Cultural heritage, specifically built heritage – including monuments, urban ensembles, religious and palatial complexes – has emerged as a central focus of tensions and…
Abstract
Purpose
Cultural heritage, specifically built heritage – including monuments, urban ensembles, religious and palatial complexes – has emerged as a central focus of tensions and negotiations within the post-disaster recovery landscape in Nepal following the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. This not only reflects a growing recognition of heritage within international disaster risk management frameworks, but also responds to the critical role played by heritage at national, regional and local levels. The paper aims to examine the entangled realities of “local” and “global” operating in ongoing reconstruction of built heritage in Bhaktapur, Nepal.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper is an account of reconstruction practices observed in Bhaktapur between 2018 and 2020. It is based on data collected by layering ethnographic methods with textual and historical analysis. In seeking to analyse manifestations of global and local, the author presents reflections from fieldwork carried over seven months in Bhaktapur and describes the micro-politics enacted out between researcher, heritage custodians, translators, intermediaries and participants.
Findings
Reconstruction of built heritage in Bhaktapur negotiates between developmentalist-paradigms of post-disaster recovery, heritage conservation discourses as well as religious and quotidian practices of care. It is simultaneously informed by global institutions and policy and local politics and aspirations that operate in constant tension and negotiation.
Originality/value
The current study responds to the call for reframing research agendas and practices set out in the Disaster Studies Manifesto by critically engaging with ideas of local and global. The study builds on the growing body of research linking heritage with disaster risk management.
Details
Keywords
Eefje Hendriks, Laura Marlene Kmoch, Femke Mulder and Ricardo Fuentealba
“Process” vs “product”: this concept was originally introduced by Ian Davis in 1978 in Shelter After Disaster. However, 40 years later, in the halls of universities, it would…
Abstract
Purpose
“Process” vs “product”: this concept was originally introduced by Ian Davis in 1978 in Shelter After Disaster. However, 40 years later, in the halls of universities, it would appear a long way from having settled in the minds of upcoming engineers and architects looking to contribute to the field of disaster management. This key understanding is a major steppingstone to those pursuing careers in the shelter and settlements sector. However, the clarity of the argument and its importance still fails to reach some humanitarians in the early stages of their career. This perspective reflects on the key arguments for and against process over product and reflects on the reasons for the lack of recognition of this concept in early stage academics in the shelter and settlements sector. It also discusses the academic practitioner divide and pathways for learning within the sector.
Design/methodology/approach
This perspective reflects on discussions over four years of a progression into the humanitarian shelter and settlements sector from a construction and engineering background. It discusses the author’s personal progression in understanding process over product and observations of other early stage researchers taking similar pathways. It also examines literature in the sector and the key texts which affect this progression. Furthermore, this perspective provides comments from experts in the shelter and settlements sector through a small series of informal interviews. This provides insight into their experience with upcoming architects and engineers, and key messages for early stage researchers.
Findings
This reflection found that upcoming architects and engineering students still undergo a journey of understanding over “process vs product” despite changes in the industry. These students can benefit from the understanding of shelter as a process.
Originality/value
The concept of process vs product is not a new one. It is arguably one of the most central arguments to the shelter and settlements sector. However, there is very little written on the learning of this concept or the effects it has on understanding the broader aspects of the sector. This reflection can provide significant value to early stage researchers who have yet to engage with this concept, and further highlight its importance of learning pathways to the sector.