Published in Australia by Crawford House Publishing Australia Pty Ltd P.O. Box 50, Belair SA 5052 Australia

National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry

Title: Creating sustainable communities in a changing world / edited by Philip E. J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels

ISBN: 9781863333351 (pbk.)

Notes: Includes bibliographical references

Subjects: Community development Sustainable development Sustainability Sustainable living Environmentalism Climatic changes

Other Authors/Contributors:

Roetman, Philip E. J. Daniels, Christopher B.

Dewey Number: 307.14

© Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, November 2011

All rights reserved. This book may be used for research, individual study and educational purposes. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the Australian Copyright Act.

Printed in Australia by Copycat Printing using soy-based ink on paper that is 50% post-consumer recycled waste and 50% FSC certified fibre.

Available from: www.unisa.edu.au/barbarahardy

ContentsForeword................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3Christopher B. Daniels and Philip E.J. Roetman

Can we measure sustainability? .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................5Kathryn Davidson

Responding to a changing climate .................................................................................................................................................................................................13Jon Kellett and Stephen Hamnett

Local capacity for carbon reduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................21Cathryn M. Hamilton

Zero waste and zero emission cities: transforming cities through sustainable design and behaviour change ............................................................................................................................................................31

Steffen Lehmann

Developing a prefabricated low-carbon construction system using timber for multistorey inner-city housing ................................................................................................................................................................43

Steffen Lehmann

Circulating resources, embodied energy and buildings ...............................................................................................55Stephen Pullen

Ecological Footprinting: what it means and how to put the concept to best use ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63

John Boland and Manju Agrawal

An introduction to the waste input-output model: a methodology to evaluate sustainable behaviour around (food) waste? .....................................................................................................77

Christian John Reynolds, John Boland, Kirrilly Thompson andDrew Dawson

Social inclusion, climate change and sustainable communities ..........................................................87Lou Wilson and Keri Chiveralls

The complexities of social sustainability: balancing tradition and change in a UNESCO World Heritage site ....................................................................................................................................................................95

Matthew Rofe, Diana Mohamad and Azizan Marzuki

The myth of affordable housing and sustainable urban development ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................103

Alpana Sivam and Sadasivam Karuppannan

Delivering sustainability through construction and project management: principles, tools and practices ........................................................................................................................................111

Nicholas Chileshe

Sustainable transport, travel demand management, and electric vehicles ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................119

Michael A.P. Taylor, Rocco Zito and Michelle Philp

Sustainable transport planning and urban communities ..................................................................................129Nicholas Holyoak

Low-emission mobility ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................135Peter J. Pudney

Meeting the needs of our future cities for goods movement .................................................................141Raluca Raicu

Zero-energy housing ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................149Stephen R. Berry and Wasim Y. Saman

Concentrated solar power generation and high-temperature energy storage .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................159

Frank Bruno, Wasim Y. Saman and Ming Liu

Sustainability of industry-scale nanomanufacturing ......................................................................................................171Peter Majewski, Lee Luong, Ke Xing and Yousef Amer

Urban biodiversity .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................179Sandra G. Taylor, Philip E.J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels

Health benefits of healthy ecosystems .........................................................................................................................................................................189Lovisa M. Rosnäs, Marina M.C.J. Louter, G.U. Sofia Orre-Gordon andPhil Weinstein

Urban open space and health: the evidence base .....................................................................................................................199Jon Kellett and Mathew Rofe

Beyond nature conservation: the importance of parks to a sustainable society .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................207

Delene L. Weber

Behaviour change and the tourism springboard to sustainability .........................................217Barbara A. Koth

Education for sustainable development: improving curriculum design in higher education ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................225

Ian Clark and Yvonne Zeegers

Educating engineers for sustainable practice .........................................................................................................................................233Julie E. Mills, Anh L.H. Tran, Elizabeth J. Smith and James Ward

Educating for sustainability: a vehicle for engaging primary and middle education students in science ................................................................................................................................................................................239

Kathryn Paige and David Lloyd

The benefits of citizen science in research, education and community engagement .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................249

Philip E.J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................261Christopher B. Daniels and Philip E.J. Roetman

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................262

3

IntroductionChristopher B. Daniels1 and Philip E.J. Roetman1

1Barbara Hardy Institute and School of Natural and Built Environments, UniSA

On 31 October 2011 the United Nations announced the birth of the 7 billionth person on the planet (UNFPA 2011). Our population continues to grow at a staggering rate and we are using the planet’s resources at well beyond a sustainable rate. Every day, more people, in larger cities, are consuming more resources and producing more waste than ever before. While accommodating a growing human population is a primary concern, we also need to adapt to a changing climate. We therefore need to change the way we live in order to adapt, as individuals and as communities, to new conditions.

But making our communities sustainable is a complex and contentious issue. Even the definition and applications of the term ‘sustainable’ are matters of debate (see Davidson’s chapter in this book). However, what is beyond doubt is that our communities must change. In order to make sensible decisions that will mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of human activities, while advancing social equity and prosperity, we need well-reasoned information. This book is a contribution to the global knowledge about communities and sustainability. Its chapters are written by researchers involved with the Barbara Hardy Institute at the University of South Australia (UniSA).

The Barbara Hardy Institute brings together scientists, engineers and social scientists to work in multidisciplinary teams on real-world issues, with a focus on the sustainability of our society. The institute’s patron is the well-known and widely respected Dr Barbara Hardy. It champions her vision for the ‘widespread adoption of sustainable principles and environmentally correct practices’. The institute’s ethos is to support its members in conducting relevant, globally significant, multidisciplinary research. Researchers at the institute collaborate with partners locally, nationally and internationally, engaging stakeholders and building partnerships to attract investment and promote research. The research of the institute is underpinned by community participation and education.

The contributions in this book provide many perspectives on sustainability. Together they create a multidisciplinary view that is required to move our community towards ‘sustainability’. The chapters discuss and analyse how we can build, plan, travel, educate, manage resources (including waste), and power our communities in more sustainable ways, changing how we relate to, and interact with, the natural environment. We hope that readers will develop their understanding of sustainability and how we can transform our communities as the climate changes and our society grows.

ReferenceUnited Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 2011. State of the world population 2011: people and possibilities in a

world of 7 billion, United Nations Population Fund, New York, retrieved 31 October 2011 from <http://foweb.unfpa.org/SWP2011/reports/EN-SWOP2011-FINAL.pdf>.

95

The complexities of social sustainability: balancing tradition and change in a UNESCO

World Heritage siteMatthew Rofe1, Diana Mohamad1 and Azizan Marzuki2

1Barbara Hardy Institute and School of Natural and Built Environments, UniSA2Universiti Sains Malaysia

IntroductionThe discourse of sustainability has proven extremely pervasive. Arguably, the language and concept of sustainability has been entrenched in most domains of human understanding and endeavour. The languages of science, economics and politics are replete with the notion of sustainability, or, more specifically, ‘sustainable development’. Much fierce contemporary debate surrounds sustainability, most notably issues concerning climate change, its origins and potential consequences, and the need for appropriate human responses to these. It is a truism that sustainability is a complex and contested issue.

The notion of sustainability and, particularly, sustainable development, traces its origins to the 1960s. Notable in the development of the term sustainability and its continued promotion is the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), whose stated mission is to ‘influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable’. Since then, the IUCN and various other organisations have conducted studies and produced reports that have provided ‘a rather sobering insight into the state of planet Earth’ (Roders & van Oers 2011).

For McMichael, Butler and Folke (2003), the ‘contemporary stimulus for exploring sustainability is the accruing evidence that humankind is jeopardizing its own longer term interest by living beyond Earth’s means’. The evidence base is legion and compelling. A range of declining environmental indicators underline the stressors being placed upon natural ecosystems by human activities (McMichael, Butler & Folke 2003). This recognition emphasises the environmental dimension of human activities, their impact upon the biophysical world, and the significant attention this situation commands within the academic literature and attendant policy debates and directions.

It is increasingly acknowledged that because environmental decline stems from human actions, addressing the range of human attitudes and behaviours that underpin these actions is critically important. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO 1997) astutely observe:

…while there are many definitions of sustainable development, it can perhaps be better understood as an emerging vision rather than as a neatly defined concept or relationship. In truth, it is as much an ethical precept as a scientific concept, as

96

concerned with notions of equity as with theories of global warming. Sustainable development is widely understood to involve the natural sciences and economics, but it is even more fundamentally concerned with culture: with the values people hold and how they perceive their relations with others.

This chapter will focus on the pivotal role culture plays in the pursuit of sustainable development, which leads to the concept of social sustainability. We consider the attention given to notions of social sustainability, its promotion through heritage conservation, and the challenges inherent in these pursuits, drawing upon a case study of the historic city of George Town in Malaysia. Heritage conservation and the associated tourism-based economy, as highlighted in the case study, are indicative of the policy directions adopted within many rapidly globalising economies that represent important sustainable development directions. However, as will be demonstrated, the pursuit of social sustainability through such mechanisms is as complex and contested as the notion of sustainability itself.

Social sustainability and heritage conservationBorne out of late 20th century concerns for improved social equity and human wellbeing, social sustainability is conceived as a critical element of wider sustainability debates. In this vein, Hodge and Hardi (1997) promoted the integrated nature of environmental and social sustainability, asserting that:

...achieving progress toward sustainability … implies maintaining and preferably improving, both human and ecosystem wellbeing, not one at the expense of the other. The idea expresses the interdependence between people and the surrounding world.

Social sustainability embraces a plethora of concerns and agenda ranging from maintaining cultural heterogeneity in a rapidly homogenising global world, to gender equity, public health and social inclusion. For Littig and Grießler (2005), the identification and measurement of social sustainability focuses on three indicators:

• Basic needs and quality of life indicators; • Social justice; and • Social coherence (see also Enyedi 2002).

Given the diversity of human experience and the multiple understandings attached to any one of these indicators, the development of objective measurement is a fraught process. In short, what is considered sustainable from a social perspective is deeply contextual.

Urban environments have come to be considered key sites in the pursuit of sustainability (see Jordan 2008). Given that over half the world’s population is now urban based, the pursuit of sustainability within these human-made landscapes is pressing and relevant (see Jordan 2008). It is within the urban landscape that it is paramount to develop theoretical understandings of sustainability and to adopt integrated policy approaches. Reflecting this challenge, UN Habitat and UNESCO (2008) assert:

Sustainable forms of urbanization require more than environmentally sound approaches to urban planning and development. They call for simpler reforms

97

to current approaches to the promotion and distribution of economic growth. They require a concerted set of socially inclusive policies capable of ensuring that the benefits of urbanization today will remain sustainable in the future. In an increasingly urbanized world, the promotion of sustainable urbanization; encompassing issues of economic growth, social equity, cultural and ethnic cohesion and environmental protection; require strategic planning, consensus building, and conflict resolution.

A core plank in the pursuit of these aspirations for UNESCO is the preservation of cultural diversity, as evidenced through its focus on heritage conservation.

The literature pertaining to heritage, both physical and cultural, within the built environment is considerable. These studies address a range of issues including the significance of heritage (Cetin 2010), the role of heritage to bolster the economy (Lim et al. 2008), and management strategies for maintaining heritage sites (Ahmad 1994). This chapter adopts the view that heritage is a process through which select aspects of the past are determined to be of future value and are protected through legislative processes. Heritage then is a medium created by various groups to preserve and communicate authorised stories about the past to future generations.

At the forefront of worldwide heritage conservation is the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention. Adopted by UNESCO in 1972, the convention provides a legislative framework across complex jurisdictional boundaries for the protection of places of ‘outstanding universal value to humanity’ (UNESCO 2011a). UNESCO (2011b) states:

What makes the concept of World Heritage exceptional is its universal application. World Heritage sites belong to all the peoples of the world, irrespective of the territory on which they are located.

Broadly, UNESCO identifies a variety of forms of heritage – natural heritage, underwater heritage, cultural heritage, intangible heritage, and even moveable heritage. At the time of writing there are 936 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List (WHL), comprising 725 cultural, 183 natural and 28 mixed heritage sites across the globe (UNESCO 2011c). Further, there are 1493 additional sites nominated on the Tentative List, which foreshadows the development of a formal application for inscription on the WHL (UNESCO 2011d). It can be said that the WHL embodies a global ark of significant natural and cultural features and landscapes that embrace the entwined notions of environmental and social sustainability.

However, the purported benefits of inscription on the WHL go far beyond altruistic motivations to preserve cultural diversity. Significant economic benefits are also evident through the emergence of a world heritage oriented tourism market and associated strategies to harness this potential (see Li, Wu & Ca 2008; Boniface 1995).

The pursuit of a tourism-based economy founded on world heritage is a double-edged sword. As Li, Wu and Ca (2008) note, ‘...the success of the Convention has … caused a dilemma; increased visitation is now the primary threat to World Heritage Sites’ (see also Garrod & Fyall 2000). Thus, the management of a World Heritage Site is a critical undertaking. Further, heritage designation and conservation is enmeshed in the operation of political and economic power, where dominant groups are, arguably,

98

better positioned to gain access to the apparatus of legislative process. In the context of this chapter, the pursuit of social sustainability through heritage conservation is highly selective and at times arbitrary. Certain aspects of cultural practices and social expression are devalued, marginalised and potentially eradicated as they do not conform to the authorised notion of the heritage deemed worthy of conservation in a given place. We now turn to a brief case study of these complexities within the heritage core of George Town in Malaysia.

George Town, world heritage cityThe island of Penang is located off Malaysia’s west coast. Proclaimed a British colonial possession in August 1786, Penang’s capital George Town became an important commercial port and rapidly developed into one of the prominent Straits Cities along with Malacca and Singapore. George Town’s diverse racial and cultural groups – predominantly Malays, Europeans, Chinese (Cantonese, Hakkas, Hainanese and Hokkien) and Indians (Tamils, Bengalis and Parsis) – have had a significant impact on the city’s built and cultural form. The cultural and architectural significance brought by these groups has led to Penang being regarded as the ‘Pearl of the Orient’ (Nin 2001). However, the pressures of modernisation are progressively eroding the unique social composition and built form of George Town.

Various conservation groups, such as the Penang Heritage Trust (PHT), began lobbying for much of George Town to be declared a heritage conservation zone. The intent was to preserve the area’s diverse social composition while conserving the built landscapes of largely intact shop houses. Formal recognition of George Town’s heritage significance, along with the historic core of Malacca, came in July 2008 when both sites were jointly inscribed on the WHL. This paper restricts its discussion to George Town.

The total George Town inscription amounted to 259.87 ha containing 4665 buildings. Within the core zone a number of key heritage sites, typically buildings, are specifically identified as being of world heritage significance. These include religious sites, such as the Kuan Yin (Goddess of Mercy) temple, the Sri Mahamariamman Temple, the Kapitan Keling and Acheen Malay mosques, and the St George Church. In addition, a range of socio-cultural sites, such as a number of kongsi or Chinese clan houses, most notably the Khoo Kongsi and the Clan Jetties, are identified.

George Town and Malacca were proposed and inscribed on the following grounds:

As living historic towns, both Melaka and George Town are still inhabited by people; the majority of them are descendants of the local groups that have inhabited the cities for generations. They are excellent examples of historic colonial towns on the Straits of Malacca that have endured and experienced a succession of historical events mostly related to their former function as trading ports linking the East and West. They are excellent examples of living heritage towns where multi-cultural heritage and tradition of South and East Asia coexistence; and where large examples of shophouses, in many different styles and cultural influences, can be found. [Government of Malaysia 2007]

Here the assumption that heritage designation may serve as a vehicle for social sustainability becomes manifest. However, inscribed as a living cultural heritage site,

99

significant challenges are evident in the management of George Town’s heritage core. These challenges stem from George Town’s function as a thriving, dynamic site. In response, the Malaysia National and Penang State governments and various non-government organisations have, to varying degrees, attempted to manage and preserve the heritage site. The actions of conservation would at times appear at odds with the development and growth of places that could be seen as desirable and even logical in a dynamic urban environment. How George Town is governed into the immediate future and beyond epitomises the complexity of heritage designation as a vehicle for social sustainability.

This complexity is aptly demonstrated by struggles over the practice of bird-nest farming within George Town’s heritage core. For the visitor, one of George Town’s surprising charms is the sight of swiftlets wheeling over the city in the evening sky. As in other parts of South-East Asia, swiftlets are attracted to George Town’s disused buildings, from where their nests are harvested for human consumption, typically in the form of bird-nest soup. Swiftlet farming is a highly lucrative endeavour, with the price of nests realising between 4500 and 6000 Malaysian Ringgit (RM) per kg (approximately A$1420 to A$1900). By way of comparison, at the time of writing, silver was worth RM2198 per kg (approximately A$690). While extremely difficult to quantify, the swiftlet farming economy in George Town is estimated as being worth approximately RM450 million (approximately A$142 million) per annum.

The Association of Swiftlet Nests Industry (ASNI) serves as the peak representative body of the swiftlet farming industry and liaises with government departments. According to the ASNI, swiftlet farming has been undertaken within the area now classified as the Core World Heritage zone for over 100 years and, as such, the practice constitutes an integral aspect of the city’s living cultural heritage. In effect, the ASNI views itself as being engaged in the continuation of socio-economic practices that can be considered as embodying living cultural heritage (see Rofe and Mohamad 2010). In positioning themselves in this way, the ASNI aligns itself with the language and sentiment of the UNESCO World Heritage designation. In this vein, history and connections with the social and urban fabric of George Town are presented as grounds for the continuation of swiftlet farming within the heritage core. This argument is powerful and speaks directly to the stated principles of heritage conservation and social sustainability. However, alternate positions are evident.

Those opposing swiftlet farming cite a number of detrimental impacts that they directly attribute to the industry. Foremost amongst these is the damage caused to shop houses that are said to be affected by water and bird-droppings specifically and suffer from a lack of maintenance generally. Further, opponents of swiftlet farming emphasise concern for the health of neighbouring residents, and other forms of environmental impacts including noise pollution from ‘tweeters’ (recordings used to attract swiftlets), which are cited as eroding the heritage amenity or sense of place within the core zone. Refuting these claims, the ASNI asserts that the majority of operators maintain buildings in good repair, both internally and externally.

Such conflicting positions are not surprising within the professional scope of planning generally and heritage conservation specifically, as competing groups seek to advance their interests. However, the complexity of this contestation appears to be exacerbated by a lack of clear political decision-making. In July 2010 the Penang State Government

100

passed the Guidelines for the Application of Premise Licences for Swiftlet Farming Business. While appearing to be progressive policy-making, it must be noted that this legislation was first proposed back in 2005. The substance of this policy is that no new licences will be issued, and that by the end of 2013 all swiftlet farms within the historic core of George Town will be required to relocate. In the interim there is, apparently, no effective or consistent government supervision or control of swiftlet farming. Anecdotally, this policy has resulted in an explosion of unlicensed operations being established. It is the view of the ASNI that these illegal operations are to blame for the negative impacts that have been associated with the wider, formalised swiftlet farming industry. Further, they argue, an important aspect of George Town’s living cultural heritage and social fabric will be destroyed as a consequence of competing heritage interests and a lack of appropriate governance.

Ironically, the example of swiftlet farming in George Town problematises the notion of living cultural heritage, which at its heart holds dear the principle that ‘...urban conservation is not merely to conserve the building but to preserve the whole ambience including cultural significance’ (Yusof et al. 2007 after Thorsby 2002; Cohen 2001). Here the complex and contested nature of social sustainability becomes readily apparent.

Social sustainability into the futureSocial sustainability is a critical dimension in the pursuit of more sustainable and equitable futures. This recognition demands the development of more holistic and insightful theories and policies. The complex nature of sustainability in general and social sustainability specifically makes this undertaking a significant challenge. This complexity is exacerbated by contestations over what constitutes desirable social practices and forms deemed deserving of being sustained. The George Town case study highlights these complexities, and the lessons of contestation over swiftlet farming are salient. Foremost amongst these are the flexible and subjective nature of social practices, what constitutes desirable social practices, who decides and on what grounds. Here, power is critical; the ability to preserve certain social practices through legislative processes associated with heritage designation is ultimately an act of power (see Howard 2003). As Marcuse (1998) muses:

…a just, humane and environmentally sensitive world will, in the long run, be better for all of us. But getting to the long run entails conflict and controversy … [and] issues of power.

Where there is conflict and controversy there are likely to be winners and losers with regards to decision-making processes. Social sustainability in George Town, as in numerous other places, involves a decision-making process that validates and thus sustains some social practices, while it simultaneously devalues and ultimately eradicates others. We would propose that future research into social sustainability, especially within UNESCO world heritage sites, be more attuned to these complex contestations. Ultimately, the pursuit of social sustainability cannot be approached naïvely or uncritically if true gains towards more sustainable and equitable human landscapes are to be realised.

101

ReferencesAhmad, A.G. 1994. Why buildings decay, Penang Heritage Trust, Penang.Boniface, P. 1995. Managing quality cultural tourism, Routledge, London.Cetin, M. 2010. ‘Cultural versus material: conservation issues regarding earth architecture in Saudi Arabia: the

case of an Ottoman fort, Ibrahim Palace in Al-Houfuf’, International Journal of Civil & Environmental Engineering, 10(4): 8–14.

Cohen, N. 2001. Urban planning conservation and preservation, McGraw-Hill Professional, New York.Enyedi, G. 2002. ‘Social sustainability of large cities’, Ekistics, 69: 142–144.Garrod, B. and Fyall, A. 2000. ‘Managing heritage tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3): 682–708.Government of Malaysia. 2007. Historic cities of the Straits of Malacca: Melaka and George Town, nomination dossier

submitted to the World Heritage Committee, UNESCO.Hodge, R.A. and Hardi, P. 1997. ‘The need for guidelines: the rationale underlying the Bellagio principles for

assessment’, in P. Hardi and T. Zdan (eds), Assessing sustainable development: principles in practice, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, 7–20.

Howard, P. 2003. Heritage: management, interpretation, identity, Continuum International Publishing Group, London.

Jordan, A. 2008. ‘The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(1): 17–33.

Li, M., Wu, B. and Ca, L. 2008. ‘Tourism development of world heritage sites in China: a geographic perspective’, Tourism Management, 29: 308–319.

Lim, Y.M., Lee, L.M., Yusof, N. and Tan, S.F. 2008. ‘George Town as a heritage city: the voices of the residents’, 14th Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, Kuala Lumpur.

Littig, B. and Grießler, E. 2005. ‘Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism and social theory’, International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1–2): 65–79.

Marcuse, P. 1998. ‘Sustainability is not enough’, Environment and Urbanization, 10(2): 103–112.McMichael, A.J., Butler, C.D. and Folke, C. 2003. ‘New visions for addressing sustainability’, Science, 302.Nin, K.S. 2001. Streets of Georgetown, Penang, Janus Print and Resources, Penang.Roders, A.P. and van Oers, R. 2011. ‘Editorial: bridging cultural heritage and sustainable development’, Journal of

Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 1(1): 5–14.Rofe, M.W. and Mohamad, D. 2010. ‘The complexities of built and cultural heritage in George Town, Penang:

student perspectives on a UNESCO World Heritage site’, paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the Built Environment in Developing Countries, 1–3 December, 2010, Penang.

Thorsby, D. 2002. ‘Cultural capital and sustainability concepts in the economics of cultural heritage’, in M. de la Torre (ed.), Assessing the values of cultural heritage: research report, The Getty Conservation Institute, retrieved 2011 from <www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/assessing.pdf>.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 1997. ‘Educating for a sustainable future: trans-disciplinary vision for concerted action’, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, retrieved from <http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/TLSF/theme_a/mod01/uncom01t05s01.htm#pre>.

UN Habitat and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2008. ‘Best practices on social sustainability in historic districts’, retrieved from <http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=2604>.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2011a. ‘World Heritage Convention: What Is World Heritage?’ UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, retrieved 2011 from <http://whc.unesco.org/en/108#world_heritage>.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2011b. ‘World Heritage Convention: World Heritage’, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, retrieved 2011 from <http://whc.unesco.org/en/about/>.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2011c. ‘World Heritage Convention: World Heritage List’, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, retrieved 2011 from <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list>.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2011d. ‘World Heritage Convention: Tentative List’, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris, retrieved 2011 from <http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/>.

Yusof, N.A., Lim, Y.M., Lee, L.M. and Tan, S.S. 2007. ‘Urban conservation as a development strategy to revitalize real estate market: an analysis of property transactions in Georgetown Penang’, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 12(2): 43–61.