaining revenue from them.

3.0 Methodology

The methodology used in identifying the unique and exceptional characteristics of a place involves an extensive literature review on the concepts of place, place identity, and both physical and ideological components of the identity of places. Different kinds of materials used include the official documents published by government and private agencies, journals, theses, newspapers, and other mass media outputs. The in-depth literature review attempts to highlight exceptional characteristics of places which together act to create unique environments and make a continuing contribution to the overall sense of the place. This review is subsequently complemented by the preliminary survey of the small town of Kuala Kubu Bharu (KKB) in the Hulu Selangor district of Selangor, Malaysia. In this survey, a standardized survey form was used to ensure consistency of the information collected. As outlined in Section 2.2.1.2, places need to meet at least one of the pre-defined criteria drawn on guidelines published in Australia and England to be identified as locally significant places in the town. It is anticipated that questionnaire surveys of how local and non-local residents perceive these places and interviews with various stakeholders regarding protection measures and established legislations impacting development of small Malaysian town will form the next stage of the study.

3.1 Background of case study

Kuala Kubu Bharu or KKB, an old town built during the colonial period is still very much a sleepy hollow. The name Kuala Kubu originated from Sungai Kubu which is one of the tributaries of Sungai Selangor. The town was well known as the second biggest town in the State of Selangor; and was famous for its tin mining activities during the mid19^ century. The old Kuala Kubu town was totally destroyed in the late 19th century, when a heavy downpour caused the dam over Sungai Selangor to burst and flood the town. That however was not the end of the town, as it gave a noticeable impetus for the development of the new township of Kuala Kubu Baru ('baa/ means new in the Malay language). The town is located in the northeastern part of the state of Selangor in sub-district of Ampang pecah (Figure 1). Located at a very strategic location near the state border, KKB has become a key transit point for tourists who are heading to Fraser's Hill in the state of Pahang, while also being a tourist destination in itself.

The town environment is a mixture of built and non-built land uses including institutional, residential, low-density commercial area, and green spaces. KKB was the first town in the Federated Malay States planned with a Garden City concept in 1930 by Malaya's first town planner, Charles Crompton Reade. Through the concept, ample space was reserved in the town for a park belt separating the central shopping and trading areas from the main residential area. Specifically, this was achieved by having a strict grid-iron pattern of streets in laying out the shophouses. Thus the layout of the lush park belt and government housing areas give the town a spacious feeling. The former is found to be the unique feature of the town, as it cannot be found in either new or traditional towns of Malaya (Figure 2). Originally to cater for recreational purposes, the concept is also found to be useful in precluding increased development and urban sprawl (Noriati 2000). This is presumably evident as the KKB town has sidestepped the mainstream of development and remained largely untouched by modern developments.

The built part of the town largely consists of old institutional, commercial and residential buildings. KKB is close not only to the hearts of local residents but also to the city dwellers of Kuala Lumpur, as for many years it has played host to them as a refuge from the hustle and bustle of city life. As discussed in Section 2.1, a place is not only characterized by physical characteristics but also meanings and feelings people have with a particular setting. This small town although looking a bit run down, still bears the vestiges of the pre-war era. It silently holds many untold stories of the past history, and thus needs to be studied and investigated further.

To date much of Reade's original layout is still in place and so are the elements that make up the original concept. These include the striking features of the park belts and playgrounds, low density housing, visually attractive tree-planting treatment, separation of areas by use, and the natural landscape view. Overall, the importance of the physical or Garden City design elements in KKB, both natural and man-made, create a distinctive atmosphere for the town.

4.0 Results and discussions

KKB was dubbed after its Special Area Plan 'Garden City Heritage'. As the name suggests, historical reserves of the town can also be considered as one of the significant components that shape the identity and character of the town. The distribution of the 145 heritage buildings surveyed in KKB town is summarized in Table 3, based on the criteria established in Section 2.2.1.2. Also, their location is shown by red shading in Figure 4. Categorization of the buildings in Table 3 is based on the Heritage of Malaysia Trust's (1990) analytical framework for recording and documenting historically important buildings in Malaysia.

The survey revealed that more than half of the buildings are used for commercial purposes (99 buildings). In particular, these are comprised shophouses which are mostly 80 years old, doublestorey, and rich in contrasts. Apart from the variety of façades of different styles, the covered passageway in front of the shophouses, commonly known as the five-foot-way or in the Malay language called kaki lima, gives the buildings their unique character and therefore can be both nostalgic and charming (Figure 3). Historically, these old shophouses were built from 1 928 onwards and therefore are significant by association with the beginning of the new KKB, after the old ones were swept away by the massive flood. These pre-war buildings also continue to be valued for their economic role. Although the buildings have not been well-maintained in recent years, they still function as venues for different commercial activities; supporting local retail and improving the employment opportunities for the locals. While constantly drawing people into the area, these activities also support the liveliness and attraction of the town as a whole. In line with the criteria discussed in Section 2.2.1.2, the representation of British Neo-Classical style, association with early development of the town and the continuing traditional use of the buildings make major contribution to the claimed architectural, historical and economic significance of the shophouses.

The term 'other' in Table 3 incorporates buildings that are no longer in use or are simply abandoned, many of which are the single and semi-detached government quarters along Jalan Hospital and Jalan Syed Mashor. The old fire station located within the vicinity of the historic shophouses is also classified under this category (Figure 5). The building has recently been refurbished to be converted into a tourist visitor centre but as yet this has not been fully accomplished.

The very notion of heritage is deeply rooted in historical value. This is illustrated as almost all (141 buildings) surveyed buildings in KKB are found to be significant to the locality's history. Fine examples of this value include the Al-Hidayah Mosque and the old police station. The former is believed to be the only surviving building from the original Kuala Kubu town and has played a major role in the contributing towards the well-being of the Muslim community in the town (Figure 6). The old police station or Balai Polis Lama, as it is commonly known by locals, is the first police station constructed in KKB town. This two storey pre-war building is an important place in the political history of the town, and is significant for its association with the opening of the new KKB after the old one was destroyed by the flood. Apart from its historic value, the eclectic elements of its architectural design, such as the keystone shaped arch and the arcades on the ground floor, add to the aesthetic qualities of the building. The design concept of this police station which reflects the influence of Malay and European architecture essentially qualified the building as one of the unique and valuable landmarks in KKB town. Thus it meets the criteria i of aesthetic value outlined in Section 2.2.1.2.

5.0 Conclusion

Symbiosis between physical forms of environment and social meanings are central to the delineation of identity. The role of the physical form of the environment as one of the important indicators for identity is evident through the accessibility, imageability, and legibility qualities it provides. Forming part of the place's charm and appeal, any historic building or group of buildings which contribute to place distinctiveness, and which embody the community's experience and have meaning, need to be preserved and enhanced. Otherwise they are in danger of being overlooked, as has happened in many South-East Asian countries (including Malaysia) today. Sensitivity toward the care of these cultural built heritages should be developed, not only in large historical towns but also, and most importantly, in small towns where the original legacy of our great-grandparents may be protected but are being constantly undermined. The absence of statutory recognition for such places does not necessarily imply that they have no significance. Therefore, it is important to examine the meanings that people attach to them and the resources needed to preserve them. By bringing together best international practice, this paper offers a current set of criteria for the assessment of heritage places that would benefit from establishing and securing place identity.

References

6.0 REFERENCES

ARAZI, I., FARIS, K. and MAHMOUD, S. 2010, Maintenance management framework for conservation of heritage buildings in Malaysia, Modern Applied Science, 4:11, ó6-77.

ARREOLA, D.D. 1995, Urban ethnic landscape identity, Georgraphical Review, 85:4, 518-534.

AUSTRALIA ICOMOS 2000, The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance: The Burra Charter 1 999, Burwood, Australia.

CHANG, T.C. 2010, Bungalows, mansions and shophouses: Encounters in architourism, Geoforum, 41,963-971.

DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993 (1993).

DONAT, J. 1 967, World architecture 4, Studio Vista London, Highgate Hill, London, UK.

ENGLISH HERITAGE 2008, Conservation principles policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment, Holborn, London, UK.

ENGLISH HERITAGE 2012, Good practice guide for local heritage listing.

FEILDEN, B.M. 2005, Conservation of historic buildings, Elsevier, Jordan Hill, Oxford.

GOAD, R and NGIOM, L.T. 2007, Recent Malaysian architecture, Pesaro Publishing, Singapore.

GRAHAM, H., MASON, R. and NEWMAN, A. 2009, Literature review: Historic environment, sense of place, and social capital, International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

HARNER, J. 2001, Place identity and copper mining in Sonora, Mexico, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91:4, 660-680.

HAUGE, A.L. 2007, Identity and place: A critical comparison of three identity theories. Architectural Science Review.

HENDERSON, J.C. 2002, Built heritage and colonial cities, Annals of Tourism Research, 29:1,254-257.

HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2012, Criteria for the assessment of local heritage places and areas, East Perth Western Australia, Australia.

HERITAGE OF MALAYSIA TRUST 2007, Heritage matters: Promoting and protecting place, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

HERITAGE OF MALAYSIA TRUST 2011, Comprehensive assessment needed for KL's Chinatown, Available online, http://www.badanwarisan.org.my/con tent/? cid = 381 , Accessed 30 April 2012.

HUBBARD, R, KITCHIN, R. and VALENTINE, G. 2004, Key thinkers on space and place, SAGE Publications Ltd, London, UK.

IZUANDI, Y. 2010, The influenced of 'Genius Loci' on the image of the small township case study: Pékan Parit, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Unpublished undergraduate thesis, University of Technology Mara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

JACKSON, J.C. 1 973, The structure and functions of small Malaysian towns, 61,65-80.

KAMARUL SYAHRIL, K., LILAWATI, A.W. and ABDUL GHAFAR, A. 2008, Pilot survey on the conservation of historical buildings in Malaysia, in: 2nc^ International Conference on Built Environment in Developing Countries, 3-4 December, University Science Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia, pp 104-1 15.

LEE, Q.Y. and LIM, Y.M. 2010, Preparation of tender for building conservation work: Cultural practices in Malaysia, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences, 5:3, 1 40-145.

LEWICKA, M. 2008, Place attachment, place identity, and place memory: Restoring the forgotten city past, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28, 209-231.

LIPE, W.D. 1 984, Value and meaning in cultural resources, Cambridge University Press, New York, United States.

LOGAN, W.S. 2002, The disappearing "Asian11 city: Protecting Asia's urban heritage in a globalizing world, Oxford University Press, United States.

LYNCH, K. 1 960, The image of the city, Joint Center for Urban Studies, United States.

MANSFIELD, J.R. 2008, The ethics of conservation: Some dilemmas in cultural built heritage projects in England, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 15:3, 270-281.

MARCOUYEUX, A., and FLEURY-BAHI, G. 2011, PlaceIdentity in a school setting: Effects of the place image, Environment and Behavior, 43:3, 344-362.

MASON, R. 2002, Assessing values in conservation planning: Methodological issues and choices, in: Torre, M. Assessing the values of cultural heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, California.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2010, National Physical Plan 2, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

MU HAMAD KHAIRUDDIN, A.B. 1 996, Pengukuhan imej bandar ke arah pembentukan zon sejarah kajian kes: Bandar Kuala Lipis, Pahang, Unpublished master thesis, University of Technology Mara, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

MURZYN-KUPISZ, M. 2010, Sustainable approaches to natural environment and cultural heritage. Two sides of the same coin?, Economic and Environmental Studies, 10:4, 379-397.

NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE OFFICE 2011, Assessing heritage significance: A New South Wales heritage manual update.

NOOR AMILA, W.A.Z., ALIAS, A. and ARAZI, I. 2010, Sustainable planning: Specifying stakeholders' preferences in redevelopment decisions for conservation area in Kuala Lumpur, in: International Conference on Sustainable Building and Infrastructure, 15-17 June, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

NOOR SUZAINI, M.Z. 2007, Conservation of urban heritage in global cities through building control regulations and conservation policies: Case study of Palace of Westminster, Unpublished master thesis.

NORBERG-SCHULZ, C. 1980, Genius Loci: Towards a phenomenology of architecture, Rizzoli, New York, United States.

NORIATI, M.S. 2000, Ecologie city planning: Towards sustainable future cities, Unpublished master thesis, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia.

NORSIDAH, U. 2010, Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity, Asian Journal of Environment-Behaviour Studies, 61 -76.

OKTAY, D. 2002, The quest for urban identity in the changing context of the city, Cities, 19:4, 261-271.

PEARSON, M. and SULLIVAN, S. 1 995, Looking after heritage places: The basics of heritage planning for managers, landowners and administrators, Melbourne University Press, Australia.

PUREN, K., DREWES, E. and ROOS, V. 2008, Asense of place and spatial planning in the Vredefort Dome, South Africa, South African Geographical Journal, 90:2, 134-146.

RELPH, E. 1976, Place and placelessness, Pion Limited, Brondesbury Park, London, UK.

RODWELL, D. 2007, Conservation and sustainability in historic cities, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.

RYPKEMA, D. 2001, The economic power of restoration, in: Restoration & Renovation Conference, 15 January, Washington, DC.

RYPKEMA, D. 2002, The (Economic) value of listing National Register Listing, CRM, 25:1.

SHUHANA, S. 2011, Townscape revisited: Unravelling the character of the historic townscape in Malaysia, Universiti Technologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru.

SHUHANA, S. and NORS1DAH, U. 2008, Making places: The role of attachment in creating the sense of place for traditional streets in Malaysia, Habitat International, 32, 399-409.

STUBBS, M. 2004, Heritage sustainability: Developing a methodology for the sustainable appraisal of the historic environment, Planning, Practice & Research, 19:3, 285-305.

SUHANA, J., ADI IRFAN, C.A., NORNGAINY, M.T., MAZLAN, M.T., NURAKMAL, A. and ABDUL GHAFAR, A. 2011, Key conservation principles of old traditional mosque in Malaysia, Environment and Development, 7:4, 93-102.

SYED ZAINOL, A.I. 1 996, Pemeliharaan warisan rupa bandar: Panduan mengenali warisan rupa bandar berdasarkan warisan Malaysia, Badan Warisan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

TAVAKOLI, N. 2010, The role of physical identity of city in urban sustainability (The case study: Yazd, Iran), in: 14th International Planning History Society Conference, 12-15 July, Istanbul, pp 1-14.

THE GETTY CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 2000, Values and heritage conservation, Los Angeles, California, US.

TIESDELL, S., Oc, T. and HEALTH, T. 1 996, Revitalizing historic urban quarters, Butterworfh-Heinemann, Massachusetts, USA.

TUAN, Y.F. 1 977, Space and place: The perspective of experience, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

TUNG, A.M. 2001, Preserving the world's great cities: The destruction and renewal of the historic metropolis, Clarkson Potter/ Publisher.

TWIGGER-ROSS, C.L. and UZZELL, D.L. 1996, Place and identity processes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1 6, 205-220.

YUKSEL, D. and ICLAL, D. 2005, Historical heritage-conservation-restoration in small towns and question of rural gentrification in Turkey, in: 15^ ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium, 17-21 October, Xi'an, China.