AC 5007 - Batch 5 - HUANG YUYIN

Understanding Cultural Landscape: Case of Singapore Botanic Gardens

HUANG YUYIN A0268408W

Dissertation submitted to Department of Architecture in Partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION at the DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

Supervisor: Dr. Nikhil Joshi November 2023

Abstract Cultural landscape has been applied in the conservation systems in western countries such as America, Australia and some countries in Europe. Although China and Japan have developed their definitions and explanations in their national contexts, the application of "cultural landscape" in Asia is still questionable.

Singapore is a city-state with rich cultural and natural resources, while the legal recognition of heritage sites is only in the forms of national monuments and conservation areas, which may omit the sites that have features of cultural landscape.

In general, limited academic research relates to examining Singapore’s historic sites from the perspective of cultural landscape, even though Singapore has one recognized cultural landscape by UNESCO which is Singapore Botanic Gardens.

The writer will go through the evolution of heritage conservation and see the rationales that this novel concept was given birth and understand the attitudes of institutions or other countries towards it. More importantly, this paper investigates Singapore Botanic Gardens as a cultural landscape in order to in what ways it demonstrated the relationship among the people and the natural elements and environment. Its attributes, advantages, issues and recommendations are discussed.

By analyszing the site, this paper can be a trigger point to inspire viewing other similar sites in Singapore from a cultural landscape perspective, and provide better conservation and management approaches to retain the significance.

Keywords: Singapore Botanic Gardens, Cultural Landscape, Heritage Values

Acknowledgements Over 2023 studying the Architectural Conservation Programme in NUS and preparing this dissertation, I was so delighted to have my family, teachers, colleagues and friends support along with their valuable advice to me. I want to firstly extend my greatest gratitude to Dr. Nikhil Joshi. Your guidance and encouragement carried me through all the ups and downs of writing this dissertation and other projects. I am equally thankful to my professors, including, Dr. Johannes Widodo, Dr. Wong Yunn Chii and so on who provide in-depth lessons.

Your insights all become solid foundation for my future career.

I heartedly thank my beloved family for their endless love and continuous support to me over the years. Without your support, I wouldn’t have made it this far.

Thank you!

Contents Abstract

-2-

Acknowledgements

-3-

List of Figures

-6-

List of Tables

-6-

Chapter 1 Research Framework

-1-

1.1 Introduction: cultural landscape

-1-

1.2 Study context: Singapore and its conservation of natural and cultural resources

-3-

1.3 Research aims and methodology

-6-

Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 The evolution of heritage conservation and the proposal of “cultural landscape”

-9-9-

2.1.1 The expansion of scope and types of heritage conservation from the individual monuments to surroundings, from elite structures to vernacular buildings -92.1.2 The expansion of evaluating value criteria and value diversification 12 2.1.3 The proposal of concept “cultural landscape” into conservation framework - 13 2.1.4 Summary

- 14 -

2.2 Clarification of cultural landscape by different authorities

- 15 -

2.2.1 Clarification of cultural landscape by UNESCO

- 15 -

2.2.2 Clarification and conservation of cultural landscape by the U.S. - 17 2.2.3 Summary 2.3 Chapter summary and research gap

- 20 - 21 -

Chapter 3 Background of Singapore Botanic Gardens (SBG)

- 21 -

3.1 Definition of botanic gardens and relation to SBG

- 22 -

3.2 Cultural significance and attributes of SBG

- 25 -

3.3 Chapter summary

- 32 -

Chapter 4 Attributes classification of SBG as a cultural landscape

- 33 -

4.1 Tangible attributes of cultural landscape

- 33 -

4.1.1 Natural landscape attributes

- 33 -

4.1.2 Man-made landscape attributes

- 34 -

4.2 Intangible attributes of cultural landscape

- 39 -

4.3 The interrelation of the attributes of cultural landscape

- 43 -

4.3.1 The evolution of the SBG and its corresponding continuous historical layering - 43 4.3.2 A living and evolving landscape embodied with identity 4.4 Chapter summary

- 47 - 51 -

Chapter 5 Conclusion: Sustaining the Cultural Landscape of the SBG for the Future 55 5.1 Applying cultural landscapes in heritage conservation and management 55 5.2 Beyond Singapore Botanic Gardens: to rethink cultural landscape References

-

- 57 - 60 -

List of Figures Figure 1 The difference between natural landscape and cultural landscape

-2-

Figure 2 Singapore conservation system towards the cultural and the natural resources - 5 Figure 3 The scope of SBG

-7-

Figure 4 The relationship between cultural landscape and three world heritage categories 16 Figure 5 The elements involve in US’s park cultural landscapes program

- 20 -

Figure 6 The international institution contributed to the development of botanic gardens 23 Figure 7 Zoning of SBG

- 26 -

Figure 8 The attributes of outstanding universal values defined by Nomination Dossier - 28 Figure 9 Designation of the site, showing the landscape elements are managed individually, - 30 Figure 10 Inscribed property & buffer zone map

- 32 -

Figure 11 The views of rainforest

- 34 -

Figure 12 The Production of rubber from Malaysia and Indonesia rose dramatically since 1910

- 42 -

Figure 13 The evolution of extent/boundary

- 45 -

Figure 14 The visual interpretation of historic development of SBG

- 47 -

Figure 15 Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delivered speeches at SBG

- 50 -

Figure 16 Recreational activities done at SBG

- 51 -

Figure 17 The attributes and their relationships

- 52 -

Figure 18 : Three elements that contribute to “cultural landscape”

- 54 -

Figure 19 The lost features of SBG

- 57 -

List of Tables Table 1 Research framework and corresponding methods

-8-

Table 2 Key charters and brief introduction

- 12 -

Table 3 The categories and corresponding explanations

- 17 -

Table 4 The categories under cultural landscape in USA

- 19 -

Table 5 Criterion and related narratives

- 26 -

Table 6 Phases and conditions of SBG

- 47 -

Word count:10798

CHAPTER 1 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK 1.1 Introduction: cultural landscape Cultural landscape is defined as a landscape that demonstrates the interactions between human culture or activities and the natural environment over time and space. Accordingly, landscape is defined as the human element of the environment, primarily referring to cultural traits and land uses, and it places a strong emphasis on the interaction between humans and the natural settings.

The notion “landscape” firstly was discussed in geography academy. Scholar Otto Schluter was credited with the pioneering recognition of cultural landscapes as constructs shaped by human culture in the early 20th century (Martin, 2005, p177).

Scholar Sauer (1925), accentuated the role of cultural factor in molding the physical characteristics of the earth within defined areas and should be distinguish from the natural landscape (See Figure 1). The holistic perspective on landscapes acknowledges that human interaction with the land is a fluid, transactional process, as discussed by Naveh (1995). In essence, cultural landscapes are a complex tapestry woven from the threads of natural and cultural elements, both material and non-material. They are biodiversity-rich repositories that capture a web of interconnected relationships. These landscapes stand as the embodiment of culture and identity, resonating with the sentiments expressed by Rossler (2006).

-1-

Figure 1 The difference between natural landscape and cultural landscape (Adapted from Sauer, 1925, reproduced by author)

Research into cultural landscape has surged in the 21st century and it becomes a crucial area of inquiry that intersects with pressing global challenges.

These include issues of sustainability, cultural identity, climate change, the role of cultural ecosystems in society, conservation strategies, societal values, economic implications, and the overarching management of landscapes (Zhou et al., 2023).

There is a significant international focus on the topic, with various research institutions and centers dedicated to the exploration of cultural landscapes, particularly in Europe, under the auspices of initiatives like the European Landscape Convention. Additionally, notable academic institutions including the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Oregon, and the University of Virginia, have established specialized centers and research groups dedicated to cultural landscape -2-

studies. This global academic investment underscores the importance placed on cultural landscapes by developed nations as an ongoing scholarly and practical concern.In the domain of heritage conservation, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee officially recognized “cultural landscape” in 1992, embedding it within the World Heritage List. To date, 121 World Heritage sites have been confirmed as cultural landscapes, while Singapore has one.

1.2 Study context: Singapore and its conservation of natural and cultural resources Singapore, an urbanized island nation in Asia, boasts a rich cultural heritage.

The Urban Redevelopment Authority, serving as the country’s official planning and conservation entity since its appointment in 1989, released the Conservation Master Plan in 1986 (Yuen, 2005). This plan was designed to maintain the unique Asian character of the city-state, ensuring that conservation efforts remain integral to Singapore’s urban planning strategy and halting the erosion of historic structures due to modernization and urban development initiatives.

In terms of conservation towards cultural resources, two distinct categories are identified: National Monuments declared under the Preservation of Monuments Act (conserved by National Heritage Board), and Conservation Areas which consists of four Historic Districts, three Residential Historic Districts, five Secondary Settlements and The Good Class Bungalow Areas and the Mountbatten Road Conservation Area declared under the Planning Act (conserved by Urban Redevelopment Authority) (Singapore Statutes Online, 2021a; Singapore Statutes Online, 2021b). To meet the obligations set by the National Heritage Board Act, two projects are initiated: an inventory for Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) and a list -3-

of Historic Sites (NHB, n.d). Notably, these initiatives operate outside the scope of formal legal regulations, focusing primarily on documentation and promoting tourism. Within the existing framework, Singapore has successfully registered the Singapore Botanic Gardens as a cultural heritage site and the Hawker Culture in Singapore as inaugural entry on the UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, filling a gap in the World Heritage listings related to Singapore.

In terms of conservation towards natural resources, the “Garden City Action Committee”, formed in 1973, was tasked with overseeing and coordinating the green initiatives in government planning, urban redevelopment, public housing construction, and industrial development (Yuen, 1996). This phenomenon proved that Singapore formed a policy to be “clean and green”. Currently, over 400 parks and 4 nature reserves are recognized. Several significant policies and initiatives like Tree Preservation Area, Heritage Road Scheme, Nature Conservation Program, the Streetscape Greenery Master Plan and so on have been introduced. Regarding legislation tools, the National Parks Board Act and Parks and Trees Act keeps being amended to empower natural conservation (Singapore Statutes Online, 2021).

After reviewing Singapore’s comprehensive system for conserving natural and cultural resources (See Figure 2), a trend is noticeable: the notion of cultural landscapes remains relatively uncharted in the nation, while notable examples of interactions between natural and cultural sceneries are waiting to be recognized, such as Pulau Ubin island, Kampong Lorong Buangkok which is regarded as the last remaining village, and so on. This oversight could be attributed to Singapore’s unique political and historical trajectory over the last century, during which the landscape underwent significant transformations. As such, the traditional notion of -4-

a stable and pristine “indigenous” cultural landscape may now be subject to scrutiny and reevaluation.

Figure 2 Singapore conservation system towards the cultural and the natural resources (Produced by author)

Therefore, this paper delves into the Singaporean context, posing questions: Does Singapore possess cultural landscapes? How are these cultural landscapes manifested in Singapore? What are the criteria that qualify them as cultural landscapes? This paper seeks to deeply understand both domestic and international -5-

principles of cultural landscape preservation and identify the foundational elements and values of the landscapes in Singapore.

1.3 Research aims and methodology This paper has as its primary objective to provide an attribute list of cultural landscape so that public can view and conserve ignored sites from a broader perspective. To do this, the paper has three sub-sections. In the first section, “evolution of the concept of cultural landscape” demonstrates the development of conservation concept and perceptions. The second section analyses the recognized cultural landscape which is Singapore Botanic Garden (Figure 3) and the attributes contribute to its status. The third section analyses the issues and recommendations when cultural landscape is introduced in Singapore context.

-6-

Figure 3 The scope of SBG (Source: NHB & NParks, 2019)

There were two steps in the methodological approach's structure. The first step involved examining the cases on-site and conducting bibliographic and documentary research to determine the key accomplishments in each while taking into account the cultural and environmental aspects of the cases. In order to derive lessons on comprehending the cultural landscape, the second step concentrated on case analysis and inductive reasoning. A research framework and corresponding methods is prepared (table 1). The limitations of this study should be pointed out, since it only analyses one case from the perspective of heritage conservation and thus lacks a multidisciplinary perspective from geography, urban and rural planning -7-

and so on.

Process

Methods

Stage 1: Confirm the logic and context of the research

⚫

Bibliographic and documentary research

(Chapter 1: Research Framework; Chapter 2: literature review: the birth of “cultural landscape” and the corresponding definitions of various organizations) Stage 2: Understand the place from the cultural landscape perspective and confirm its key features (Chapter 3, 4: Case Study)

Stage 3: Conclude the key features of cultural landscape and provide views on conservation (Chapter 5: Conclusion and recommendations)

The feature identification is based on the following: ⚫

Official documents from governments

⚫

Bibliographic and documentary research

⚫

Site inspection

The issues are identified through: ⚫

Bibliographic and documentary research

⚫

Site inspection

Table 1 Research framework and corresponding methods

-8-

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW By carrying out a literature review of scholarly publications, the author tried to delineate (1) development trajectory of the heritage preservation sector and the underlying reasons for the emergence of “cultural landscape”; (2) various definitions offered by different organizations (3) identify the research gap of limited discussion on cultural landscapes in Singapore.

2.1 The evolution of heritage conservation and the proposal of “cultural landscape” The concept of heritage has evolved over the years. Initially explained as “features belonging to the culture of a particular society, such as traditions, languages, or buildings, that were created in the past and still have historical importance” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.), the notion has expanded in scope and depth with time. Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, as the global preservation movement advanced, western countries addressed challenges faced in their preservation practices. They formulated solutions and introduced related laws and documents, sparking innovative ideas in heritage conservation. This section tends to explore how the concept of “cultural landscape” was introduced and evolved in the heritage conservation through a retrospective analysis of the practices and theoretical developments in world heritage conservation.

2.1.1 The expansion of scope and types of heritage conservation from the individual monuments to surroundings, from elite structures to vernacular buildings In the realm of heritage conservation, there has been a significant shift from a singular focus on individual monuments to a broader view of preserving entire environments. The 1931 Athens Charter pioneered international awareness on -9-

conservation, setting guidelines that emphasized not only the protection of historical places but also their surrounding environments. This sentiment was further echoed in the 1964 Venice Charter, which highlighted the importance of conserving the environment around historical buildings and sites. However, the true expansion of this understanding came with the 1979 Burra Charter, which replaced traditional terms like “monuments and sites” with “Place”, “Cultural Significance”, and “Fabric” (ICOMOS Australia, 2013). This shift indicated a growing recognition of the importance of man-made spaces, natural environments, and the overall atmosphere of a location.

Another trend to mention is the perception towards spirits and intangible properties. Japan’s “Act on the Protection of Cultural Properties” was amended in 1950, as “Intangible Cultural Properties” were added to Japanese preservation list (Kakiuchi, 2016). It was the first country that elevate the intangible property to a level that is as important as the tangible property. Later, Draft Medium-term plan 1984-1989 made by UNESCO further confirmed the division of tangible and intangible heritage. In 2003, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage was announced by the UNESCO General Conference, and has been ratified by 142 states parties representative (Aikawa, 2004).

The change of intangible property cognition also leads another shift. The majority of heritage conservation was centered on the buildings and landscapes of the dominant social groups, including the church, colonialists, royalty, the wealthy, and other symbols of authority and status. It was proved by UNESCO as many lists emphasised the heritage of elites and excluded the heritage of ordinary people or minorities (Harrison & Rodney, 2013, p111). But the 1999, the time that The Charter on built vernacular heritage was published, marked a turning point.

- 10 -

Preservationists began considering the vernacular heritage sites and focusing on the continuity of societal practices.

In addition, various types of heritages, from gardens and archaeological sites to vernacular architecture and industrial remnants, gained international attention and conservation. Charters like the Florence Charter made in 1982, the Washington Charter made in 1982 and other key charters that broadens the scale and types of heritage are listed in Table 2. These charters underline the broadening scope and evolving understanding of heritage preservation in modern times.

- 11 -

Table 2 Key charters and brief introduction

2.1.2 The expansion of evaluating value criteria and value diversification Laura Jane Smith, in her influential work, underscored the problems of the Authorized Heritage Discourse (AHD) and she argued that AHD often overlooked the deeper cultural significance and the power dynamics involved in heritage - 12 -

preservation and interpretation, focusing instead on surface-level qualities like aesthetic and scientific values (2006, p. 87). By way of mitigation, the Burra Charter which mentioned above and national heritage agencies such as English Heritage, Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) seek to position community and public values on the same theoretical level as historical, aesthetic and evidential value (Petzet, 2004; Clark, 2014). People realized that societies reshape their histories, signifying that heritage isn’t just about preserving old artifacts but is intertwined with contemporary cultural identities. Harrison and Rodney (2013) reaffirmed this by discussing the democratization of heritage, suggesting that its value isn’t solely monumental but also encompasses the everyday experiences and memories of communities. Moreover, not just a relic of the past, heritage morphed into a product for economic growth (Ashworth, 2013). Therefore, it also endows “economic value”.

To conclude, as the scope of heritage conservation expanded, cultural heritage value evaluation criteria become more diversified correspondingly. In addition to historic, aesthetic, scientific value, the social, spiritual, communal and economic value, are taken into account. This shift recognizes the complexity of heritage, moving beyond a mere appreciation of the historic and aesthetic to understand its multifaceted socio-political implications. Therefore, the shift is not just about recognizing a broader range of physical heritage but understanding its deeper connections to modern society, politics, identities and even sustainability.

2.1.3 The proposal of concept “cultural landscape” into conservation framework As mentioned in Chapter 1.1, cultural landscape has been discussed and recognized by many geographers. However, it was not until the end of the 20th century that the concept was proposed into the heritage field and was taken - 13 -

seriously by heritage experts and institutions. “Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” was published with a clear objective: to identify, conserve, present, and pass on natural and cultural heritage that has "outstanding universal value" (OUV) to the next generations (UNESCO, 1972). As two categories are “cultural heritage site” and “natural heritage site”, the demarcation between “natural” and “man-made” or “tangible” and “intangible” often placed heritage in binary oppositions, leading to conflicts. Although “mix sites” was added as the third category after 12 years (Jacques, 1995), it still separated the natural and cultural elements, rather than regarding the site itself as an organic whole (Taylor, 2009). The notion of “cultural landscape” was proposed in this evolutionary process, as it harmoniously blended these elements. UNESCO’s 1992 introduction of “cultural landscape” emphasized the symbiotic relationship between humans and their environments. It hoped to demonstrate and sustain the diverse interactions between humans and their surroundings, to conserve living traditions and preserve the remnants of extinct cultures (Fowler, 2003; Rössler, 2006).

Moreover, the management and evaluation approach has been designed to handle live environments where layers, relationships, and a sense of continuity are apparent, which is especially noteworthy for cultural landscapes (Taylor, 2004).

2.1.4 Summary This section traces the shift from preserving individual monuments to maintaining the overall context, from a focus on elite to ordinary, and from simple conservation to bigger issues like sustainability. Additionally, the international recognized heritage conservation approach went through three key phases from a material-based approach, to a value-based approach, and then to a living heritage approach or people-based approach (Sully, 2013; Poulios, 2014). The - 14 -

transformative cognition from humans towards heritage reflects a reconsideration of the heritage conservation system that is framed around historical and aesthetic values. Cultural landscapes encourage thinking about how World Heritage sites represent the material remnants of diverse histories and cultures, showcasing varied heritage values. It also spurs contemplation on whether it’s possible to establish a broader standard.

2.2 Clarification of cultural landscape by different authorities 2.2.1 Clarification of cultural landscape by UNESCO The convention published in the World Heritage Committee's 16th session marked a historic precedent as the inaugural international legal framework to acknowledge and conserve cultural landscapes (Rossler, 2002).

To stress, UNESCO clarifies the concept between the “cultural landscapes” and the “mixed sites” that while cultural landscape is incorporated into the World Heritage List based on specific criteria, this does not negate the potential of properties exhibiting both exceptional cultural and natural attributes to be inscribed (UNESCO, 1994). Essentially, a cultural landscape becomes eligible when the synergy between humanity and nature transcends to achieve OUV. Contrarily, mixed sites derive their OUV from both their cultural and natural values, as even viewing the site simply from natural perspective, its elements are comparable and outstanding (Mitchell et al., 2009, p24).

In practice, cultural landscapes typically are categorized under “Cultural heritage site”. However, there are instances where these landscapes, due to their outstanding natural values, are inscribed as “Mixed sites” (Figure 4 explained the affiliation). A case is the Mont Perdu site, straddling France and Spain. This - 15 -

transboundary region is unique in that no territorial demarcations interrupt the pastoral undertakings of its indigenous communities (Rossler, 2006).

Figure 4 The affiliation of cultural landscape and three world heritage categories (Produced by author)

Since 1994, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the Convention created to assist and guide the various stakeholders acknowledged following statement, stressing cultural landscapes are: “cultural properties and represent the ‘combined works of nature and of man’ designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.”(UNESCO, 1994).

The three categories are explained in Table 3. In both 2005 and 2008, comprehensive revisions were undertaken for the Operational Guidelines, - 16 -

culminating in the assimilation of all heritage classifications within Annex III. Notwithstanding these modifications, the discourse pertaining to cultural landscapes remained unaltered (Mitchell et al., 2009, p20).

Table 3 The categories and corresponding explanations (Source: UNESCO, 1994)

2.2.2 Clarification and conservation of cultural landscape by the U.S. Following the formal introduction of cultural landscape by the World Heritage Committee, many international heritage conservation authorities have expanded on this concept, tailoring it to regional and local characteristics. One of the primary authorities is the National Park Service (NPS) in the U.S., which is authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The NPS has defined - 17 -

a cultural landscape as “a geographic area, inclusive of both cultural and natural elements, linked with historical events, activities, or individuals, or showcasing other cultural or aesthetic values” (Birnbaum, 1996, p.4). Subsequently, the NPS published guiding documents in 1998 and 2001 titled “Guide to Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan for an Historic Landscape” and “Cultural Landscape Inventory Procedures Guide” respectively. These documents are frequently updated to ensure broader recognition of cultural landscapes.

The NPS acknowledges four categories of cultural landscapes (Birnbaum, 1996, p.5; Page et al., 1998, p.12). These categories are integral in determining the values and guide their treatments, managements and so on. It’s worth noting that these four categories can overlap. Table 4 is made to have detailed understanding towards the types.

- 18 -

Table 4 The categories under cultural landscape in USA (Source: NPS, n.d., reproduced by author)

In terms of recognition of cultural landscape, NPS will go through identification, documentation, evaluation and registration, where the Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) and Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) are utilized. The CLR encompasses three main aspects. The first is the research for gathering historical data and assessing the current status. Second is the treatment for devising strategies based on the values of the cultural landscape, its present condition, and long-term preservation goals, while the last one is the implemented methods and intentions (Page et al., 1998, p.xi). To stress, four types of treatment for extant - 19 -

cultural landscapes: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction are recognized and have guidelines and requirements correspondingly (Birnbaum, 1996, p.14; NPS, 2006, p.69). They assist park managers in making informed decisions, planning, and recording measures, as it provides essential details like the landscape’s historical evolution, significant features, and other related components (NPS,

2006,

p.61).

Additionally,

once

landscapes

undergo

meticulous

documentation and evaluation, they are then enclosed in the cultural landscape program, which primarily targets landscapes eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the legal recognized list (NPS, 2023). Figure 5 also identifies other elements applied in the USA park cultural landscape program.

Figure 5 The elements involve in US’s park cultural landscapes program (Source: NPS, n.d.)

2.2.3 Summary - 20 -

This chapter discusses the conceptual differentiation of cultural landscapes as interpreted by two institutions. While their classification approaches are broadly similar, the American one has strong regional characteristics. For instance, the "Historic Vernacular Landscape" largely refers to the agriculture landscapes of the American South and the Midwest. The "Ethnographic Landscape" predominantly refers to sacred religious sites. Given that cultural landscapes are formed through human interaction with the land, their forms are inherently region-specific and should be classified based on a nation’s culture and local environmental features.

2.3 Chapter summary and research gap Recently, the global study of cultural landscapes has gained significant attention. Various research areas have emerged, including the classification of cultural landscapes' values 1 , conservation methodologies 2 , and the public's understanding and perception of these landscapes 3 . However, seldom research certifies the management or development of cultural landscape under the Singapore context. This is particularly surprising given that Singapore boasts a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the form of the Singapore Botanic Gardens, a recognized cultural landscape. This study aims to bridge this research gap by exploring and identifying the unique characteristics of Singapore's cultural landscape.

CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND OF THE SINGAPORE BOTANIC GARDENS (SBG)

1 Research included “Natural- cultural landscape heritage at Ritidian, Guam” written by Mike in

2014 and “Landscape changes and function lost landscape values” written by Sallay and others in 2012.

2 Research included “Cultural landscape preservation and social-ecological sustainability” written

by Schmitz and Cristina in 2021.

3 Research included “The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in

Italy” written by Tempesta in 2010 and so on.

- 21 -

3.1 Definition of botanic gardens and relation to the SBG The establishment of botanic gardens dates back to antiquity, with their evolution closely tied to the historical and cultural developments of the times.

Initially, these gardens served as physic gardens for the study of medicinal plants within European universities. Renowned gardens sprouted in cities like Pisa, Padua, and Florence during the mid-1500s (Borsch & Lohne, 2014), often organized to reflect the cultural priorities of the era and later, the Linnaean classification system (Avery, 1957).

As European nations ventured into Asia, America, and Africa during the 17th to 19th centuries, botanic gardens transformed into hubs of agricultural and economic trade, introducing and acclimatizing plants like rubber to Singapore, tea to India, and numerous other crops across the Caribbean (Borsch & Lohne, 2014).

This was a period marked by intensive botanical activities, where seeds and specimens were transferred across continents, leading to the development of botanic gardens. The Asian tropical gardens, often situated near urban centers, held collections both ornamental and economically significant, serving dual functions as public parks and centers for plant collection. However, they had no formal connection with one another and are not affiliated with the botanical gardens, but are subordinate to the colonial government and have strong independence.

Fast forward to the late 20th century, organizations like the International Association of Botanic Gardens, established in 1954, and the Botanic Gardens Conservation Secretariat, founded in 1987 (later known as Botanic Gardens Conservation International), have become pivotal in shaping the global approach to botanical diversity conservation (BGCI, 2018). The BGCI stands as the largest organization dedicated to plant diversity, advocating for the development and - 22 -

growth of botanic and specialist gardens worldwide (See Figure 6).

Figure 6 The international institution contributed to the development of botanic gardens (Source: IABG and BGCI, 2023)

Regarding definitions and characteristics, botanic gardens are often understood as: “living institutions dedicated to the preservation of plant species, serving as centers for scientific research, conservation, display, and education.”

(BGCI, 2018). Moreover, “Botanic Gardens Conservation Strategy” made in 1989 and the “International Agenda for Botanic Gardens in Conservation” made in 2000 have been collectively endorsed by UNESCO and related international organizations framing the function and scope of botanic gardens, which are following but not limit to: ⚫

Appropriate durability;

⚫

Accurate documentation of plants collected, including their native habitat;

⚫

Monitoring and maintenance collected plants;

⚫

Adequate plant identification and interpretation;

⚫

Public accessibility;

⚫

Performing scientific or technical investigations on plants and sharing data with other establishments.

It is confirmed that the characteristics of these gardens vary by country, making the universal functions listed more indicative of common features rather than definitive requirements (Jackson, 1999). Yet, these succinct definitions scarcely - 23 -

capture the cultural complexity and the multifaceted roles botanic gardens play.

They are not merely repositories of plant species but are vibrant institutions that highlight the dynamic interaction between culture and botany (Sanders et al, 2018).

They accentuate their own identities, navigate contested territories of these identities, and manage the perceptions from outside the botanic garden community.

SBG fits the global criteria of what constitutes a botanical garden, possessing a vibrant collection of flora for study, preservation, public exhibition, and educational purposes. The genesis of this garden can be traced back to the early 19th century when Sir Stamford Raffles, the pivotal figure in Singapore's modern history and a keen botanist, founded the initial garden at Fort Canning; the year 1859 marked the establishment of the Gardens in their present-day location, stretching over an expanse of 70 hectares, and crafted according to the principles of the English Landscape Movement by a society dedicated to agriculture and horticulture (ICOMOS, 2015).

According to National Heritage Board (NHB) and National Parks Board (NParks) (2019), the SBG serve multiple functions, offering a place for: ⚫

Scientific Research: As a center for botanical and horticultural research, the Gardens contribute to the study and conservation of plant biodiversity.

⚫

Conservation: With a mission to protect plant species, the Gardens play a vital role in preserving genetic diversity.

⚫

Education: The Gardens provide educational programs and tours that promote botanical knowledge and environmental awareness.

⚫

Recreation: As a lush, green space in the heart of the city, the Gardens offer a tranquil retreat for relaxation and leisure activities.

- 24 -

As Jackson (1985) suggests, landscapes are not merely natural spaces but temporal and spatial human experiences, where the integration of nature and culture imbues a place with local character and humans become an integral part of nature. The cultural complexity of the Gardens goes beyond their natural elements, serving as a landscape where nature and culture intertwine, embodying the features of the region and reflecting the symbiosis between humans and the natural environment. After reviewing the development of botanic gardens, this section tends to view botanic gardens from the landscape perspective.

3.2 Cultural significance and attributes of SBG Renowned for being a British tropical colonial botanic garden, Singapore Botanic Gardens is now a cutting-edge, international scientific facility utilized for both conservation and education. Nestled within the heart of a bustling city, these gardens are not just a sanctuary for myriad plant species but also a reflection of the stewardship and vision of its caretakers (ICOMOS, 2015).

The Gardens are divided into four core areas (See Figure 7), each showcasing different historical and scenic features: the Tanglin Core (historic zone), the Bukit Timah Core (education/learning zone), the Central Core with its picturesque vistas (tourism/administration zone), the Tyersall Learning Forest & Gallop Core for youth activities. Four zones all have tourist service area, scientific research experimental area, office management area and plant display area and native plant protection areas because of their retention of current plants.

- 25 -

Figure 7 Zoning of SBG (Source: SBG Heritage museum, 2013)

Their values are recognized by UNESCO (2015) as a World Cultural Heritage Site, confirming their historical and cultural significance as well as their role in the spread of rubber plantations in Southeast Asia in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

In 2015, it is recognized as world heritage site with following criteria (Table 5):

Table 5 Criterion and related narratives (Source: UNESCO, 2015)

- 26 -

The explanation towards “cultural landscape” is that SBG “is a well-defined multi-layered cultural landscape of the Botanic Gardens includes the unusual and original landscape design and layout of the pleasure garden of the 1860s, a tract of original primary rainforest uniquely located in the heart of the city, numerous heritage trees, invaluable living and preserved plant collections and an ensemble of historic buildings and structures” (UNESCO, 2019). The Nomination Dossier identified the national and local values that are part of the significance of the SBG with following attributes shown in Figure 8 (NHB & NParks, 2014, pp.81-82).

- 27 -

Figure 8 The attributes of OUV defined by Nomination Dossier (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

Regarding the management and regulation system, the SBG has five designations (See Figure 9). It ensures that developments within the SBG are carefully regulated to preserve its historical and ecological integrity. Moreover, within the Gardens, there are 44 Heritage Trees, each recognized for their ecological, - 28 -

historical, and cultural significance. These trees are subject to detailed arboricultural assessments aimed at preserving their health and structural integrity.

The assessments lead to tailored actions for each tree, which may include pruning, soil management, and disease prevention measures. The proactive management of these heritage trees ensures that they continue to thrive, contributing to the biodiversity and aesthetic value of the Gardens.

- 29 -

Figure 9 Designation of the site, showing the landscape elements are managed individually, (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

- 30 -

Based on values assessment and management plans, the vision for the SBG is to take great care of this unique location and make it even better as a hub for botanical and historical excellence (NHB &NRB, 2019). Additionally, its unique qualities are highlighted, clarified, and enhanced as needed to help visitors comprehend and value the site's OUV in addition to other values. The plan is strategic, aimed at conserving and enhancing the Gardens’ Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), which is a term used by UNESCO to recognize the unique global importance. To conclude, the management system of SBG reflects a comprehensive approach, integrating legislative backing, ecological management, and a forwardlooking vision that underscores the Gardens’ role as both a heritage site and a center for botanical excellence.

One note is that SBG’s entire extent is greater than the that of Inscribed Property. Figure 10 shows the extraction of a portion of Bukit Timah Core, which includes the Plant Resource Center/nursery, the Trellis Garden, the Eco Lake and its surrounding lawns and gardens, the Jacob Ballas Children's Garden before its extension, and two MRT stations. The Gallop Road land and the Learning Forest addition to the Botanic Gardens, which opened in March 2017, are also not included in the Property. Since aforementioned areas lacked historically significant features that are either inadequately represented already or were not historically a

- 31 -

part of the Gardens, they were not added to the list of inscribed sites.

Figure 10 Inscribed property & buffer zone map (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

3.3 Chapter summary The core role of SBG is a botanic garden. This chapter analyzes the concept of botanical garden, understands the significance and history of the SBG, and expounds the historical reasons for its emergence. In addition, this chapter describes the reasons why the SBG is confirmed as a cultural heritage site, the attributes that make it important, and the definition of its most important boundary line as a landscape.

This chapter aims to lay the foundation for the following analysis of it as a cultural landscape factor.

- 32 -

CHAPTER 4 ATTRIBUTES CLASSIFICATION OF SBG AS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE What differentiate SBG from other landscapes like national reserve, or Sentosa island? It is the “culture” matters. Residents come here more often than the other landscapes, due to the double experience for natural and cultural elements.

Another question raised: what are the proofs of cultural landscape? This section tends to reconstruct and systemize its elements that contribute to its role as cultural landscape.

4.1 Tangible attributes of cultural landscape 4.1.1 Natural landscape attributes Natural landscape elements serve as the nurturing ground for cultural landscapes and provide the foundational support for the development of artificial landscape features, as well as the natural backdrop that characterizes the region. In the case of SBG, this is manifested through the plain landscapes interspersed with ancient trees and tropical rainforests that predate the establishment of the gardens.

The original rain forest were here before the founding of modern Singapore in 1819, providing a sanctuary for flora and fauna (Figure 11). The core area has minimal pathways, ensuring a habitat conducive to biodiversity. The rainforest section, spanning six hectares, hosts a multi-layered ecosystem consisting of over 314 plant species, many of which are rare and significant to Singapore’s natural heritage (Nparks, 2023b). This contrast between the manicured gardens and the wild rainforest offers visitors a dual experience within a single botanical garden, highlighting its unique status as the only tropical rainforest inscribed as a World Heritage Site and reinforcing Singapore’s identity.

- 33 -

Figure 11 The views of rainforest Source: (Nparks, 2023)

4.1.2 Man-made landscape attributes Artificial landscape attributes constitute the core components of the cultural landscape of SBG. Shaped by the limitations of natural factors and the influence of human activities, these elements form a material landscape with distinct regional characteristics. The spatial scale and interface of these elements offer a tangible landscape experience, showcasing the interplay and morphological relationship between artificial and natural landscape elements.

Far from transcending mere replication of natural forms, SBG represents an artistic interpretation and manipulation of nature to achieve a semblance of natural beauty crafted by human hands, which echoes the feature of cultural landscape that is shaped by human activity. Yet, it consciously abandoned the classical style’s symmetry and straight lines in favor of an organic layout that harmonizes with the underlying terrain. SBG with natural landscape layout reflects the natural and flexible, multi-point and multi-line layout, emphasizing the multiple views and experience, while the complex combination of the mature tree cover and plant - 34 -

collections are utilized for partition design.

As seen in the topography map (Figure 12), SBG has multiple nodes of landscape sites, among which there are four cores. The buildings and paths are strategically placed to align with the natural topography. For example, the larger structures are situated at higher elevation points, likely for visibility and prominence, while some of them are located gently in line with the contour lines.

The paths often curve with the contour lines, which is a common practice to minimize the steepness of the route and to follow the natural lay of the land. Some smaller paths connect across contours directly, indicating steps or steeper paths that might offer shortcuts between different levels of the gardens and lead to viewpoints or features of interest that are worth the climb. The path’s design capitalizes on the visitor’s perspective, ensuring captivating vistas and points of interest that change with every step. This approach adheres to artistic principles that value the interplay between near and far, the tangible and ethereal, the hidden and revealed, all to enrich the diversity of landscapes within the gardens.

- 35 -

Figure 12 The topography and the zoning based on AOD (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

Thereafter, seen from the evolution map, three water bodies have been incorporated designedly as foundational elements within Tanglin Core, Bukit Timah Core and Central Core with slightly elevated landforms encircling these tranquil waters, creating scenic viewing spots and infusing greater variation. For instance, Swan Lake was added as an ornamental water-feature in 1866, being considered as the oldest one in Singapore (Nparks, 2023a). Between 1892 and 1918, a lake (the predecessor of current Symphony Lake) was added near the palm valley in the Central Core (Figure 13), employing the excavation and mounding of soil to craft a landscape rich in undulating topography. The serene surface of the Symphony Lake circles the Palm Valley, with surrounding gentle grassy slopes and lawns that not only serve as amphitheater seating for performances but also as leisure spots for picnicking and sunbathing, ranther than just a vantage point.

- 36 -

Figure 13 A lake was added between 1892 and 1918 (Reproduced by author using maps from Murray Reit and SG heritage museum)

Another sub-attribute is historical buildings that blend seamlessly into the landscape without overshadowing the natural beauty (Figure 14). The buildings are strategically placed to align with the natural topography. For example, the larger structures are situated at higher elevation points, likely for visibility and prevent waterlogging. In addition, their architectural styles are predominantly understated, with controlled heights to maintain a pleasing visual effect. Despite ongoing improvements and developments, SBG stayed true to their origins and built heritage.

Lawrence Niven’s original layout still delineates the Tanglin Core area, and historical structures such as Burkill Hall (constructed in 1866), Ridley Hall (constructed in 1882), E J H Corner House (erected in 1910), and Holttum Hall (built in 1921) have been preserved in their authentic state (NHB & Nparks, 2019, p27).

Nowadays, many of them serve as commercial space or workspace, showcasing the interplay and transformation between humanity and nature over time.

- 37 -

Figure 14 The locations of structures and its relation with environment (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

Additionally, During Ridley's tenure, a significant portion of the gardens was repurposed for rubber cultivation as a commercial venture (Figure 15). Today, there also exists an orchid garden dedicated to preserving Singapore's evolving orchid cultivation techniques.

- 38 -

Figure 15 1918 map, the illustration in green stands for the economic garden where rubber grew.

(Source: SBG Heritage Museum, 2013)

In summary, man-made landscape attributes represent the core manifestation of human society's adaptation to and transformation of nature, incorporating local wisdom and experience. These elements, refined over extended periods, have become valuable tangible components of the cultural landscape.

4.2 Intangible attributes of cultural landscape Intangible attributes are often accompanied by tangible attributes. One apparent intangible sub-attribute is views. In the gentle hilly terrain, the line of sight is gentle and open, forming a sparse forest and grass land, taking shape from the natural contours of the land. A number of key internal view corridors within the site, from higher ground, provide vantage points and a local sense of openness in some areas as well as orientation for visitors (Figure 16).

- 39 -

Figure 16 The views of landscape, while the standing points are all located on terrains or lawns.

(Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

Another sub-attribute is the design intention for buildings. Take Burkill Hall in SBG as an example, it is regarded as the oldest Anglo-Malay Plantation building still standing from the 19th century and forerunner of the black and white bungalow.

The intangible character and identity of the tropical Singapore architectural culture is reflected by the tangible architectural features like high ceilings, large windows, and broad eaves tailored to the local climate, facilitating good ventilation and shading. Figure 17 shows the structures in SBG keep a uniform style.

- 40 -

Figure 17 The historic landmarks at SBG (Source: SBG Heritage Museum, 2013)

Additionally, its rubber cultivation and orchid cultivation also composes the intangible attributes. Unlike typical gardens that may prioritize aesthetic display, the narrative of SBG is deeply intertwined with the stories of its dedicated custodians—those who have nurtured and shaped its landscape through the decades. Their relentless dedication has allowed the gardens to flourish and evolve from a colonial park to a modern-day haven for both biodiversity conservation and public enjoyment (Kiew, 1999). One of the examples is H. N. Ridley, who worked tirelessly in the late 1800s till early 1900s after being named director of SBG. His efforts in improving rubber cultivation and processing techniques, as well as his intensive campaigning for rubber cultivation, were instrumental in making Malaya the world's largest rubber producer. The key was the innovations in rubber extraction techniques in Southeast Asia. Tappers learned to make a series of overlapping Y-incisions on rubber trees, which led to a channel flowing into a collection container, contrasting with the deeper cuts practiced in Brazil (Frank & - 41 -

Musacchio, 2002). This method preserved the trees' long-term productivity. This not only revolutionized Malaya's economy but also had a profound impact on the global market. The SBG contributed to this transformation by turning rubber into a major industrial commodity grown in Malaya, which eventually became one global rubber supply (Figure 18).

Figure 18 The production of rubber from Malaysia and Indonesia rose dramatically since 1910 (Source: Frank and Musacchio, 2002)

Furthermore, Barnard and Lee’s study of the SBG serves as a reminder that the trade items that united the East and West in Singapore weren’t just laying there, as the personnel of the SBG played crucial roles in the processes of selective breeding, hybridization, and translocation, which were frequently necessary (2022).

In current context, central to its intangible attributes is its orchid cultivation, deeply interwoven with Singapore’s identity as Vanda Miss Joaquim became the national flower after the independence of Singapore. Since 1926, when the orchid program commenced, SBG has played a pivotal role in orchid hybridization and cultivation, laying a foundation for the commercial floriculture industry (NHB, 2019). The export of orchid hybrids has notably contributed to the national income, - 42 -

marking Singapore’s significant share in the global orchid market.

Therefore, the intangible attributes are highly reflected in human creativity and wisdom.

4.3 The interrelation of the attributes of cultural landscape 4.3.1 The evolution of SBG and its corresponding continuous historical layering As landscapes evolve over time, accompanied by diverse human activities, their multifaceted significance necessitates exploration through historical, anthropological, geographical, and sociological methodologies. Historical layering, originating from the concept of “stratigraphy” in sedimentary geology, can be applied to the research of cultural landscape. Unlike monuments or fossils, many cultural landscapes are dynamic, with temporal changes embedding multiple layers, each narrating human stories. The process of historical layering results from the interplay of some historical factors like politics, society, and culture, ultimately shaping landscapes that cater to human needs.

Historical Layering has similarly inspired the understanding of historical urban landscapes. UNESCO adopted the "Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL)" to define the historical layering of natural and cultural values and characteristics that encompasses the larger urban context and its surrounding area in addition to a “historic center” or “ensemble”(2011). “Historical Layering”, a key concept in the Recommendation, shifts the focus from individual time slices to the layered space where fragments interlink to form a cohesive whole. This concept highlights that cultural landscape is a complex mix of both tangible and intangible factors, encompassing visual aesthetics, social dynamics, economic activities, and - 43 -

cultural identities. These elements collectively influence how communities perceive and value their environment, contributing to the overall vibrancy and productivity of an area (Gravagnuolo & Girard, 2017).

In the context of SBG, the landscape's tangible and intangible attributes are intricately intertwined. SBG were originally envisioned as a setting comprising trees, flowers, built structures, water elements, paths, and more, resembling a landscape painting's composition. The interconnectedness of these elements, coupled with the site's historical expansion, amplifies its layered meanings. Figure 19 shows the continuous historic layering which is a complete and dynamic representation of the addition or subtraction of elements.

- 44 -

Figure 19 The evolution of extent/boundary (Source: NHB and Nparks, 2019)

Spatial changes are accompanied by historical events. The rise and fall of SBG is associated with Singapore’s colonial and independence history. Each of its changes shows the influence of political and economic factors. Table 6 is the phases summarized from the “Singapore Botanic Gardens Herbarium:125 Years of History”, - 45 -

and “Past, Present, Future: The Singapore Botanic Gardens”:

Phase Phase 1913)

1

Conditions

(1875- ⚫ ⚫

Established by H.J. Murton, first curator of the Gardens Early collections focused on Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia

⚫

Expanded significantly under H.N. Ridley through extensive collecting and acquisitions

⚫

By 1900 it was the finest herbarium for Malaysian Peninsula plants

Phase 1942)

2

(1913- ⚫

Shift from collecting to taxonomic research and revision

⚫

New curator M.R. Henderson appointed in 1924

⚫

Active collecting resumed in the 1920s by Burkill, Holttum, Corner, Furtado and others

Phase 1970)

3

⚫

Major acquisitions like Carr’s orchid collection in 1936

(1945- ⚫

Collecting declined after WWII due to the Emergency

⚫

More

dependence

on

exchange

with

forestry

departments

Phase 4 present)

⚫

Shortage of space becomes an issue by 1949

⚫

New herbarium building constructed in 1964

(1970- ⚫

Applied research emphasized after 1967, less taxonomy

⚫

No new taxonomists hired between 1970-1990

⚫

Revival of taxonomy under NParks from 1990

⚫

the Remaking of the Gardens: the SBG 30-year Masterplan made in 1989

- 46 -

⚫

New positions created but herbarium still faces space constraints Table 6 Phases and conditions of SBG

The SBG Heritage Museum, located in Holttum Hall, plays a key role in revealing the importance of these layers to the public. The museum’s exhibits and narratives meticulously detail the Gardens’ evolution and the reasons behind it (Figure 20). This approach not only educates visitors about the Gardens’ rich history but also highlights the significance of understanding landscapes as a composite of historical layers (Nparks, 2023c).

Figure 20 The visual interpretation of historic development of the SBG (Source: Nparks, 2013)

4.3.2 A living and evolving landscape embodied with identity The influence of human beings on natural environment cannot be ignored, vice versa. Regarding identity, its relationship between landscape is pivotal to comprehend cultural landscapes. The landscape acts as a canvas where historical layers and contemporary life converge, forming a backdrop against which the story of a community or a nation unfolds. This intersection of past and present, the time - 47 -

and space is a key interplay of cultural landscapes, wherein both monuments and the everyday spaces contribute. Relph summed up that the identity of a place, which is crucial for creating a sense of place or “genius loci”, is composed of three intertwined aspects (1976, p61): ⚫

Physical Features: These include the tangible aspects like the geography, architecture, and natural elements of a landscape. It’s the visual and structural form that a place takes, which can be seen and touched;

⚫

Observable Activities and Functions: This refers to how the landscape is used and experienced by humans. It includes the activities that occur within the landscape, such as agricultural practices, festivals, or daily routines, which all contribute to the function and life of the place.

⚫

Meaning or Symbols: Beyond physical attributes and activities, landscapes carry symbolic meanings. These can be historical narratives, cultural values, or personal memories associated with the place. They imbue the landscape with deeper significance, often reflective of the collective ethos or individual sentiments of the people connected to it.

The sense of place generated under the relationship between human and land has become a research hotspot. After people live in a place, they will have a sense of identity with the growth of time, which is the emotional expression of human beings to the environment and the feeling buried in the deep heart of the individual (Dixon & Durrheim, 2004). It will gradually emerge when people leave the places they are familiar with. At this time, people will have a strong sense of attachment, identity and belonging in spirit, which will affect the behavior and activity mode of such people and also affect the overall social structure. This is what the natural environment influences the people and the related society.

- 48 -

The independence of Singapore in 1965 marked a shift in the Gardens’ role, as it became a place where political ideologies have been developed, such as Singapore's Garden City concept. The Greening Programs transformed the SBG, temporarily suspending scientific research to support the national greening effort, providing expertise and plant resources. As the Gardens realigned from urban greening initiatives back to scientific research, botanical work regained prominence, highlighting the "intangible" benefits to society.

SBG’s status as a tropical botany and horticultural research hub was reinstated, continuing the legacy of its orchid diplomacy and merging horticulture with scientific inquiry. New laboratories and facilities like the National Orchid Garden and cool houses for temperate orchids were developed. Moreover, SBG’s commitment to reintroducing native orchids into the wild has been crucial in national biodiversity conservation efforts.

This reflection on the botanical culture shows how plant life can represent historic ties between nations and enhance national imagery and identity. During the post-independence era, SBG significantly contributed to the “Garden City” label, becoming an integral part of the nation’s identity. Additionally, the intangible attribute “orchid cultivation” and the “orchid diplomacy” has become a symbol of friendship, making orchids silent ambassadors of Singapore. With over 200 orchids named after dignitaries and stars, they reflect Singapore’s soft power on the world stage.

The great majority of Singaporeans started visiting the Gardens when they were children and have continued to do so throughout their adult lives. In 1959, founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew selected SBG as venue to launch multicultural celebrations such as inaugural People’s Variety Show, reinforcing the value - 49 -

of this public space in fostering community cohesion and social ties. He told a 22,000-strong crowd that he hoped Malays, Chinese, and Indians would find the resources for a national art and culture under the open skies (Nparks, 2016) (see Figure 21).

Figure 21 Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delivered speeches at SBG (Source: SBG Heritage Museum, 2013)

While heritage authenticity and integrity might require expert validation, local communities often hold intrinsic values that may not conform to formal assessments. SBG has been a venue for multicultural celebrations and a space for diverse recreational activities, reinforcing its role in community cohesion (Figure 22). These everyday connections and the sense of place they engender are vital for cultural landscape.

- 50 -

Figure 22 Recreational activities done at SBG (Source: author, 2023)

The SBG is not only a unique experiential playground shrouded in forest but also a future seed bank, promising to foster international collaborations, information exchange, and material sharing, thus contributing to global conservation and biodiversity. The Gardens’ future lies in its ecological and artistic redesign, a strategic and ongoing endeavor, aiming to reverse the decline in biodiversity. The Singapore Botanic Gardens stands not just as a testament to the past but as a living, breathing contribution to the future of our world.

4.4 Chapter summary This chapter aims to deconstruct the archives and provide understandings towards SBG as a cultural landscape by identifying the tangible attributes, intangible attributes and their interrelations (See Figure 23).

- 51 -

Figure 23 The attributes and their relationships (Produced by author)

SBG

is

currently

Singapore’s

sole

cultural

landscape

recognized

internationally, firmly aligning with the first definition provided by UNESCO as a deliberately designed landscape. However, its intangible attributes such as uninterrupted process of layering, its past as an economic powerhouse exporting rubber and orchids, and the continuous landscape re-zoning and alterations due to political, economic, or cultural shifts also categorize it as an organically evolved landscape. This illustrates that categories are not mutually exclusive and that - 52 -

landscape elements can be interpreted through multiple perspectives.

If assessed through the lens of American evaluation systems, the aesthetic values of SBG are paramount, reflecting the dedication and design philosophies of master gardeners, architects, and engineers. It could well be classified as a historic designed landscape, showcasing a harmonious blend of nature and human ingenuity, preserving both beauty and utility over time.

After reviewing the features of SBG as a cultural landscape, three elements play important roles which is natural space, time and people (See Figure 24).

Historic layering is formulated by the natural space and time, and SBG has clear documentation and features of each phase; the overlap of natural space and people reveals interactions that are the myriad ways in which humans and their environment influence and reshape each other, as human designed the landscape intendedly while the suitable setting for growing rubber and orchids contributed to the features of this nation; the intersection of time and people illuminates identity and values—the beliefs, traditions, and sense of self that evolve as communities grow and history unfolds, rooted deeply within the collective consciousness, as Singaporeans regard the gardens as public space that contain memories.

- 53 -

Figure 24 : Three elements that contribute to “cultural landscape” (Produced by author)

Most importantly, cultural landscape is the outcome from intersection of all three elements. It is a holistic concept that encompasses the physical environment, the changes, and the human activities and meanings attached to it. It’s a living, evolving entity that reflects the history, identity, and existence of a community within a particular natural space.

- 54 -

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION: SUSTAINING THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE FOR THE FUTURE 5.1 Applying cultural landscapes in heritage conservation and management The notion “Cultural landscape” in heritage management necessitates a multidisciplinary perspective from professionals, who must acknowledge and understand the intertwined relationship between society and nature in shaping landscapes (Brown, 2010). Specifically regarding the SBG, historical structures have traditionally been viewed as distinct features or paths within a natural setting, often described metaphorically as “dots on the landscape”. These structures are subject to specific legal and regulatory frameworks made by URA, which are distinct from those applied to natural environmental elements. Under this circumstance, the interpretation towards cultural landscape may be incomplete.

Another significant portion of the cultural landscape is the ongoing integration of individuals' narratives, memories, and goals into the site’s history and development. This is admitting that the cultural values of landscapes are intrinsically linked to individuals and communities. In the case of SBG, public participation entails taking part in visitor surveys for efficient visitor management, volunteering, and receiving educational outreach. There is no mention of potential chances for regular communication between the management team and pertinent stakeholders, and there is no official platform available for them to document or share their stories specifically linked to SBG. The establishment of above channels may help to enhance the role as “cultural landscape”.

Regarding interpretation, the interpretation of structures or buildings in the SBG is still shallow on the single buildings rather than the relationships with larger contexts. Moreover, although being documented well, lost features (Figure 25) are - 55 -

not interpreted on-site. After fully understanding the site, it is possible to scientifically extract and identify its landscape features and rethink the restoration or interpretation of the lost features. No matter the lost or existed features, the comprehensive interpretation of them may contribute to the narrative of historic layers.

- 56 -

Figure 25 The lost features of SBG (source: NHB and NParks, 2014)

5.2 Beyond Singapore Botanic Gardens: to rethink cultural landscape Foremost, the research affirms that cultural landscape is not an abstract - 57 -

notion as it is the combination of living chronicles of human habitation, transformation, and evolution over time. These everyday scenes that we navigate are cultural landscapes; they are the outcomes of human intervention in nature and serve as living records of human activity, values, and ideologies. They mirror the material manifestations of humanity’s alteration of nature and contain the physical evidence of cultural activities. Thus, landscapes are reflections of the relationships between people and their environments—relationships that form the foundation of human intellect and culture. The term “cultural landscape” encompasses every interactive element within an urban context, ranging from natural and cultural elements to tangible and intangible factors. This includes natural systems, event spaces, land use, topography, ecological structures, vegetation and water bodies, circulation systems, visual constructs, social practices, and architectural forms. The significance of these elements lies in their multi-layered expression and documentation of diverse cultural groups.

Additionally, “landscape” can be employed as an approach, advancing the overall methodology of cultural landscapes in the preservation and development of huge sites. This approach involves a dynamic and integrated perspective to scrutinize urban history and identify urban values, protecting and enhancing both material and immaterial urban features amidst development.

In essence, this study bridges the knowledge gap in the Singapore’s understanding towards cultural landscape by identifying the landscape attributes of the Singapore Botanic Gardens (SBG). Nevertheless, garden cultural landscapes represent just one category within this broad field, there remains a wealth of cultural landscapes to explore—rural, urban, industrial and ethnographic, among others. Increasingly, research on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL), a subset of - 58 -

cultural landscapes, is gaining traction, and its framework can inform cultural landscape management.

Ultimately, the SBG exemplifies a complete cultural landscape, yet it is a pity that its advanced implication has not been universally adopted elsewhere in Singapore. This opportunity to spread awareness about the unique qualities of cultural landscapes could inspire the understanding and management of other historic sites. To think from a broader perspective, Singapore boasts numerous locations designated as historic sites but corresponding management system does not have any universal guidelines. With a detailed analysis of landscape concepts and assessments, the future research can expand the current evaluative frameworks and dissolve the boundaries between historic sites and national parks, further enriching our understanding of cultural landscapes and conserve sites in more dynamic ways.

- 59 -

References Aikawa, N. (2004). An historical overview of the preparation of the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Museum international, 56(1-2), 137-149.

Alderman, D. H. (2016). 11 Place, Naming and the Interpretation of Cultural Landscapes. The Routledge research companion to heritage and identity.

Ashworth, G. J. (2013). From history to heritage–from heritage to identity. Building a new heritage: Tourism, culture and identity in the new Europe, 13-30.

Avery, G. S. (1957). Botanic Gardens--What Role Today? An" Operation Bootstraps" Opportunity for Botanists. American Journal of Botany, 44(3), 268-271.

Barnard, T. P., & Lee, J. W. C. (2022). A Spiteful Campaign: Agriculture, Forests, and Administering the Environment in Imperial Singapore and Malaya.

Environmental History, 27(3), 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1086/719685 BGCI. (2018). Botanic Gardens and Plant Conservation | Botanic Gardens Conservation International. Botanic Gardens Conservation International.

Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://www.bgci.org/about/botanicgardens-and-plant-conservation/ Birnbaum, C. A. (1996). The Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties with guidelines for the treatment of cultural landscapes.

US Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships.

Borsch, T., & Lohne, C. (2014). Botanic gardens for the future: integrating research, conservation, environmental education and public recreation. Ethiopian Journal of Biological Sciences, 13(supp)), 115-133.

Brown, S. (2010). Cultural landscapes: A practical guide for park management. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water.

Carmen A. F. (2003). Cultural Landscapes: Evaluating the Interaction Between People and Nature. World Heritage Paper 7．Cultural Landscapes：the Challenges of Conservation, Paris： UNESCO World Heritage Center，3739.

Clark, K. (2014). Values-based heritage management and the Heritage Lottery Fund in the UK. Apt Bulletin, 45(2/3), 65-71.

- 60 -

Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2004). Dislocating identity: Desegregation and the transformation of place. Journal of environmental psychology, 24(4), 455473.

Fowler, P. J. (Ed). (2003). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 1992—2002：a Review and Prospect. World Heritage Paper No.7. Cultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation, Paris： UNESCO World Heritage Center, 6-32． Frank, Z., & Musacchio, A. (2002). The International Natural Rubber Market, 18701930. EH. Net Encyclopedia, edited by Robert Whaples.

Gravagnuolo, A., & Girard, L. F. (2017). Multicriteria Tools for the Implementation of Historic Urban Landscape. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 21(1), 186. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v21i1.792 ICOMOS Australia. (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/2145/ Jackson, J. B. (1985). Discovering the vernacular landscape. Landscape Journal, 4(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.4.1.57 Jackson, P. S. W. (1999). Experimentation on a large scale-an analysis of the holdings and resources of botanic gardens. Botanic Gardens Conservation News, 27-30.

Jacques, D. (1995). The rise of cultural landscapes. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1(2), 91-101.

Kakiuchi, E. (2016). Cultural heritage protection system in Japan: current issues and prospects for the future. Gdańskie Studia Azji Wschodniej, (10), 7-27.

Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008, January). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. In Forum: qualitative social research (Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 34). Institut fur Qualitative Forschung.

Kiew, R. (1999). The Singapore Botanic Gardens Herbarium-125 Years of History. Gardens’ Bulletin Singapore, 51(2), 151-61.

Martin, G. J. (2005). All possible worlds: A history of geographical ideas. OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 4, number 9780195168709.

Mitchell, N., Rossler, M. and Tricaud, P. M. (2009). World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. A Handbook for Conservation and Management. World Heritage Paper, No. 26. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Center. http:// whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_ papers_26_en.pdf - 61 -

NPS. (2006) Management policies 2006. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC NPS. (2023). Cultural Landscape Categories (U.S. National Park Service). Cultural Landscape Categories (U.S. National Park Service). Retrieved October 30, 2023, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/cultural-landscapecategories.html NHB. (n.d.). National Monuments & Historic Sites. National Monuments & Historic Sites. Retrieved November 25, 2023, from https://www.nhb.gov.sg/whatwe-do/our-work/preserve-our-stories-treasures-and-places/nationalmonuments-and-marked-historic-sites NHB. (n.d.). Orchid Cultivation. ROOTS. Retrieved November 25, 2023, from https://www.roots.gov.sg/en/ich-landing/ich/orchid-cultivation NHB & NParks. (2014). Singapore Botanic Gardens UNESCO World Heritage Site Nomination Dossier. In https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1483/documents/.

NHB & NParks. (2014). Singapore Botanic Gardens UNESCO World Heritage Site Site Management Plan. In https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1483/documents/.

NHB & NParks. (2019). Singapore Botanic Gardens UNESCO World Heritage Site Site Management Plan (2nd version). In https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1483/documents/.

Nparks. (2016, May 28). New Garden to celebrate Singapore Botanic Garden’s heritage. National Parks Board. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://www.nparks.gov.sg/nparks-corporate/news/2016/5/new-gardento-celebrate-singapore-botanic-gardens-heritage Nparks. (2023a). Swan Lake. Singapore Botanic Gardens. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://www.nparks.gov.sg/sbg/our-gardens/tanglinentrance/swan-lake Nparks. (2023b). Rain Forest. Singapore Botanic Gardens. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://www.nparks.gov.sg/sbg/our-gardens/nassimentrance/rain-forest Nparks. (2023c). SBG Heritage Museum & CDL Green Gallery. Singapore Botanic Gardens. Retrieved November 22, 2023, from https://www.nparks.gov.sg/sbg/our-gardens/tanglin-entrance/heritagemuseum-cdl-gallery Page, R. R., Gilbert, C., & Dolan, S. (1998). A guide to cultural landscape reports: contents, process, and techniques. US Department of the Interior, National - 62 -

Park Service, Cultural Resource Stewardship and Partnerships, Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program.

Petzet, M. (2004). Principles of preservation: An introduction to the International Charters for Conservation and Restoration 40 years after the Venice Charter. In International Charters for Conservation and Restoration (Vol. I, pp. 7-29). ICOMOS. http://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/432/ Poulios, I. (2014). Discussing strategy in heritage conservation: Living heritage approach as an example of strategic innovation. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 4(1), 16-34.

Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness (Vol. 67). London: Pion.

Rossler, M. (2002). Linking nature and culture: World Heritage cultural landscapes. Cultural landscapes: the challenges of conservation, 10-15.

Rossler, M. (2006). World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landscape Research, 31(4), 333-353.

Sanders, D. L., Ryken, A. E., & Stewart, K. (2018). Navigating nature, culture and education in contemporary botanic gardens. Environmental Education Research, 24(8), 1077-1084.

Sauer, C. (1925). ‘The Morphology of Landscape.’ University of California Publications in Geography, 2 (2), 19-54.

Smith, L. (2006). Uses of heritage. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1604/9780415318310 Singapore Statutes Online (Ed.). (2021, December 31). Parks and Trees Act 2005 Singapore Statutes Online. Singapore Statutes Online. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PTA2005 Singapore Statutes Online (Ed.). (2022, August 1). Planning Act 1998 - Singapore Statutes Online. Singapore Statutes Online. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PA1998 Singapore Statutes Online (Ed.). (2021, December 31). Preservation of Monuments Act 2009 - Singapore Statutes Online. Singapore Statutes Online. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PMA2009 Singapore Statutes Online (Ed.). (2021, December 31). National Parks Board Act 1996 - Singapore Statutes Online. Ingapore Statutes Online. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/NPBA1996

- 63 -

Sully, D. (2013). Conservation theory and practice: Materials, values, and people in heritage conservation. The international handbooks of museum studies, 293314.

Taylor, K. (2009). Cultural landscapes and Asia: reconciling international and Southeast Asian regional values. Landscape research, 34(1), 7-31.

Taylor, K. (2004). Cultural heritage management: A possible role for charters and principles in Asia. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 10(5), 417-433.

UNESCO. (1972). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Retrieved October 30, 2023, from https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/ UNESCO. (1994). Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. http:// whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide94.pdf Urban Redevelopment Authority. (n.d.). Conservation Areas. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from http://www.uraaz.gov.sg/Corporate/Get-Involved/ConserveBuilt-Heritage/Explore-Our-Built-Heritage/Conservation-Areas Yuen, B. (1996). Creating the garden city: the Singapore experience. Urban studies, 33(6), 955-970.

Yuen, B. (2005). Searching for place identity in Singapore. Habitat International, 29(2), 197-214.

Zhou, W., Cenci, J., & Zhang, J. (2023). Systematic Bibliometric analysis of the cultural landscape. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering.

- 64 -