International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

28

Urban Heritage Conservation in Surakarta, Indonesia:

Scenarios and Strategies for the Future
Putu Ayu P. Agustiananda
Lecturer, Department of Architecture,Universitas Islam Indonesia
1

AbstractThe rapid physical development in the cities has put

great pressures to the historic urban areas. It has caused
deterioration, or even, loss of historic fabric. At present, those
problems are also being experienced by Surakarta, which is
popularly known as Solo, the second largest city in Central Java
Province. This city is chosen as a case study considering the
historical and cultural values that it has.This paper aims to explore
what the problems of urban conservation in Surakarta are and
identify what could be the roles of stakeholders to improve them.
Finally it concludes with some recommendations to improve urban
conservation in Solo. To reach the objectives of the paper,
exploratory studies were conducted at the beginning to understand
the situation with the help of theoretical and practical data.
Interviews of key informants are conducted in an in-depth semistructured manner.For assessing future developments, a scenariobuilding method was used to build strategies, by assessing the
current situations, trends and tendencies, and both predicted and
potential conditions in the future. The outcome of the strategy
assessment was finally synthesized in the form of conclusions and
recommendations.
Index Termurban heritage, urban conservation, balanced
heritage management

I. INTRODUCTION
The term heritage is used to represent a kind of legacy that
has been bequeathed by the earlier generations to be passed on
to the current and future generations.
Ashworth and
Turnbridge (1990:105 in Timothy and Boyd, 2003:3) define
heritage as: The contemporary uses of the past the
interpretation of the past in history, the surviving relict
building and artifacts and collective and individual memories
are all harnessed in response to current needs which include
the identification of individuals with social, ethnic and
territorial entities and the provision of economic resources for
commodification within heritage industries.
Timothy and Boyd (2003) argue that the majority of heritage
supply is urban in location. Urban heritage comprises not only
individual buildings or monuments of historic interest, but also
the physical attributes of buildings, public spaces and urban
morphology (Orbali, 2000). The term heritage acknowledges
not only the non-economic values of the asset in contrast with
resources which implies the consideration of its economic
values but also its bequest which further implies certain
obligations and responsibilities (McKercher und du Cros,
2002).

Manuscript received March 10th, 2012.

Putu Ayu P. Agustiananda is with Department of Architecture, Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Planning, Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta,
Indonesia (email: agustiananda@uii.ac.id)

In Asia where the heritage conservation has not yet gained a

wide public awareness, the heritage management differs
completely from that of Western countries. In 2001, the draft of
the Hoi An Protocols has acknowledged an historic urban site
as well as one of four types of cultural heritage to be protected.
This document, which was prepared in 2001, aims at
professional guidelines for assuring and preserving the
authenticity of heritage sites in the context of the cultures of
Asia.
Nevertheless, in Asia, the concept of urban conservation was
neglected due to its lowest position in the governments
priorities, until a couple of decades when several countries like
the Philippines and Thailand have started such programs
(Lasafin and Kammeier, 1993). There are two possible basis of
this condition. First, for many Asian countries the past is still
quite close to the present, so that threat to losses of past
structures is not yet felt by many people, including the
government, except for cultural critics and advanced urban
policy makers. Second, the rapid urban growth in Asia has
necessitated basic urban facilities and infrastructures
improvements and housing developments, so that there was not
much left for protecting the past for the future.
In Indonesia, urban conservation is a brand new issue if it is
compared to historic or archeological conservation started more
than a hundred years ago. Urban area revitalization programs
were started four years after the economic crisis severely hit
Indonesia in 1998 when the recovery of local economy and the
improvement of living conditions became urgent issues.
II.URBAN HERITAGE IN SURAKARTA
In Surakarta City, cultural heritage comprises not only
monuments and buildings but also important urban areas. Since
the early independence period, the local authority had
acknowledged culture and tourism as among the significant
assets of the city. At present, all documents of the urban
development framework mention the importance of the culture
and the cultural legacy that the city bequeathed from previous
generations, which make their conservation a necessity.
Some important strategies in urban conservation and
development like public private partnerships, physical
conservation measures, and facility and infrastructure
improvement, are also mentioned in policy documents. Public
participation scheme (Musrenbang) and tourism awareness
encouragement program (Pokdarwis) show good endeavor by
the local Municipality to involve the public in urban
development and conservation.It will also encourage public
control of local government policies.

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

TABLE I

PRESENT STATES AND POTENTIAL ROLES OF GOVERNMENT

Municipality

Present states

Potential roles

It acts as the leading player

in urban heritage
conservation. It has
completed several Master
Plans concerning
revitalization of several
cultural heritage properties
through the Local Planning
Board (Bapeda).

One of the urgent tasks is to

prepare and pass laws and
regulations particular to the
city upon approval of the
Assembly at the municipal
level (DPRD). It has the
authority to include
conservation as one of the
main priorities of the urban
development framework.

This agency is responsible

for site monument
conservation of nationally
important sites located in the
respective region, like the
Great Mosque in Surakarta.

More active roles could be

taken for those cultural
properties of local
importance, not only
technical assistance.

So far, coordination has been

started between the
Municipality and the Agency
in some urban conservation
projects. In terms of funding,
the provincial government
has been granted some
assistance for urban
conservation in the city of
Surakarta

Although the amount is not

as extensive as what the
national government usually
granted in some
revitalization programs
through the Department of
Public Works, they are
proven to be higher than
what the Municipality itself
could provide.

Office of Housing
and Spatial
Planning of the
Central Java
Province

The Historic&
Archeological
Conservation
Office (BP3),
Central Java

Some historic inventories were completed, which were then

legally enhanced through the passing of the Mayors Decree
No. 646/116/I/1997, concerning the designation of historic
buildings and areas for conservation. There are seventy historic
buildings, monuments and urban sites that have cultural
significance to the city listed in the Decree and are protected
under Cultural Property Law. The cultural heritage is arranged
into six categories: 1) areas or districts, 2) traditional
buildings, 3) colonial buildings, 4) religious buildings, 5)
gates, memorials, bridges and street furniture, and 6) parks
and open public spaces.

29

TABLE II

Fig. 1. Several cultural heritage properties of Surakarta listed in the Mayors

Decree No. 646/116/I/1997

Present states

Potential roles

Nevertheless, it is important to note that a decree does not

have sufficient legal capacity to regulate historic conservation
in the city. As a result, it can neither ensure to protect the
conditions of the cultural property listed nor put pressure on all
stakeholders to consistently implement historic conservation.
Such a function can only be held by a local regulation, which is
still absent up to the present day. If the listed properties are still
unprotected, the fate of the non-listed buildings is even worse.
These buildings have to give way to new development. Some
of them were sold through privatization. Only if the owners
understand the historic value of their property, will the property
be conserved and rehabilitated with their owners own
investments. However this condition hardly ever happens for
privately owned property. Moreover, for the non-listed
buildings, it is probable that there will be no attempts to
prevent them from demolition.
The current conservation policy in Surakarta is dedicated
merely to building conservation and historic area revitalization,
and it does not include non-historic areas. This can be seen
from the Urban Spatial Master Plans (RUTRK and RDTRK) as
well as the RTBLs, which provide detailed implementation
guidelines for historic area conservation.

Heritage
property
owners

They own almost thirty

percent of all listed cultural
properties, and tend to sell
their property. The new
owners are not aware of the
historic values of the
buildings and therefore make
alterations to the building
substance.

If encouraged by the
Municipality through
incentives or financial
assistance schemes, they will
undertake conservation
measures, including
maintenance and proper
restoration from the municipal
agencies.

Royal family and

palace managers

These palaces are cultural

institutions that function as
formal residences the royal
family. Due to the limited
financial support from the
government, they
independently seek resources
to finance conservation, such
as from entrepreneur groups
and foreign organizations.

They expect the government

to put more attention to
maintenance of the palaces as
well as to the well being of
the royal family members
who manage them.

Entrepreneur
groups

Some groups of local and

national entrepreneurs had
successfully rehabilitated
some buildings in
KaratonKasunanan by
providing financial aid. There
are also some good precedents
in cultural heritage
conservation by an
entrepreneur in Surakarta, like
DalemWuryaningratan.

Philanthropy could be a most

desired form of financial
resources, as an alternative to
public financial aid. If good
precedents are followed by
their fellow entrepreneurs
through self-financed
restoration, it will greatly
contribute to the conservation
of decaying cultural property.

Private investors

PRESENT STATES AND POTENTIAL ROLES OF PRIVATE SECTORS

They are potential

stakeholders that have not yet
been utilized in the heritage
management in Surakarta.
Ironically at present, they
contribute to the problem in
urban conservation
concerning privatization of
several cultural heritage
properties.

They could be a suitable

partner for the local authority
in urban conservation if a
public-private partnership
scheme is enabled, such as:
they are exempted from
paying taxes if they take
responsibility for
safeguarding particular
historic buildings.

III.STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION IN CONSERVATION

To understand the problems that have hindered conservation
in Surakarta, it is necessary to identifystakeholders and review
their current and potential or future roles. They are
government and agencies, private sectors and general
public. Details are arranged in the following tables.

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

TABLE III

Potential roles

Heritage societies, academics,

and professional groups

the Solo Heritage Society

(SHS), a non-profit
organization, was established
people from various academic
backgrounds, including
architecture, art, history, and
urban planning who were
concerned about cultural
heritage. Professional groups,
like the Indonesian Institute of
Architecture Surakarta, should
also strengthen their
commitment to urban
conservation, for instance by
providing technical training for
conservators.

Being resources of scientific

and technical aptitude,
academics, heritage societies
and professional groups can
play important roles in
educating the public in order
to promote heritage
awareness. By establishing
effective networking, they
will be able to pioneer and
lead public controls towards
government policies
concerning urban
conservation and
development. They will also
be able to act as government
advisors in this matter.

At present, there are several

municipal policies that provide
opportunities for the residents
to get involved, through a
public participation scheme
arranged in public meetings
based on the Mayors Decree
of Surakarta No.3/2004, and
the other is the Pokdarwis,
tourism awareness
encouragement program.

If the residents start to

become aware of the
importance of their cultural
heritage, they will feel
motivated to carry out selfsupported-based
conservation in small-scale
urban areas in order to
protect their historic
environment. Such a way of
conservation provides a
potential solution to the
limited funding for
conservation.

Sustainable tourism
development is important in
Surakarta in order to support
urban conservation. Tourists in
Surakarta are stakeholders who
has not been be considered.

The number of foreign

tourists can be increased
through more active
promotion and the
establishment of a bilingual
tourism information website,
maps and sign posts apart.
However, heritage
commodification and fake
faadism should be
prevented.

Tourists

Present states

Residents as host
community

PRESENT STATES AND POTENTIAL ROLES OF GENERALPUBLIC

IV.PROBLEMS IDENTIFICATION IN URBAN HERITAGE

CONSERVATION
Financial aspect: lack of funds and absence of financial
assistance schemes
A lack of adequate financial resources for heritage
conservation is one of the most profound difficulties facing
heritage managers in most of the world (Henson, 1989; Isar,
1986 in Timothy and Boyd, 2003). This is also the case in
cities of Indonesia, including Surakarta. In Surakarta, like in
many other cities, there are no regular funds allocated to
conservation due to the annual budget deficit.
In Surakarta, the historic conservation budget, which is
mostly delivered given to projects, is made up of funds coming
from the national government, the province and the
Municipality. The national government contributes the greatest
amount. The Municipality usually offers the least.
Financial assistance currently available is a regular
contribution to two historic palaces, which are designated as
national cultural heritage sites. Nevertheless, the amount of
subsidies is very limited compared to their real operational
costs. Moreover, the conservation practice is carried out
through temporary projects, and not continuing or sustainable.
There are several financial resources for building
rehabilitation, such as public subsidy (through gap funding,
direct grants, and low-interest loans), tax deduction or

30

exemption, as well as revolving funds (Tiesdell, et al., 1996).

However, in Surakarta, no financial assistance schemes have
been developed for private owners. The only incentive that the
Municipality had offered was neither subsidies nor tax
deduction, but rather a certificate for those people who were
considered successful in conserving their property with their
own investments.
The government should change their policies from passive to
active, which means in compensation for restrictions they
impose, they should offer financial assistance for conservation
to private owners (Lasafin and Kammeier, 1993).For those
privately owned properties in Surakarta, most owners might
find financial difficulties to maintain or repair them, except for
those who are coming from the higher level of society. Historic
building conservation, especially that of Javanese traditional
houses, is certainly expensive in terms of material, technical
expertise provision and maintenance costs.

Fig. 2. Deteriorating structures in Bale Kambang Park, which once was an

important public recreational space.

Conservation aspect: vacant and decaying historic property

There are many decaying historic properties in the city, not
all publicly-owned but also privately owned. In the case of
public property, the problem might have resulted from the lack
of concern or attempts to maintain those buildings and areas.
The problem also correlates with the lack of regular funding for
conservation from the government or local authority. For those
privately owned properties, most owners might find financial
difficulties to maintain or repair them, except for those who are
coming from the higher level of society. Historic building
conservation, especially that of Javanese traditional houses, is
certainly expensive in terms of material, technical expertise
provision and maintenance costs.
Therefore, at present in Surakarta, motivation for
conservation can be said to be a reflection of the residents
economic condition. The higher the economic condition level,
the greater the motivation for conservation. One of the
traditional noble houses, DalemWuryaningratan, which was
bought by a local prominent entrepreneur, was restored and
later used as a semi public museum. Another example of
private restoration of historic property is the former
government office building Kantor Pertani, despite the critique
over its modern appearance.

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS

IJCEE
Vol: 12 No: 02

31

meters of the site were secured, the building is suffering from

lack of conservation funding
nding and is now deteriorating.

Fig. 3. DalemWuryaningratan, a notable example of private restoration measures

of a traditional noble house. Owned by a famous batik entrepreneur, the house is
used as Batik Museum

Political aspect: commercialization and historic property

privatization
One of the intricate problems in conservation is finding new
uses for historic buildings and new
w economic functions for
historic quarters (Burtenshaw, et al., 1996). The
he failure to find
new uses of historic buildings could have caused the
Municipality to privatize historic property.
In Surakarta, there aree a number of public buildings that have
been sold to the private sector so far. At least seven of 19
colonial buildings listed in the Mayors Decree No.
646/116/I/1997 are now privately owned. Some notable
examples are Vastenburg Fort (listed as No. 26) a former Dutch
fortification in the city center andKadipolo
Kadipolo Hospital building
(listed as No. 31), a former hospital of Mangkunegaran which
was sold to a private owner, and now is vacant and
deteriorating. Nevertheless, the demolition of an historic
building or environment is, by any reason, contradictory
ontradictory to the
notion of identity, as destroying such a building is like breaking
a link of the past, the present and the future (Budihardjo, 1984).

Fig. 4. Vastenburg Fort. The historic site was sold to private owner who was
planning to build a hotel on the site. Nevertheless, before the project started, the
economic crisis severely hit the country. At present, the remaining structure and
its site are in dilapidated condition.

The former Brigif VI Headquarter building (listed as No.28)

is also in a deprived condition. Although the building is still
public historic property, most of the land was sold and
redesigned for commercial functions. Despite 3 000 square

Socio-cultural
cultural aspect: informal vendors in or near historic
monuments and areas
Informal vendors have been a non-technical
technical problem in
historic conservation. Before the revitalization program was
undertaken, there are many illegal structures and informal
vendors packed in or near the historic areas. This phenomenon
is part of the excesss of the economic crisis and social unrest of
the city in 1998. Informal sectors were one of the worst hit
economic sectors that caused many people to lose their jobs.
During the projects, the Municipality succeeded in relocating
the informal vendors and inn reorganizing the environment
around the North Squarein the historic areas of
KaratonKasunanan. It took serious efforts and invested a
considerable amount of fund in the relocation and the
compensation for buying a simple or low-priced
priced house.

Fig. 5. Banjar
njar Sari Monument and Parks, crowded with informal vendors

A similar phenomenon could be found in other historic areas.

The green area and streets near Banjarsari Monument and Parks
is now crowded with informal vendors. The area surrounding
the monument is actually a residential neighborhood. However,
these informal vendors built temporary kiosks on the green area
around the monument. Afterward more and more people came
to the area andd opened their booths. These vendors occupy both
sides of the roads in the neighborhood that causes a chaotic and
unpleasant view. The arrangement and revitalization of the area
is a great task for the Municipality considering the possibly
extensive mass reactions
eactions and demonstrations from the informal
vendors against their relocation. Another problem will be the
great budget required for their compensation payment.
Legal aspect: absence of local conservation regulations and
ownership status conflict
At present,
ent, there is no local regulation regarding the
conservation of cultural property in Surakarta. The Mayors
Decree concerning the cultural heritage and inventories of
academic studies are inadequate for conservation without the
presence of local regulations.
s. At present, the local authority can
only have discussions with the private sector without having

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS

IJCEE
Vol: 12 No: 02

the power to restrict redevelopment in a cultural building or

area, due to the absence of regulations. If a cultural property is
to be demolished, it can be said that there will be neither law
prohibition nor punishment.
The dispute concerning cultural property ownership between
KaratonKasunanan (listed as No.1) and the inhabitants of
Baluwarti (listed as No. 3) is also a problem for conservation in
the city. Baluwarti is a neighborhood that is located inside the
Palace fortified walls. The neighborhood houses not only some
traditional noble houses of the royal family but also
abdidalem(high-ranking
king court servant) during the kingdom
period. Some of these noble houses located in this area are
listed in the category of traditional buildings.
According to Presidential Decree No.23/1988 concerning the
status and the management of KaratonKasunanan, the
th land and
buildings of the Palace, including the Great Mosque and the
squares, are the property of the KasunananSurakarta which is
worth conserving as national cultural heritage site (Setiadi,
(
Hadi and Handayani, 2001: p. 294-96). Nevertheless, due to the
vagueness in the regulation of the territorial border of the
Palace, the Decree is weak in terms of clarification of land and
property ownership in Baluwarti.
This problem is certainly another hindrance in cultural
heritage conservation
vation in Surakarta. A reconciliation of the
disputes is a prerequisite of comprehensive revitalization of the
historic areas. The resolution process should involve both
parties as well as respective agencies of the Municipality and
the Assembly at local level (DPRD) asthe mediators.

Fig. 6. Sriwedari Park, built in 1831 during the Reign of PakuBuwono X. Its
serenity is being disturbed by inappropriate new structures built within the area,
and currently under ownership disputes.

V.SCENARIOS AND STRATEGIS FOR THE FUTURE

In order to provide options for historic and urban
conservation in Surakarta in the future, scenarios and strategies
should be developed. The purpose of scenario development is
not to provide accurate image of the future. Instead, it
facilitates stakeholders to make strategic decisions about their
future, to work together and orient their actions. In any case,
the future will not be confirmed until the reality happens.
For this, we first need to know what the future that the city
has
as to deal with might be like, in view of certain important
factors. Scenarios are stories of possible futures that the city
might encounter. In this case, scenarios will be developed

32

based on aspects related to the citys cultural heritage:

conservation, tourism as well as socio-cultural
cultural and economic
trends. Strategies are a sequence of activities and reactions to
the scenarios.
Therefore, all of these issues that were assessed will be used
as basis for developing scenarios and strategies for the future.
Inn order to provide options for historic and urban
conservation in Surakarta in the future,, three scenarios and
strategies are developed.. Strategy A is business as usual
strategy which means that conservation in Surakarta will
merely be carried out as extrapolation
trapolation of existing trends. This
strategy is basically a continuation of conservation measures
that have been started in the city up to now. However as it
follows current developmental trends, there are no essential
maneuvers either in conservation or tourism prepared by the
Municipality in order to improve the situation. Strategy B and
Strategy C are developed in order to provide alternatives to
Strategy A. Strategy B aims at developing tourism to generate
economic benefits. Strategy C uses both conser
conservation and
tourism simultaneously not only to generate alternative
resources for urban development and conservation, but also to
protect urban heritage that the city has.
1) Strategy A: Business as usual (status-quo)
quo)
The first strategy is based on a view that urban conservation
in Surakarta depends solely on the policies of the national
government and the Municipality of Surakarta. There are no
significant actions from other stakeholders to promote
conservation. The local
cal authorities basically maintain a statusstatus
quo in terms of cultural heritage protection.
2) Strategy B: Tourism-led strategy
This scenario envisages the problem of the future with a high
level of concern. The basis of second strategy is that there are
significant attempts to promote cultural heritage properties for
tourism development. The strategy aims to generate economic
benefits
fits for the city. Both the local agencies and private sector
put more investments on tourism.
3) Strategy C: Balanced heritage management
The rapid population growth, the pressures in city centers and
the urgent demand for a better living condition bring all the
stakeholders in urban development into a city forum
(Musrenbang). Due to success of Pokdarwis program, people
begin to realize not only the potential of tourism in terms of
economic productivity, but also the significance of urban
conservation. They
ey come into consensus that integrated urban
conservation is the key to achieve a better living and working
condition for all the citys inhabitants, as well as to increase
economic productivity and become financially independ
independent on
the central government. Balanced heritage management is a
strategy where heritage conservation
vation and tourism are mutually
developed, in which conservation values should be used as
basis for sustainable tourism development in order to prevent
its negative impacts.

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

TABLE IV

Tourism

Conservation

Overview

SUMMARY OF SCENARIOS AND STRATEGIES

Strategy A:
Business as usual
(status-quo)

Strategy B:
Tourism-led
strategy

Strategy C:
Balanced
heritage
management

Extrapolation of
existing trends.
Citys economy is
still dependant on
trade and
commerce.
Lack of
stakeholders
participation in
tourism and
conservation.
Conservation
measures are
carried out merely
by projects.
Immediate
protection
measures only to
those deteriorating
publicy owned
properties.

Tourism is
developed on
commercial basis.
Tourism is directed
as alternative
resource to boost
citys economy.
More stakeholders
start to participate
in tourism.

Heritage
conservation and
tourism are
mutually
developed;
conservation values
are used as basis
for sustainable
tourism
development.

Restoration
measures and reuse
of historic
buildings are
dedicated for
tourism, paying no
attention to
conservation
principles.
Local agencies do
not stand firm for
their
responsibilities.

Enactment and
enforcement of law
and regulations
concerning
conservation
Cautious
conservation and
adaptive reuse

Cultural heritage is
treated as merely
tourism objects for
gaining profits.
Tourism awareness
program
(Pokdarwis) are
only slogan, no real
implementation.

Both the local

agencies and
private sector put a
considerable
amount of
investments on
tourism.
Development of
various types of
businesses related
to tourism.

Sustainable tourism
development by
using the economic
benefits to preserve
the heritage asset
and to benefit the
community
equitably

Assessments of the scenarios and strategies

Each strategy is assessed and ranked from 1 to 3 based on
certain aspects. Ranking 1 represents the highest and ranking 3
represents the lowest position in the respective aspect. Three
aspects are used in the assessment of the strategies, namely:

likelihood: ranking the strategies based on high
probability of occurring.

affordability: ranking the strategies based on money
available to carry out particular strategies,

desirability: ranking the strategies based on consideration
being wished for or worth seeking as advantageous and
beneficial.
TABLE V

RANGKING OF THE STRATEGIES

Strategies

Likelihood

Affordability

Desirability

A
B
C

1
2
3

1
2 (2)
3 (2)

3
2
1

1) Likelihood
Strategy A has the most likely to happen since it basically
runs business as usual in urban development. As the
Municipality maintains status quo, there will be no stronger
actions in enhancing and implementing conservation policies
than it had been carried out so far.Strategy B is more likely to
happen than Strategy C considering that tourism has been
determined as one of the five essential sectors in development
strategies. Strategy C has the lowest likelihood of all strategies
as integrated urban conservation has not yet arranged in urban
development policies of the Municipality. So far not all urban
area conservation plans have been consistently implemented,
making this strategy the least likely to happen

33

2) Affordability
Strategy A is the most affordable one since it does not
involve any significant changes either for tourism or for urban
conservation in developmental budget allocation. Strategy B
could be considered more affordable than Strategy C since it
has lower cost of investments. Involving commercialization in
tourism development, this strategy will attract private investors
easier than Strategy C will. It will generate direct revenues and
faster public investment returns. Based on these viewpoints,
Strategy C could be the least affordable one. A heritage
management requires greater public investments since it will
not be able attract private investors, which tend to be profitoriented, without political will and significant efforts from the
local authority.Nonetheless if a balanced heritage management
schemes is well prepared, the cost for strategy C will not be
more expensive than that of Strategy B. This can be achieved
through a consensus of both stakeholders of tourism and
heritage conservation that understand and respect other partys
values and interests.
3) Desirability
Strategy A is the least desired one since the strategy does not
make any significant improvement either to urban quality or to
the heritage conservation states. Strategy B and C could be put
either on the first or the second position. Strategy B could be
more desired than Strategy C considering the government and
the people tend to choose short-term gains rather than longterm ones. Moreover, material benefits sometimes could be
more desirable than immaterial ones, for example direct
economic income and physical improvement from tourism are
more desired than tangible and intangible cultural heritage
conservation. Nevertheless, a number of negative impacts that
commercial tourism could bring about make this strategy less
desired than Strategy C.Therefore, Strategy C is the most
desired option, since it involves balance heritage management
as part of integrated urban conservation and development
policies, which not only be in favor for economic development
through tourism, but also supportive to urban conservation,
including monuments, historic buildings and urban areas.
The feasibility of scenarios and strategies is dependant on the
external and internal conditions.
a) External analysis
The feasibility of scenarios and strategies is dependant on the
external and internal conditions.External analysis involves
situations and development trends in broader areas that
influence conservation in Surakarta. Political will of the
government of heritage conservation and urban revitalization
includes:
- the acknowledgment of two palaces of Surakarta as the
cultural heritage properties of national importance;
- the preparation of revision the legislation UU No.5/1992 to
enhance protection of cultural heritage property; the
enactment of a number legislations that acknowledge
historic conservation;
- urban area revitalization programs funded by the
Department of Public Work;
- cultural heritage conservation funded by the Department of
Culture and Tourism

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

An enhanced and broader stakeholder participation in

heritage conservation is reflected by:
- the emerge and active networking of heritage societies in
several big cities in Indonesia, including Yogyakarta,
Bandung, Jakarta, and Medan
- the establishment of Indonesian Heritage Board
b) Internal requirements
Internal requirements are capacities and resources of the
stakeholders in urban conservation in the city of Surakarta that
are required to undertake the strategies. Strategy A requires
existing policies and organizational structures of the
Municipality. Strategy B requires considerable public funds to
induce private investments in tourism, great interests from
private sector, enabled public-private schemes.Strategy C
requires broad interests, participation and cooperation of all
stakeholders of the public and private sectors, as well as
enabled public-private schemes in urban conservation.
c) Risk analysis
Situations that will affect the success or failure of the
strategies include:
- national economic crisis, weakening of national currency
- regional or global economic recession
- great social unrests
- enormous natural catastrophes, such as a severe earthquake
or flood
- socio-political instability
The existence of above-mentioned risks are going to
influence the decision making of the government in
conservation as other urgent development aspects, such as
poverty alleviation, economic recovery, as well as housing and
infrastructure provisions, will remain to be the governments
and local authorities main concerns. Moreover, any
occurrences of these risks will even more affect Strategy B and
C since both strategies necessitates a substantial amount of
investments from both public and private sectors. Nevertheless,
the degree of probability of these risks cannot be thoroughly
assessed in this study due to the time and scope limits.Based on
the assessment, Strategy A, which is the most likely to occur as
well as the most affordable, is the least desirable of all
strategies. In contrast, Strategy C, which is the least likely to
happen and less affordable, is the most desired strategy of all.
Strategy B is always ranked in the middle in all three aspects.

negative impacts of tourism must be anticipated through riskpreparedness.

However, even Strategy C is the most unlikely to happen, its
high desirability from the conservation planners point of view
necessitates the Municipality of Surakarta with the support
from all stakeholders to undertake a big efforts to improve
Strategy A and to achieve something better than Strategy B.
Among the urgent steps are to take is to pass a local regulation
which act as ultimate support for conservation in Surakarta as
well as to evaluate and rearrange internal organization in the
Municipality to create an effective inter-agency coordination.
Public-private partnership is the next step to take through
enabling regulations and public investments in conservation.
Conservation values should be used as the basis for cultural
tourism development with cultural heritage property as the
most important assets. Tax and income gained from heritage
properties should be partly returned to the properties
themselves for maintenance fund and the Municipality should
start to allocate more budgets for immediate safe measures of
the heritage in danger.
Conservation is now a fundamental principle in the progress
towards sustainable development. On this basis, current
policies for urban conservation and heritage management in
Surakarta are inadequate. Significant problems, disparities and
deficiencies were identified, including lack of financial
resources, absence of laws and regulations as well as poor
implementation of policies. Therefore, it is based on these that
future measures should be addressed.
Considering that negative impacts of both business as
usual and tourism-led strategies, it is recommended that a
balanced heritage management be implemented as part of
policies for the future. The key to develop such policy is the
involvement of all stakeholders in order to develop
understanding and appreciation of interests and values to
achieve mutually beneficial goals.
Suggested further studies include challenges in balanced
heritage management as determining factor in sustainable
development, as well as scenarios and strategies development
for other comparable cities, like Yogyakarta and Bandung, in
order to formulate a model management of heritage cities for
secondary towns and cities in Indonesia.

VI.FINAL REMARKS
Based on discussion concerning the three strategies
proposed, with Strategy A, current problems in conservation
remain. In the long run, it will lead to even worse conditions,
including vanishing of spirit of place urban areas as well a loss
of authenticity of historic buildings. Aiming at economic
benefits in short to middle terms, Strategy B will bring about
various negative impacts in the long run. Although ranked the
lowest in two aspects, Strategy C is the most desired option as
it provides the best solutions and therefore should be promoted
in solving various problems in conservation in Surakarta.
Strategy B can be regarded as an alternative to Strategy C, only
if there are not enough financial resources or if there is an
urgent need to boost the local economy. In this case, possible

34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Putu A.P. Agustiananda would like to express her sincere
appreciation to Prof.(em) Hans DetlefKammeier and Prof. Dr.
UweAltrock for their valuable critiques and advice throughout
the research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Ashworth, G.J. and Turnbridge, J.E. (2000a). The tourist-historic
city: retrospect and prospect of managing the heritage city.
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
[2] Ashworth.G.J. (2000b). Heritage tourism and urban environment:
conflict or harmony? In: Briassoulis, H. and van der Straaten, J.,
eds. Tourism and the environment: regional, economic, cultural
and policy issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp.
283-304.

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS

International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering IJCEE-IJENS Vol: 12 No: 02

[3] Bapeda Surakarta.(2002). Penyempurnaan Rencana Induk

Pengembangan Kawasan Sriwedari Kota Surakarta, Surakarta:
Bapeda Surakarta (Bidang Fisik Prasarana final report).
[4] ---------- (2003). Review Grand Design Kawasan Balekambang
Surakarta. Surakarta: Bapeda Surakarta (Bidang Fisik Prasarana
final report).
[5] Breitling, P. (1981). The origins and development of a
conservation philosophy in Austria. In: Kain, R., ed. Planning for
conservation. London, Mansell, pp. 49-61.
[6] Bruggen, van M.P and Wassing, R.S. (1998).Djokja en Solo: Beel
van de Vorstensteden. Purmerend: Asia Maior.
[7] Budiharjo, E. (1997). Preservation and conservation of cultural
heritage in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Gadjah Mada University Press.
[8] Cohen, N. (1999). Urban conservation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
[9] Department of Culture and Tourism. (2005). Nomination of the
Tana Toraja Traditional Settlement for inscription in the World
Heritage List. Jakarta: Depbudpar (proposal document in Adobe
Acrobat file).
[10] Departemen Kebudayaan dan Pariwisata. (2005) Penyusunan
Program dan Kegiatan Kementerian/Lembaga. Jakarta, May 2005.
(document).
[11] Departemen
Permukiman
dan
Prasarana
Wilayah
(Depkimpraswil). (2003). Pedoman Pelaksanaan: Program
Penataan dan Revitalisasi Kawasan, tahun anggaran 2003.
Jakarta: Ditjen Tata Perkotaan dan Tata Perdesaan.
[12] Dinas Pariwisata Seni dan Budaya Kota Surakarta (Diparsenibud).
(2004). Profil Kepariwisataan Kota Surakarta Tahun 2004.
Surakarta: Diparsenibud.
[13] Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Kota Surakarta (DPU). (2004).
Revitalisasi Kawasan dan Peran Pemerintah Kota. Surakarta:
DPU (Cipta Karya PowerPoint Presentation file).
[14] Hobson, E. (2004). Conservation and planning: changing values in
policy and practice. London: Spon Press.
[15] Idris, A.A., et al. (2001). Penelitian revitalisasi kawasan kota
strategis berpotensi wisata, pengembangan kawasan industri
rumah batik di Laweyan, Surakarta. Bandung: Pusat Penelitian dan
Pengembangan Permukiman (Depkimpraswil planning document).
[16] Larkham, P.J. (1996). Conservation and the city. London:
Routledge.
[17] Lasafin, T.G. and Kammeier, H.D. (1993). Urban conservation in
the Philippines the Intramuros project, Manila: an evaluation,
1980-1991. Bangkok: Asia Institute of Technology (Division of
Human Settlements Development HSD monograph no. 27).
[18] McKercher, B. and du Cros, H. (2002). Cultural tourism: the
partnership between tourism and heritage management. New
York: the Haworth Hospitality Press.
[19] Orbali, A. (2000). Tourists in historic towns: urban conservation
and heritage management. London: Spon.
[20] Pemerintah Kodya Dati II Surakarta. (1993a). Rencana Umum
Tata Ruang Kota (RUTRK) Kotamadya Dati II Surakarta Tahun
1993-2013. (Urban Spatial Master Plan of the City of Surakarta
Year 1993-2013).
[21]
(1993b). Rencana Detail Tata Ruang Kota (RDTRK)
Kotamadya Dati II Surakarta Bagian Selatan Tahun 1993-2013.
(Urban Spatial Detailed Plan of the City of Surakarta Year 19932013).
[22] (1995). Inventarisasi bangunan dan kawasan kuno bersejarah di
kotamadya daerah tingkat II Surakarta. Surakarta: Pemerintah
Kodya Dati II Surakarta (Bappeda executive summary).
[23] (2004a). Buku pedoman penyelenggaraan dan petunjuk teknis
Muskelbang, Muscambang dan Muskotbang. Surakarta: Bapeda.
[24] (2004b). Hasil Musyawarah Kota Membangun (Muskotbang)
Kota Surakarta Tahun 2004. Surakarta: Bapeda (Komisi Bidang:
Umum, Ekonomi, Sosial Budaya, Fisik Prasarana).
[25] Pickard, R.D. (1996). Conservation in the built environment.
Essex: Longman.
[26] Pickard, R., ed. (2001a). Management of historic centres. London:
Spon.
[27] (2001b). Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation. London: Spon.
[28] Rojas, E. (2000). Revitalization of Historic Cities with Private
Sector Involvement: Lessons from Latin America. In: Serageldin,
I, et al., eds. Historic cities and sacred sites: cultural roots for
urban future. Washington, D.C.: the World Bank, pp.391-400.
[29] Serageldin, I., Shluger, E. and Martin-Brown, J., eds. (2001).
Historic cities and sacred sites: cultural roots for urban futures.
Washington D.C.: World Bank.

35

[30] Sidharta and Budihardjo, E. (1989). Konservasi lingkungan dan

bangunan kuno bersejarah di Surakarta. Yogyakarta: Gadjah
Mada University Press.
[31] Siswanto, A., et al. (1997). Rencana Tata Bangunan dan
Lingkungan Kawasan Singosaren Pasar Kembang Taman
Sriwedari, Kotamadya Surakarta, Semarang: PT Wiswakharman
(Kodya DT II Surakarta Ciptakarya PU Final Report).
[32] Soedarmono. (1999). Solo: Morfologi Kota Kerusuhan.
(Unpublished paper).
[33] Tiesdell, S., Oc, T. and Heath,T. (1996). Revitalizing historic
urban quarters. Oxford: Architectural Press.
[34] Timothy, D.J. and Boyd, S.W. (2003). Heritage Tourism. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
[35] United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific. (1999). Guidelines on integrated planning for
sustainable tourism development. New York: United Nations.
Charters and conventions on historic and urban conservation
[36] Nara Document on Authenticity - 1994. [Online]. (URL
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ nara94.htm). 1994, 24 November.
The Asia and West Pacific Network for Urban Conservation
(AWPNUC) (2003, 17 August). [Online]. (URL http://www.
awpnuc.org)..
[37] Towards the Preparation of the Hoi An Protocols for Best
Conservation Practice In Asia. (2003). [Online]. (URL
http://www.icomos.org/australia/images/pdf/Hoi%
20An%20Protocol%20Nov%2003%20draft.pdf).
2003,
15
November.
Putu Ayu P. Agustiananda is currently a full-time lecturer at
Architecture Department, Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta.
Several courses she teaches are History and Theory of Architecture and
Nusantara Architecture.
She was born in Jakarta, August 18, 1974, and lives in Solo City at
present. She obtained her M.A. degree
from World Heritage Study Program,
Faculty of Architecture and Civil
Engineering, Brandenburg University of
Technology, Cottbus, Germany in 2005,
and wrote her thesis on cultural heritage
and urban conservation in Indonesia, on
scholarship program of German
Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).
Her Engineering Degree was obtained
from
Architecture
Department,
University of Indonesia, Jakarta back in
1998. Solo Municipality appointed her
as Conference Manager when the city
organized Euro-Asia World Heritage
Cities Conference and Expo in October 2008. From 2009, she is a
participant of Forum for Urban Future, a network of Southeast-Asian
German experts, where she presented some papers on heritage
management and governance in several seminars.

124902-3737 IJCEE-IJENS April 2012 IJENS

IJENS