Abstract
Stakeholder participation for the value assessment of Indian architectural heritage, especially the temple architecture, is rare due to the lack of published methodologies. Therefore, considering Odishan Temple Architecture as a case study, this research focuses on stakeholders’ perceptions while assessing the value of architectural heritage. This study identified five groups of stakeholders for evaluating parameters. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were used to derive the results. Sixteen parameters showed discrepancies in opinions; the opinions of the current decision-makers differed significantly from other groups. However, this study identified the scope for involving the opinions of all stakeholders for an unbiased and robust decision-making process.
Introduction
Although the primary focus of cities remains on contemporary development with urbanization, conservation and management of heritage are equally crucial for cultural and economic growth in the future (Wang and Aoki 2019). Preservation of architectural heritage (AH) largely depends on various types of stakeholders who are directly or indirectly involved in the development, planning, and management processes (Larkkham 1996, 4). Most of the time, government officials or political persons as stakeholders decide on the selection of AH (Biondi et al. 2020, 2), and India is not different here. However, many conflicts arise due to stakeholders’ preferences (Aigwi et al. 2021) regarding AH management, as recently seen in the Central Vista Redevelopment Project of the government of India (Vishwanath 2021). Furthermore, there is a chance of divergence opinions among a homogeneous group of stakeholders (Boujdad Mkadem, Zakriti, and Nieuwenhuysen 2018, 10). In 1999, after listing Hampi as World Heritage in Danger from the World Heritage Site (WHS) list, disagreements between stakeholders were observed that had never been discussed and resolved previously (Thakur and Gupta 2008, 130). With regard to in-use religious structures such as Hindu temples that are also an effective form of an AH, there are other conflicts between the major stakeholders like the temple trustees and governmental authorities for performing rituals and construction inside the temple premises (Tanaka 2020); in other words, conflicts are also observed within the groups of stakeholders on economic grounds and constructing other structures inside and outside the temple premises. While lack of involvement of stakeholders has been identified as one of the major problems for the cultural heritage management in India (Roy and Kalidindi 2017), this study tries to encourage their participation, identifying and incorporating the variability in perceptions of the stakeholders during the evaluation of multidimensional values of AH.
In the case of Odishan Temple Architecture (OTA), “Architectural and Aesthetic Value” plays a significant role. OTA has an amalgamation of the north, and the south Indian temple architecture still has identical rare features that make its separate and stand-alone identity. Identifying the values of the selected temples for this dimension reflects the level of originality toward OTA. The “Economic Value” depends on the direct use value (income generated directly from the AH, such as revenue from ticket sales and monetary and materials offerings made during rituals) and indirect use value (income generated indirectly from the AH, such as the revenue generated by local hotel and shop owners) and stakeholders’ preferences for the development and physical stability or existence of the AH (Liu, Aoki, and Xu 2011, 6491). “Environmental and Ecological Value” that depends primarily on land-use compatibility and maintenance is of great significance to the visitors of AH (Ababneh 2016). Thus, local visitors (LVs) and outside visitors (OVs) play a pivotal role in protecting the environmental and ecological value (Heras et al. 2013; Nicholas, Thapa, and Ko 2009). For “Historical Value,” the age and association value of AH might be relevant for all stakeholders (Yung and Chan 2013). Considering the “Socio-cultural Value,” for Indigenous people, preserving physical heritage is the highest priority for preserving cultural/social value for the next generation. Therefore, identifying the range of stakeholders and the relevant parameters are crucial for assessing the value of AH (Aigwi, Ingham, et al. 2020; Huq et al. 2017; Li et al. 2020).
Odisha, a state in India, is witnessing a huge heritage redevelopment project in Bhubaneswar as Ekamrakshetra Heritage Development Project (EHDP), which is now in a tentative list in WHS List (UNESCO 2014). Here, the conflicts regarding prior approval for execution of this project among the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, and Odisha Bridge Construction Corporation (OBCC) are already being published in newspapers (The New Indian Express 2020). Hence, there is a need to understand multiple stakeholders’ perceptions and the scope for involving their opinion in a robust decision-making process. Hence, this research focuses on the value assessment of OTA in India through the perception of multiple stakeholders. This research focuses on the temples of the Ekamrakshetra and the two other famous temples, that is, Sun Temple at Konark (which is a WHS) and Jagannath Temple at Puri (which is the largest pilgrimage attraction point of Odisha for religious sentiments). Overall, it aims to analyze the similarity and dissimilarity of opinions while evaluating multidimensional and multiparameter aspects with multiple alternatives for the case of OTA.
This paper is divided into four sections. The “Identification of the Types of Stakeholders” section identifies the types of stakeholders involved in the evaluation process of AH. The section “Material and Method” describes the materials and methods that describe the research hypothesis, identifies the dimensions and parameters for evaluating AH, and the research design of this study. The “Analysis and Results” section presents the analysis and results of this study by analyzing the stakeholders’ discrepancies while assessing AH. Finally, in the “ Discussion” section, this paper emphasizes the discussion and future scope of this research.
Identification of the Types of Stakeholders
According to Aslan and Ardemagni (2006, 57), a stakeholder is “a person or group of people (company, institution, local community) that has a personal or financial involvement in a business or an industry.” Numerous studies on stakeholders’ participation and perceptions have been identified for AH and its associated fields for the best-suited stakeholders. A literature review helped identify various domains related to AH and their types of stakeholders under various objectives, as listed in Table 1.
Types of Stakeholders Concerning Evaluation of AH.
Note: AH = architectural heritage.
The literature of the past seventeen years showed that institutions (government and private) responsible for evaluating, selecting, and heritage-making policy management for AH played a significant role in decision-making. Apart from these, professionals or experts (architects, planners, archeologists, and so on) made valuable decisions. In a few studies, local residents or communities were also involved in decision-making. There were also tourists, LVs, local suppliers, contractors, and investors. However, in the Indian context, the current decision-making process neglects the role of others apart from institutions and professionals (Munjal and Srivastava 2013). For encouraging participatory planning and management and more transparency in decision-making, the views of all stakeholders should be considered. Thus, this research attempted to create the following groups for the value assessment of OTA:
Current decision-makers (CDMs): This group includes stakeholders who are currently making decisions related to AH management, shared rights, responsibility, and all the power for decision-making (Islam, Ruhanen, and Ritchie 2018, 2). These stakeholders are experts with relevant knowledge and associated with OTA as temple trustees, temple priests, management, and temple owners, including officials from the ASI.
LVs: This group of stakeholders (LVs or residents) is highly responsible for the maintenance and management of the temples and their precincts, as well as carrying the customs and beliefs to the next generation (Peng and Tzeng 2019, 16). The group members are associated (positively or negatively) with events within and outside the temple premises. Hence, the needs and opinions of this particular group are crucial for the conservation and management of AH and for transforming the knowledge, awareness, and responsibility of future generations (Bakri et al. 2015, 295). In the decision-making process, the LV can showcase their tangible and intangible heritage to outsiders (Bakri et al. 2015, 385).
OVs: This group comprises stakeholders who are the actual consumers of tourism (both national and international levels) and are the reasons for propagating and spreading the local tradition and culture within and outside a nation. Tourists are the primary source of income for the indirect use value of AH tourism and attract investment and development (Larraz and García-Gómez 2020, 4). However, the overcrowding of tourists disturbs the ecology, infrastructure, and lives of residents (Luo and Yuan 2011, 474).
Local shopkeepers (LSs): This group comprises local vendors, shopkeepers, people from hotel industries, and tourism-related people who provide the infrastructure and indirectly promote AH (Situmorang, Trilaksono, and Japutra 2019, 21). In this group, stakeholders are associated with the economic aspects of the temples and promoters of tourism (Ababneh 2016, 59). Therefore, the level of comfort of visitors to the AH primarily depends on this group (Alonso, Sakellarios, and Pritchard 2015).
Temple workers (TWs): This group comprises service-oriented people directly linked to the AH. They are TWs, junior priests, gardeners, and watermen responsible for daily activities on the temple premises and other events held monthly or annually. Although the members of these groups generally follow the orders of CDMs, their opinions also matter for the maintenance and management of AH.
Material and Method
Identified Parameters for the Evaluation of AH
By collecting broader dimensions and parameters from numerous international organizations, governmental agencies, and individual research scholars (as shown in Table 2), this research has identified three levels (dimension, subdimension, and parameter) for evaluating AH. The “Parameter” is the attribute that can be qualitatively measurable through the perception of stakeholders. “Subdimension” cannot be measured directly by people’s perceptions. A subdimension is a combination of specific parameters whose values can be determined by the values of the parameters. Similarly, dimension is a broad area whose value can be obtained from the subdimensions. The selected parameters were then scrutinized using the Delphi method and organized with twelve experts from related fields of architecture and planning.
Evaluating AH, Through the Opinion of Stakeholders.
Note: AH = architectural heritage.
For the evaluation of OTA, questionnaires were collected for data collection for the opinions of the stakeholders. For the evaluation of the OTA through the opinion of stakeholders for the various decision-making processes, the parameters were classified under three dimensions: “Architectural and Aesthetic Value,” “Economic Value,” and “Socio-cultural Value” as shown in Table 2. Table 2 also presents the relevant subdimensions, the description for each parameter, and the scale of measurement.
Research Design
This research identified a specific case area for evaluating AH, that is, the OTA. OTA is known for its gigantic architectural treasures, historical background, socio-cultural significance, and environmentally natural backdrop (Mohapatra 1986; Parida 1999). However, only a few temples obtained state and national status for the existing state of preservation and maintenance. According to Krishna (2014), by May 2014, the ASI designated only 3,650 historical structures as “national monuments,” establishing the selection criteria based on colonial interpretation. All these “national monuments” were projected to be 1 to 3 percent of the actual number of AH currently present. Krishna (2014) also pointed out the struggle of preservation strategies between international charters, national preservation policies, and ground implementation.
The Town and Country Planning Organization of India suggested grading Indian AH based on their archeological importance, physical and structural significance as Grade I, Grade IIA, Grade IIB, and Grade III (Town and Country Planning Organisation 2011). However, there is no multidimensional grading system, no specific grading system for living and nonliving temples such as OTA that is established to date.
According to the NITI Aayog, Government of India (2019, 44), Odisha has more than 1,600 temples, and Bhubaneswar has more than 500 temples. In comparison, only 128 numbers obtained state and national status, including other types of natural and cultural sites. However, to date, no research has been conducted on the value assessment of the OTA and a systematic classification of these temples. Therefore, there is a need to conduct research on OTAs.
Over the years, a hierarchical value-based designation has worked for OTA: WHS and national heritage, both are protected by the Central Archaeological Survey of India (C-ASI), and state heritage that is protected by the State Archaeological Survey of India (S-ASI). The selection criteria for these hierarchical designations are generally derived from local- (based on either claim of local stakeholders or government) and national-level demands through movement at national level or demand from national government. However, they are not based on a systematic procedure. Therefore, this study attempts to assess the value of AH through a systematic procedure, considering the perceptions of different kinds of stakeholders.
This study identified thirty-seven temples from the Ekamrakshetra, the old town area of the Bhubaneswar, Sun temple at Konark, and Jagannath Temple at Puri as case examples. As per the C-ASI protection system, forty-five out of seventy-eight (Government of India 2020) are Odishan temples, of which twenty are present in the Ekamrakshetra. Similarly, as per the S-ASI (Government of Odisha 2020), 195 out of 218 are Odishan temples and 23 are present in the same Ekamrakshetra. Ekamrakshetra also consists of several unlisted temples. Therefore, this area can be a perfect example to study protected or listed and unlisted OTAs whose classification can be done based on their values.
This research identified thirty-nine temples, among which Konark was the only WHS; eighteen were other centrally protected, fourteen were state-protected, and six were unlisted temples. These temples range from the early sixth century to the fourteenth century. Considering a thumb rule of thirty responses for each alternative (Kothari 2004, 156) or total responses as ten times the number of parameters (Hair et al. 2013), a minimum of thirty responses per temple was targeted a sample for performing any parametric study. Finally, 1,239 stakeholders (including all five groups) responded to eighteen parameters during the evaluation of the OTA. Selected temples, their level of protection, and the responses count for each temple across the groups are listed in Table 3. The locations of all temples are shown in Figure 1.
Details of Respondents for Evaluating Odishan Temple Architecture.
Note: CDM = current decision-maker; LV = local visitor; OV = outside visitor; LS = local shopkeeper; TW = temple worker; C-ASI = Central Archeological Survey of India; S-ASI = State Archeological Survey of India; UL = unlisted temple; WHS = World Heritage Site.
Location map of selected Odishan Temple Architecture.
After the opinion survey of stakeholders, the data were processed through reliability, normality, and homogeneity tests. In addition, tests were conducted to determine the differences in opinions among the stakeholders. The test was also conducted to identify differences in opinions while evaluating each parameter. A flow diagram is shown in Figure 2 for a clear understanding of the methodology.
Methodology for understanding the variation in perception of stakeholders concerning the evaluation of architectural heritage.
Analysis and Results
Intraclass Correlation for Interrater Reliability of Data
Before analyzing differences in opinion among stakeholders in the decision-making process, the intraclass correlation for interrater reliability of the data was conducted for each parameter. The intraclass correlation helped understand the extent of similarity across the collected samples (Landis and Koch 1977, 159; Muhuri and Basu 2018, 934).
Following Koo and Li (2016), a two-way random-effects model was chosen for the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) in the interrater reliability analysis. Furthermore, instead of considering the “absolute agreement,” “consistency” estimate among the stakeholders was adopted (Koo and Li 2016) based on the research objective.
After applying scale reliability for the measured values of parameters in SPSS 20, it was observed that the ICC values for each parameter ranged between .860 and .966 (Table 4). The estimated ICC values ranged from good reliability to excellent reliability, with more than a 95 percent confidence level (Koo and Li 2016), indicating that the intragroup opinion among the stakeholders for the decision-making process is reliable.
Median, Interquartile Range, and ICC of the Public Opinion Parameters for All OTA.
Note: The highlighted values show the disagreement among the stakeholders within the groups as the interquartile range is more than 1.5. ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; OTA = Odishan Temple Architecture; CDM = current decision-maker; LV = local visitor; OV = outside visitor; LS = local shopkeeper; TW = temple worker.
The mean score (MS), median, and interquartile ranges of data for each group were calculated along with the data reliability. These results showed (Table 4) disagreements in opinion within the groups (the highlighted interquartile range shows the consensus within a group). Therefore, data normality and homogeneity were conducted before considering parametric or nonparametric tests for the final analysis (Reddy and Reedy 1994, 6).
Test of Normality and Homogeneity of Data
Using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and Shapiro–Wilk test for normality of data in SPSS, it was found that the data distribution for all the parameters was non-normal (level of significance < .05; Mertens and McLaughlin 2004). The level of significance for homogeneity based on the mean, median, and adjusted degrees of freedom and trimmed means (Reddy and Reedy 1994, 18) are presented in Table 5.
Result of the Level of Significance Based on Test of Homogeneity of Variance.
Note: The highlighted significance values are less than .05, which means they have non-heterogeneous data.
The results (Table 5) showed that parameters such as landscape value (A23), direct use value (E4), indirect use value (E5), spiritual value (SC12), social compatibility (SC21), public use value (SC22), educational value (SC31), political value (SC32), and traditional value (SC33) were not homogeneous across the groups of stakeholders (highlighted in the table). Therefore, nonparametric tests were conducted to identify group differences among stakeholders.
Kruskal–Wallis Test
The Kruskal–Wallis test is a nonparametric test that identifies significant differences between two or more groups while evaluating an independent parameter, measured on a continuous or ordinal scale (Pjerotic 2017, 151). Based on the collected data of OTA, while conducting the Kruskal–Wallis test, it was found that apart from the “Landscape Value” and “Service Value,” there were significant differences in opinion (p value < .05) among the stakeholders (Table 6). Hence, a pairwise comparison between stakeholder groups was conducted. The results are shown in Table 6.
Kruskal–Wallis Test for the Parameters of the Questionnaire Survey.
Note: The highlighted significance values (p values) in the Kruskal–Wallis Test are more than .05, which shows no presence of variations across the groups of responses.
Pairwise Comparison through Mann–Whitney U Test
The Mann–Whitney U test is a nonparametric test that compares two independent groups (Lopez-Guzman et al. 2019, 456; Mann and Whitney 1947). To evaluate OTA, all five groups were pairwise compared using the Mann–Whitney U test. The results identified a significant difference between the CDMs and the other groups (highlighted values in Table 7). In addition, negligible to no difference was found between LVs and OVs, and LSs and TWs.
Level of significance Based on the Mann–Whitney U test for Stakeholders’ Opinion.
Note: Highlighted values show the differences in opinion among the pair of stakeholders. CDM = current decision-maker; LV = local visitor; OV = outside visitor; LS = local shopkeeper; TW = temple worker.
Discussion
This study identified five groups of stakeholders for the evaluation of the OTA. The evaluation considers three broader dimensions: “Architectural and Aesthetic Value,” “Economic Value,” and “Socio-cultural Value.” Respondents’ opinions were collected for eighteen parameters to evaluate OTA in India. There were 232, 254, 287, 236, and 230 respondents in CDMs, LVs, OVs, LSs, and TWs, respectively, who participated in this study.
The results indicate that for the OTA, apart from the landscape value (A23) and service value (SC23) that remained unchanged over the years, there were significant differences in the opinions among all five groups of stakeholders for the other parameters.
For a few parameters such as “appeal value” (A11), spiritual value (SC12), community value (SC13), public use value (SC22), educational value (SC31), political value (SC32), and traditional value (SC33), CDMs, who have the power of decision-making, have a conflict of opinion with all other groups. The result indicates a distinct attitudinal behavior of the decision-makers for the selected parameters. Therefore, the decision of CDMs without considering the opinion of others on the selected parameters may arise a significant conflict of opinions, as pointed out by Schubert (2019). This research thus suggests that the CDMs should make decisions by compiling the suggestions and recommendations of all groups of stakeholders while taking decisions for OTA.
For “characteristic value” (A21), identifying the character of neighborhoods and streets, CDMs, LSs, and TWs or the people related to the direct and indirect benefits from the AH have opinion conflict and disagreement with tourists, that is, LVs and OVs. People directly associated with OTA (LSs, TWs) may have an insiders’ perspective that differs significantly from the local, national, and global perspectives (outsiders’ perspectives) of tourists-pilgrims. For “landmark value” (A22) and “social compatibility” (SC21), OVs (comprises national and international tourists) have differences in opinion with other groups, especially CDMs and TWs, who have in-depth knowledge about the temples.
For the “existence value (cost)” (E1), “bequest value” (E3), “direct use value (cost)” (E4), and “indirect use value (cost)” (E5), that is, willingness to pay for present and future benefits of OTA, CDMs, LVs, and OVs present a very similar opinion. The probable reason may be that CDMs, LVs, and OVs want to pay for the existence of the temple for the present generation and future generation directly and indirectly. In contrast, the LSs and the TWs group do not want to pay for it, and they do not want to make the OTA as ticketed monuments as their livelihood might be hampered. Furthermore, for “option value (cost)” (E2), which represents the value for the existence of the temple for the future use of the present generation, both the CDMs (primarily consisting of priests and trustees) and LSs (consisting of local businessmen) do not want to pay. Thus, results indicate that when stakeholders directly or indirectly earn money for the functioning of the temple, they would like to gain the maximum from the present use of the AH.
Overly comparing groups for subdimensions, all the intangible aspects like “Aesthetic Value” and “Social Value” have apparent differences of opinion between the present decision-makers and other groups. At the same time, the tangible aspects of AH show mixed opinions. However, a similarity can be observed between LVs and OVs as well as LSs and TWs. The results show that the CDMs have a significant difference in opinion regarding OTA than all other groups; this is probably because of more involvement of CDMs and better overall knowledge regarding OTA. However, there can also be a chance of partialness associated with their opinion if the opinions of others are not considered. The dimension-wise opinion indicates that present decision-makers have a significant difference in opinion on “Architectural and Aesthetic Value” and “Socio-cultural Value.” While evaluating the OTA, LSs and TWs showed distinct attitudes and perceptions (focused on their limited knowledge and monetary gain). The intentions of LVs and OVs who visited OTA for ritual, spiritual, or entertainment purposes were similar.
While perceptions regarding “Architectural and Aesthetic Value” of the OTA remain unchanged across the groups, there are large differences in opinion due to the direct involvement of some groups of stakeholders in the “Economic Value” and “Socio-cultural Value.”
In line with Nwachukwu et al. (2017), this study identified that the opinions of the group responsible for the current decision-making processes are significantly different from others. Furthermore, in confirming the research findings of Frías-López and Queipo-de-Llano (2020), the opinions of OVs and CDMs also differ. Following Boujdad Mkadem, Zakriti, and Nieuwenhuysen (2018, 5), this study confirms that decisions cannot be established by relying only on the opinions of one group of stakeholders, that is, the CDMs. Furthermore, the opinion or wishes of a particular group of stakeholders to preserve a particular AH cannot justify the conservation and management of other AHs. As intragroup opinions among the stakeholders were found reliable based on the ICC values, their opinions can be considered for collective decision. Hence, following Spina (2020), this research suggests a methodological approach based on a participatory process involving multicriteria analysis in a multidimensional perception, allowing the opinions of all types of stakeholders for the decision-making process. This research shows that despite having various intentions, the opinions of all stakeholders can be considered for collective decision-making regarding AHs.
Conclusion
This research aims to understand the variability among stakeholders while assessing the values of AH. First, from the literature and the current circumstances of the OTA, five different groups of stakeholders were identified. Later, qualitative parameters that required public opinion were identified and selected through the Delphi process.
As the data were not normally distributed and non-heterogeneous, it was analyzed by the nonparametric tests like the Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U test. The results show significant differences in opinions among groups of stakeholders.
Overall, this research concludes that the interests of stakeholders vary, and thus the decision of one group may not satisfy others, and conflicts may arise. Hence, this research identifies and shows the process of incorporating every group for participatory planning and socially relevant decision-making regarding AH.
The methodology of this study can be helpful not only in AH but also in other domains such as planning, architecture, history, socio-cultural study, economics, and environmental studies to identify the stakeholders and parameters for any such evaluation process and decision-making. Future studies may also incorporate the age group, gender, and educational qualifications of the stakeholders that have not been considered to understand the variation of opinions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors of this paper would like to thank the Ministry of Human Resource Department (MHRD), the Government of India, for the academic funding and the National Institute of Technology Rourkela for the infrastructural support. They would also like to thank the authorities of the Archaeological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar Chapter. Both the Central and State archaeological survey of India helped a lot in providing the major of the photographs where photography is not allowed and secondary data. Their suggestions and recommendations are highly appreciated. A special thanks go to Dr. Shri Arun Malik Sir (Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar Circle) and Dr. Aswini Satpathy Sir (Odisha State Archaeologist, Bhubaneswar) for their involvement and collaboration while preparing for the questionnaire and data collection.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
