Equity in Heritage Conservation

The Case of Ahmedabad, India

Jigna Desai

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429888649
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Arquitectura
• Subtopic: Arquitectura general

Recognised by the UN's Sustainable Development Goals as a measure to make cities inclusive, safe and resilient, conservation of natural and cultural heritage has become an increasingly important issue across the globe. The equity principle of sustainable development necessitates that citizens hold the right to participate in the cultural economy of a place, requiring that inhabitants and other stakeholders are consulted on processes of continuity or transformation. However, aspirations of cultural exchange do not translate in practice.

Equity in Heritage Conservation takes the UNESCO World Heritage City of Ahmedabad, India, as the foundational investigation into the realities of cultural heritage conservation and management. It contextualises the question of heritage by citing places, projects and initiatives from other cities around the world to identify issues, processes and improvements. Through illustrated chapters it discusses the understanding of heritage in relation to the sustainable development of living historic cities, the viability of specific measures, ethics of engagement and recommendations for governance.

This book will appeal to a range of scholars interested in cultural heritage conservation and management, sustainable development, urban and regional planning, and architecture.

1 Decoding equity in the context of heritage conservation

Historic environments on one hand have been identified as substantial national and world resources; on the other hand, impacts of climate change on historic places are identified as concerns for humanity’s cultural heritage. Sustainability discourse in conservation, thus, can be studied from two points of view: understanding the role of historic environments and their conservation in the context of sustainability of the ecosystem; and sustainability of the historic environment themselves. The first aspect leads to questioning the values of heritage as a resource and the second aspect suggests a discourse on sustainable management of heritage. This chapter aims to understand sustainable development, specifically in the context of a historic city of a developing country, and arrive at an overall framework to analyse the processes of conservation and management of heritage. The discussion from both concerns forms a basis to eventually delineate the role of heritage in achieving the same. In order to do so, the chapter relies on the review of literature that has highlighted relationships between historic cities and sustainable development, conferences and primary research work that has happened in the area.

Equity principles in sustainable development

‘Sustainability’ has been understood fundamentally as an issue of Earth’s ability to house human life, or rather, as our ability to manage the Earth and its finite resources in a way so that human life could be sustained for a longer period of time. With this point of view, Rodwell (2007, pp. 56–57) defines sustainability as an overarching process for all human activity that binds people and eco-system into a mutually supportive whole. ‘Development’, on the other hand, is a goal for specific situations linked to the wellbeing of humanity and has been interpreted in relation to economic growth. He goes on to elaborate that ‘Sustainable Development’ thus is a concept that embraces, “long term and holistically, environmental, social and economic issues, of which environmental protection holds primacy as it underpins existence, more plainly survival”. The very definition of sustainable development that it is to fulfil needs for human development without compromising the ability of the future generations to fulfil theirs, is rooted in the idea of equity through generations.

Recalling paradigms of and approaches to sustainable development

Development is a multidimensional process of change involving reorganisation and restructuring of economic and social systems. Theorists of the 1950s and early 1960s viewed development as a series of measures of economic growth through which all countries must pass. Other discourses included the structure and patterns of change, international dependencies and the free market revolution. Rooy (ed. Eade and Ligteringen, 2001, p. 21) argues that a Western consciousness about international responsibility was born after the wars and resulted into international actions of economic restructuring of the developing world, which is also reflected in the discourses of conservation. It has also been argued that all the processes and actions responsible for development have been dominated by the “techno-economic hegemony in which humanity’s material purpose has become the only purpose” (Rees, ed. Satterthwaite, 1999, p. 22).

The economic development discourse is faced with two clearly identifiable problematic areas: one with reference to its benefits to human development; and second its implications on the environment. Paul Streeten, Director of the World Development Institute from 1972, remarked that when measured “in terms of aggregate growth rates, development has been a great success. But measured in terms of jobs, justice and the elimination of poverty, it has been a failure or only a partial success”.¹ The term ‘human development’ has come to be accepted in development economics as expansion of human capabilities, widening of choices, enhancement of freedoms and fulfilment of human rights (Fukuda-Parr and Kumar, 2009, p. xxi). The aspects of measuring development were also influenced by the human development discourse when per capita income could not be associated with what people cherish and value in terms of the above-mentioned criteria. In principle, the human development argument demanded a shift of the development discourse from an economic agenda of growth to a social program of welfare.

Over a period of years sustainable development has come to be characterised as “economic growth and social development that would not undermine environmental and developmental assets for future generations” (Pugh, 2000, p. 6). However, there is a great divide in the processes of achieving Sustainable Development, differing in the fundamental belief about the nature of the human relationship with the environment. Two paradigms of Sustainable Development, as classified by Rees (ed. Satterthwaite, 1999, pp. 28–31), specifically with references as to how they intend to achieve it are: a) The Expansionist Paradigm, that fundamentally believes in linear growth and has an exploitative attitude to nature; and b) The Steady State (Ecological) Paradigm, that understands human beings as a part of an ecosystem where the already existing deficit in the natural capital needs to be addressed before extracting any more surplus from it.

The Expansionist Paradigm has its origins in enlightenment and scientific revolution. It believes nature is knowable through analysis, observation and experimentation and that nature can be understood through objective knowledge. The structure of the analysis that is followed in this this process is simple, linear and deterministic, and management strategies assume smooth change and complete reversibility. The processes followed in this paradigm of development emphasises individual and immediate national interests, with primary concerns for the present generation. The Ecological Paradigm on the other hand has its roots in twentieth century physics and biology, complex system theory, deterministic chaos and systems ecology. It believes that behaviour of natural systems is unpredictable at the whole system level and can only be predicted in parts. Since humans are part of the ecosystem they study, practitioners of this paradigm believe that there is no truly objective knowledge. The structure of analysis followed in the processes here is complex, non-linear and dynamic. Management strategies therefore recognise abrupt discontinuities, dynamic boundary conditions and potential irreversibility. There is a greater emphasis on community and collective interests and there is a clear and outlined concern about the present and the future generations.

Developing countries and equity principles

The Agenda 21 that was declared in the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, outlined goals and directions for sustainable development for developing countries and has been considered to be “broad based and bottom up, redistributive and just, empowering and environmentally sustainable, with poverty eradication as the main theme” (Mahadevia, 2004, p. 58). The Agenda, stereotyped as the ‘Brown Agenda’, focuses on environmental and human health for developing countries, allowing manipulation of nature to serve human needs in order to provide for the worst affected groups. The ‘Green Agenda’ for the developed world, however, looks at the health of the ecosystem as a whole. Conflicts have been identified between these two agendas with regards to which environmental problems should be given priority? What about future generations if the developing countries only focus on immediate problems? What about impacts of urban consumption and environmental up gradation on rural areas and issues of migration? McGranahan and Satterthwaite (ed. Pugh, 2000, pp. 74–76) identify that on the ground these conflicts do not present themselves with such clearly delimited agendas nor with such clear dichotomies. For example, the ‘Brown Agenda’ identifies the lower income groups as those most affected: “In most urban centres there is a considerable difference within lower income groups in extent and nature of environmental health . . . . Each person or household makes their own trade-offs between costs, locations, access to employment, space, tenure” and many other factors. In such a context, they argue, it is more important to identify and emphasise different aspects of equity.

Graham Haughton (1999) identified interconnected ‘equity principles’ that can apply to the ‘brown agendas’: a) intra-generational equity, where all urban dwellers are identified as having equal rights for healthy and safe living and working environments along with the infrastructural services they require; and b) procedural equity, that ensures people’s rights to, among other things, a safe and healthy living and work environment are respected, that they are fairly treated and that they can engage in a democratic decision-making process about management of the urban centre they live in. He also goes on to identify the principles of equity that could be relevant for the ‘green agenda’ and suggests that recognising these in a particular context and the key impacts (regardless of the development status of the country) could potentially help reduce the questions that are posed to the attitude of the ‘brown agenda’. These principles are: a) intergenerational equity, which includes a concern that urban development does not draw on finite resource bases and degrade ecological systems in ways that compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; b) trans frontier equity, to prevent urban consumers or producers transferring their environmental costs to other people or other eco-systems; and c) interspecies equity, with the rights of other species recognised. Equity principles thus provide a fair framework to study the development processes or processes of change, as it would help identify the characteristic features of urban problems (key impacts, timing, scale, worst affected).

Sustainable Development Goals and cultural heritage

The United Nation Development Programme Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2030 are successors of the Millennium Development Goals. They are a universal call to action to end poverty and protect the planet while ensuring peace and prosperity. SDGs include areas such as climate change, economic inequality, innovation, sustainable consumption, peace and justice, among other priorities. Out of the 17 targets identified, Goal 11 focuses on Sustainable Cities and Communities. The Goal has many targets including affordable housing, safe/accessible/affordable transport, quality of basic services, positive environment, green spaces, resilient buildings, reduction in loss due to disasters – and all of this achieved through participatory settlement planning. The target that is most relevant to this research is the one that calls out for strengthening efforts in protecting and safeguarding the cultural and natural heritage of cities.

Discourses on sustainable cities

Satterthwaite (1999, p. 16) describes a sustainable city as a city that is ecologically resilient, where the inhabitants feel a sense of geopolitical security and economic stability. The UN Centre for Human Settlements report in 1996² identifies the critical role of cities as a potential solution for sustainable development as cities have the following advantages: Cities have societies’ most precious cultural artefacts that ensure diversity and are central to the history and culture of that society. They demonstrate how cities can provide healthy, stimulating and valued living environments without imposing unsustainable demands on natural resources and ecosystems. Cities are also places in which ‘social economy’³ has developed the most and within each locality it can create a dense fabric of social relationships that allow local citizens to work together in identifying and acting on local problems or taking local initiatives. These relationships, along with the local knowledge of the environment, also bring in the resilience that is needed in communities in adverse situations. Newman and Jennings (2008, pp. 144–145) have elaborated the importance of a city’s ‘sense of place’ for its inhabitants as a valuable attribute for sustainable cities. The specific role of human, cultural, historic and natural characteristics of a city in ‘revival’ of a ‘sense of place’⁴ that is acceptable to and compatible with their values, traditions, institutions and ecological realities is identified by the authors. Jan Gehl (2010) has extended this idea of ‘place making’ for public places and linked it to diversity of activities, walkability between different places, accessibility through public transport and non-motorised vehicles, etc.

Global Report on Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT, 2009) identifies two important aspects, cultural diversity and urban informalities, to ensure public participation in cities (pp. 202–203). While the first aspect can be generalised for most of the cities in the developed world as well, the aspect of urban informalities is very specific to developing countries and informs the nature of conflicts in public places to a great degree. Cultural diversity, while an inherent characteristic of cities that have origins in trade and commerce, is particularly seen in cities where patterns of migration are constant and flowing. The report recognises that this makes participatory processes around planning difficult, as most of these immigrants either see themselves as temporary residents of the place in the city, thus less involved, or are attempting to find their foothold in the city while preserving their identity. The role of ‘heritage’ in such environments is important for both processes. A significant amount of job creation in cities of developing countries are created through the informal sector and a formalisation process is seen as one of exclusion through destruction of livelihoods and shelter.

Paul James (2015, p. 13), questions the ‘goal based’, ‘triple bottom line’ (economic, social and environmental) approach to arriving at sustainable development in cities by suggesting that it privileges economic growth over other aspects. The author has developed an integrated approach which he terms the ‘Circle of Sustainability’, where each aspect of urban life is considered as ...