This research examines the role of social capital in recovering three cultural heritage sites in Kathmandu, Nepal following the 2015 earthquakes. Social capital exists in communities through bonding, bridging, and linking social networks. The study investigated existing social capital and community participation during recovery at Boudha Stupa, Swoyambhu Monastery, and Ranipokhari Pond. It found that while external resources were available, recovery was complicated without community involvement. Social capital and strong community support through traditional Guthi organizations were important for successful recovery of cultural heritage sites in Kathmandu.
2. However, recovery of damaged heritage is frequently ignored in post-disaster recovery
plans (MacKee et al., 2014).
Earthquakes on 25th April 2015 (epicentre Gorkha) and on 12th May 2015 (epicentre
Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk) occurred (Lizundia et al., 2017a). Immediately after the disaster,
the Nepal government prepared a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) report, including
sectoral damage and the amount required to repair the sectors (GoN, 2015). The PDNA report
concluded the social sector with the highest share of damage (58 per cent). This study uses a
social capital perspective to understand the recovery of cultural heritage sites.
Prior to the earthquakes, the construction technology and materials in these cultural
heritage sites required regular maintenance. However, after the earthquake, it was clear that
the lack of maintenance exacerbated damage to these structures (Bhagat et al., 2018). The
lack of resources in the regular maintenance (Chapagain, 2008) caused loss of cultural
heritage and especially in the Kathmandu Valley, which was severely damaged (Bhagat
et al., 2018). Despite the damage to these structures, recovery was essential for the renewal of
the culture. This research is focussed on the study of three cultural heritage sites in
Kathmandu Valley. This comparative study is based on the role of social capital in the
recovery process of cultural heritage sites. This study argues for the importance of
community involvement and community support during recovery. The findings from this
study also suggest that without community participation and support, reconstruction
becomes complicated despite significant external resources becoming available.
Social capital
Putnam (1993) identified that social capital reflects the features of social organization, such
as trust, norms and networks. Networking in the community is also a feature of social
capital (Sander and Lowney, 2006). These features can enhance the efficacy of society
through collective action (Putnam, 1993), including being seen as a resource embedded in the
social structure (Dynes, 2002). Social capital resources are due to formal and informal
networking in the social structure. Networks can motivate mutual benefits for the
community (Sanyal and Routray, 2016; Bourdieu, 1997). Coleman (1988) and Hean et al.
(2003) argued that social capital is a set of resources, which interact through networking.
The interaction through social networks forms bonding, bridging and linking social
capital. Bonding, bridging and linking are the representation of the connectivity with an
individual, group or community (Hawkins and Maurer, 2009). Bonding is because of
networking with strong personal ties (Garrison and Sasser, 2009). The network between
close family ties and immediate friends represent the bonding capital. In a disaster, bonding
has been seen as prominent during the immediate response phase (Mishra et al., 2017).
Bridging is because of interaction among communities and social organizations (Putnam,
2001). Bridging capital is a pathway to external assets with a broader resources
potentialities (Putnam, 2001). Bonding capital is a result of personal trust, and bridging
capital is a result of social trust (Murzyn-Kupisz and Działek, 2013). In a disaster, bridging
plays a crucial role as communities share resources and information. Linking is due to the
relationship to higher authorities (Aldrich, 2010, 2012). In a disaster, linking creates the
opportunity to seek external funding from distant authorities for the recovery (Olshansky
et al., 2012). Access to the linking capital can bring a smoother or faster recovery (Thapa and
Pathranarakul, 2019). Collectively, bonding, bridging and linking can speed up the recovery
process (Nakagawa and Shaw, 2004).
A disaster-resilient community delivers support to individuals and families through
social networking (Fitzpatrick, 2016). Community support in the recovery phase could be
one-on-one support, (bonding and bridging social capital) (Johnson et al., 2006) or through
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
45
3. the establishment of the information centres, (linking social capital) (Bredenoord and van
Lindert, 2010). The engagement of community members is crucial for community support
(CERA, 2012). It provides an opportunity to meet people with similar conditions and
enhances social cohesion. The social capital provides support for the communities for long-
term recovery (Blackman et al., 2017).
Nepal is known for having strong social capital, especially in the form of bonding and
bridging. There is an active social institution in Nepal known as Guthi. Guthi practice in
Nepal was developed as a cooperative system for community welfare (Guthi-Sansthan,
2014). Guthi practice through community organizations ensured the social networks and
communities activities in the community (Weise, 2015). As identified by Bhandari (2014):
Guthi is a social organisation that used to maintain the social order of indigenous communities in
Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. It is also a form of institutional landownership for religious and
charitable aspects in the society.
Guthi also provided community support during emergencies.
Cultural heritages
Cultural heritage buildings are the tangible reflection of the society at that time (Edson, 2004).
The World Heritage Convention described cultural heritage (IUCN, 2011) as having
“outstanding universal value”. Cultural heritage sites in the Kathmandu Valley have all of the
criteria defining “outstanding universal value”, such as unique tiered temples made from brick
with mud mortar, windows, doorways, and roof struts with extensive decorative carvings,
urban settlements, outstanding craftsmanship in brick, stone, timber and bronze (Stovel, 1994).
Heritage sites in Kathmandu have an exceptional architectural category consisting of the
places, temples and stupas (DOA, 2007). The concentration of these monuments is widely
distributed in the Kathmandu Valley (Slusser, 1982; Bue, 2011; Gray, 2011). The major
construction of the heritage sites in Kathmandu dates back between the sixth and thirteenth
centuries (Pradhan, 1996; Bonapace and Sestini, 2003). These heritage buildings are
predominantly from the influence of Hinduism and Buddhism. The Kathmandu Valley consists
of seven cultural monument zones listed as Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site. After the
earthquakes, the highest number of collapsed and damaged buildings were seen in Kathmandu
(Ahmed, 2017). In Kathmandu, the total surveyed monuments were 444. Among them, 76 were
completely collapsed, 80 were partially damaged and 277 were partly damaged (DOA, 2015).
This research is focussed on the study of the three of these sites. Two of these sites (Boudha
and Swoyambhu) are listed in UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and one (Ranipokhari) is in
central Kathmandu with important religious and cultural values.
Recovery
Post-disaster recovery is a complex phase, which starts immediately after the disaster (Platt,
2017). Recovery includes the reconstruction to the pre-disaster state or to a higher pre-
disaster state. If restoration after the disaster is to the pre-disaster condition, the buildings
are not sufficiently well protected from future hazards, hence the introduction of building
back better or re-building more resilient structures (Lyons, 2009). Community involvement
and community support during the recovery have been seen to enhance rebuilding resilience
as the community are able to be actively involved in the rebuilding process (Mannakkara
and Wilkinson, 2015). Social support and participation are pivotal in the creation of a
disaster-resilient community where participation offers networks of help and support during
the emergency (Norris et al., 2008).
IJDRBE
11,1
46
4. Community involvement and community support
The role of community involvement can be significant during recovery. Community
involvement helps to identify the requirements of the community (Murphy, 2007; Batteate,
2006), and is an opportunity for the community to address their actual requirements (Ward
et al., 2008). Community involvement helps to identify the challenges for reconstruction
(Barakat, 2003; Barenstein, 2008; Lawther, 2009; Bhandari, 2014) overcoming the pre-disaster
vulnerabilities. Community involvement is a critical component of public influence for the
resilience-building after a disaster (Gabler et al., 2017). Higher participation of the community
provides transparency in recovery (Baradan, 2006). Conversely, a lower level of community
participation creates difficulty in the recovery plans implementation (Chandrasekhar, 2012).
During recovery, residents can identify the goals, control available resources, and lead the
redevelopment with long term socio-economic benefits (Berke et al., 1993).
The PDNA after the earthquake in Nepal created a post-disaster recovery framework
mostly prepared without community consultation (Aryal et al., 2019). The disaster recovery
practice in Nepal was supply-driven rather than the participatory (Kadel, 2011). The disaster-
affected communities were supplied with enough foods where the transportation access was
easy. However, their priority of rebuilding houses and cultural heritage were overlooked. This
was due to failure to participate community after the needs assessment. Lam and Kuipers
(2019) identified that there was very low community participation in Nepal recovery.
Understanding of local requirements during the reconstruction of cultural heritage sites
is essential (Omidvar et al., 2010). There is a different understanding of the cultural value of
the heritage through local and experts’ view (Kerr, 2000). These different views often caused
conflict in the recovery as priorities are different between agencies and communities.
Community participation during the recovery of cultural heritage sites is pivotal in
resolving these conflicts (Sirisrisak, 2009). However, community participation in the post-
disaster recovery of cultural heritage is little understood.
After the Nepal earthquake, a survey was conducted to identify disaster victim’s needs
(GoN, 2015). The Nepal Government granted funds to support individual disaster-affected
families (Aryal et al., 2019). In Nepal, the community support in the heritage recovery was
through UNESCO and the Department of Archaeology (DoA) (Lekakis et al., 2018). The role
of Guthi was pivotal in community support.
Study areas
The three study areas are in three locations of the Kathmandu Valley, as shown in Figure 1.
Ranipokhari is in the central Kathmandu, whereas the Boudha is in the eastern corner and
Swoyambhu is in the western corner of Kathmandu. Although Boudha and Swoyambhu are
with the architecture style influenced by Buddhism, the recovery pattern of these two heritages
are not identical. However, the Ranipokhari is a pond with a small temple in the middle.
Boudha
Boudha is located at around 5km north-eastern side of central Kathmandu. The Boudha is
regarded as one of the biggest stupas (Nepalnews, 2000; Pradhan, 1996). Although this stupa is
significant from the Buddhist religion, the Hindus also consider it as their holy place (Tiwari,
2016). This cultural heritage site has been listed as World Heritage Sites since 1976. This stupa
was built in the sixth century AD (Pradhan, 1996). After the 2015 earthquake, the damage was
observed in the stupa. Parts above the dome were damaged. However, after a year and a half,
the reconstruction of this structure was completed. In November 2016, a worshipping ceremony
known as purification and consecration ceremony was held. On the same day, the formal
announcement for the general use of this stupa was restarted (SBDAC, 2018).
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
47
5. Swoyambhu
This World Heritage Site is located two km west of central Kathmandu. The
Swoyambhunath (commonly known as Swoyambhu) is famous as a monkey temple,
because of the abundant presence of the monkeys around the temple. The exact construction
date is unclear (Pradhan, 1996). Like other cultural heritages in Kathmandu, this cultural
heritage was listed as a World Heritage Site since 1976 (Pradhan, 1996). There was a total of
22 damaged buildings at this site. By 2019, of these buildings, 16 were reconstructed, and
three are near completion. Two of the buildings are under construction and the budget is
allocated for the remaining building, as of February 2019 (DOA, 2019).
Ranipokhari
This pond is located at the centre of Kathmandu. This pond was constructed in 1727
(TUTA, 2012). Ranipokhari is a rectangular pond with a temple at the centre of it. This
temple is called Dathudega (also known as Balgopaleshwor) with the dedication to Lord
Shiva (a Hindu deity). This sacred pond consists of holy water from fifty-one different rivers
and ponds (Dhaubanjar, 2014). The pond is culturally important as it is where many
different festivals are celebrated. The earthquake damaged the temple, and the water was
drained out. By 2016, reconstruction was unclear as there was a series of disputes with the
stakeholders (Post, 2016). The use of concrete in the reconstruction of this heritage was of
concern. The Kathmandu municipality started reconstruction without consultation with the
stakeholders. However, a huge amount of money is already spent in this heritage
(Onlinekhabar, 2019). The regular protest from historians and stakeholders forced the
authorities to remove the concrete and reconstruct with traditional construction materials. In
2016 UNESCO expressed its concern regarding the rebuilding of this site. UNESCO stressed
the importance of originality and community involvement in the rebuilding (UNESCO,
2016). By 2019 after the concern from UNESCO, the rebuilding process stopped, and the
reconstruction is going to start soon.
Figure 1.
Study areas
IJDRBE
11,1
48
6. Methodology
The aim of this study is to understand the role of social capital in the recovery process of the
three cultural heritage sites. The Boudha and Swoyambhu were from World Heritage Sites,
with an international attraction. However, Ranipokhari is culturally significant for the
residents of the vicinity. The researcher visited these three sites in December 2018 to
conduct the research. The Boudha and Swoyambhu were reconstructed. In Ranipokhari, as
per local news, a substantial amount of funds was already invested. However, the
reconstruction had not started. The three sites had different methods of reconstruction.
The Boudha was reconstructed with public funds without government intervention. The
Swoyambhu was rebuilt by a joint effort from the government and the public. However, the
Ranipokhari reconstruction was being rebuilt by the government with no public
participation. The research examined the three different methods of reconstruction for this
paper, with a particular focus on public involvement and participation in the rebuilding. One
hundred participants from each site were recorded and analysed. All 300 participants were
approached at the heritage sites. The questionnaire survey is carried out after the University
of Auckland, ethics reference number 019444. Data collection was based on snowball
sampling. The identification of each respondent assisted the next respondent. The purpose
of the survey was to conduct a questionnaire with disaster-survivors. Therefore, this study
is based on purposive sampling. All the participants were the disaster survivors. Each
participant was approached in and around the sites. The survey was carried out at various
times of the days for ten days, starting from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., daily. The survey was
carried out in December 2018.
Discussion of the survey
A total of 300 participants across the three sites took the questionnaire survey. Among the
participants, in Boudha (38 per cent) and Swoyambhu (37 per cent) had the highest number of
traders than Ranipokhari (6 per cent). However, many of the residents were from Ranipokhari
(91 per cent), followed by Swoyambhu (42 per cent) and Boudha (28 per cent). The result shows
that in the Ranipokhari it is part of community living, whereas Swoyambhu and Boudha were
where business was conducted. Only one government official participated and provided a
valuable insight into the government’s role working with the public:
I was part of the government team for reconstruction monitoring. We were all given training for
supervision work [. . .] I am satisfied with the reconstruction. The redevelopment was not with a
massive effort from government, rather from the public. There was public participation, too, and
there were no protests during reconstruction.
The rest of the participants were able to provide comment on community support and their
involvement. Figure 2 shows that the highest representation of residents was from
Ranipokhari (91 per cent). This pond is surrounded by residential areas. However, in the
other two sites, the highest respondents were the local traders. The Boudha and
Swoyambhu are tourist places and of economic importance.
A better understanding of the role of social capital is through the study of community
and social capital. Social capital provides a lens under which we can view how the
communities work together to achieve recovery and reconstruction. There were questions
asked of participants to understand the application of social capital is in the form of
bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding and bridging capital were observed from all three
sites. A participant from Ranipokhari said “I regularly visit my parents. After the
earthquake, the visits are more frequent. I am more worried about them than before”.
The result also indicated higher bonding capital with immediate family members. All the
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
49
7. participants from all three study areas agreed on the excellent relationship with
neighbouring communities, adequate support from the nearby communities and the active
participation of the Guthi. The participants from Swoyambhu and Ranipokhari indicated the
neighbouring communities were helpful but were no able to bring external resources for the
reconstruction because they did not have sufficient access to external resources themselves.
A participant from Swoyambhu said “Our neighbouring communities [. . .] regularly
advised for better recovery. However, they were not efficient in bringing additional
resources to assist in our recovery”. However, in Boudha the situation was different, one
participant said “Our neighbouring communities helped us in securing additional funding
required during reconstruction. We did not receive government funding”. The results from
Boudha showed higher bridging capital. In the Swoyambhu reconstruction, the government
fund was a significant source of the restoration. A participant from Ranipokhari said:
The government has already spent a significant amount in the reconstruction of Ranipokhari.
However, they do not consider the locals. How can you reconstruct without consensus from the
future users of this heritage?
In the Ranipokhari, the reconstruction has recently begun. The government already spent
money to assist with the recovery but they lacked a way of incorporating public
involvement.
What did the participants think about the reconstruction? The responses showed that 86
per cent from Boudha and 71 per cent from Swoyambhu were satisfied with the restoration.
However, only 2 per cent of the Ranipokhari indicated they were satisfied, but 97 per cent
said they are not satisfied with the reconstruction process. A participant from Ranipokhari
said: “No one is interested in reconstruction, and people have different views. It is still in the
same condition as it was after the disasters”. The results show that there are differences in
recovery, and in Ranipokhari, in particular, recovery is not going very well.
The further understanding of community involvement was a prominent aspect of this
study. The participants were asked a series of questions to test the level of community
participation in the reconstruction. The participants were asked if they were directly
involved in the reconstruction. The result showed that 21 per cent from Boudha and 6 per
cent from Swoyambhu were directly involved in the reconstruction. However, all of the
participants from Ranipokhari said they were not involved in the reconstruction. They were
further asked how they were involved in the recovery. A participant from Boudha said: “Yes
I was involved during reconstruction. I am a long-serving member of the committee. I was
Figure 2.
Participants’ category
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Trader Local resident Reconstrucon
team mamber
inspecon
team member
Development
commiee
Visitor government
official
Boudha Swoyambhu Ranipokhari
IJDRBE
11,1
50
8. one of the members who took care of public fund collection”. Also, a participant from
Swoyambhu said: “I provided suggestions during the reconstruction”. However, a
participant from Ranipokhari noted that:
I was born here. I am living here for the last 35 years. However, since the last four years, we are not
able to worship inside Ranipokhari’s temple. I don’t know why we were not included during recovery.
Community understanding of the recovery plans is vital for community participation. The
results show that there was much misunderstanding of recovery plans. For instance, more
than half (58 per cent) of the participants from the Ranipokhari did not understand the
recovery plans. Only 28 per cent from Boudha admitted they understood the recovery plans.
In the Swoyambhu area, 14 per cent of the participants understood the recovery plans. A
participant from Ranipokhari said that “I do not think there were proper recovery plans for
Ranipokhari. Immediate reconstruction using concrete was started and later stopped [. . .]
We are unaware of any recovery plans”.
Another significant role of community involvement is public participatory programmes.
A question was asked to understand public participation. Only one participant from
Ranipokhari agreed there was public participation. While, 34 per cent from Boudha and 79
per cent from Swoyambhu agreed that there was public participation during the
reconstruction. A participant from Boudha said:
Our community was very active in reconstruction. We tried to participate in any way we can.
Some of us served in the development committee, some of us in reconstruction works as a worker,
and some of us as the fund collection team. However, we did not wait for government assistance.
We are proud to reconstruct with our initiative from the community.
There was a very different situation in Ranipokhari, where one of the participants from
Ranipokhari said:
Sometimes they call for the meeting to discuss the reconstruction, but later they said the
reconstruction is stopped due to archaeologists. However, reconstruction work has started several
times. The concrete walls were already constructed, and now they are going to demolish them.
The result demonstrated that community involvement was higher in Boudha and
Swoyambhu but not very effective in Ranipokhari.
The influence of the public is also another important part of community participation.
Participants were asked to what extent they felt they had any influence in the reconstruction
of heritage buildings. Among the participants, 9 per cent from Ranipokhari, 25 per cent from
Boudha, and 32 per cent from Swoyambhu believed they had some form of influence in the
reconstruction. A participant from Boudha believed that:
We have a considerable interest to reconstruct this heritage site. It would have damaged the look
of our community and country if it had not been reconstructed. We intervened to reconstruct our
identity. We protested, and the government started the reconstruction work. Boudha is one of the
heritage sites. Boudha acts as a source of income for many locals.
A participant from Ranipokhari said:
I used to worship at the temple. I have a business near this pond. The traditional look of the
temple was about to change. We collectively protested, and the reconstruction is going to start as
a traditional method. However, we do not know when.
Also, a participant from Swoyambhu said:
We were involved in the cleanliness and construction of the road and temple. Also, we were here
during the reconstruction to make sure the reconstruction is done as it was in the past.
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
51
9. Collective action to ensure that heritage buildings were built to traditional standards was
evident in the study.
Community support during the reconstruction programme is understood through several
questions to the participants. The participants were asked if there were workshops for the
public regarding the reconstruction programmes. The results show that 69 per cent of the
participants from Boudha attended public workshops; however, in Ranipokhari and
Swoyambhu, 97 per cent of the participants said there were no workshops available. Many
participants from all three areas (94 per cent from Boudha, 98 per cent from Ranipokhari and
97 per cent from Swoyambhu) indicated there was no training regarding the reconstruction.
The use of local material in the reconstruction is also an important aspect of community
reconstruction. The use of local material enhances the local economy. In Boudha 65 per cent,
Ranipokhari 79 per cent, and in Swoyambhu 26 per cent, agreed the reconstruction was with
locally available materials. A participant from Ranipokhari said:
The Kathmandu Municipality wanted to construct this pond and the temple with a concrete
structure. We protested along with some archaeologists and social activists. Finally, the
reconstruction will now begin with the local materials.
A participant from Boudha said: “The use of concrete in the reconstruction was unpleasant [...]
to complete the reconstruction fast, there were also some foreign materials used. However, the
majority of the materials were locally available”. The result also suggested that with public
consensus, foreign materials were accepted in Boudha. However, the locally available materials
were of priority. In Ranipokhari, the reconstruction was started with concrete construction but
after public movement, the local materials were deployed.
Discussion
The importance of community involvement (Bhandari, 2014) in the recovery is
advantageous (Barakat, 2003; Barenstein, 2008; Lawther, 2009). In Kathmandu, community
involvement in the recovery is evident, as shown from the three case studies. The results
indicate that community involvement in the early phase of recovery plan formulation could
enhance recovery. Despite the substantial amount of resources spent in the reconstruction of
Ranipokhari (Onlinekhabar, 2019), reconstruction is slow primarily due to the lack of
community involvement or invited community participation. Mannakkara and Wilkinson
(2015) identified the importance of community involvement and support during recovery.
This research also suggests that there is a need for better community involvement. Social
support and participation are pivotal in the creation of disaster-resilient communities (Norris
et al., 2008). The results from Ranipokhari showed little community involved in the
reconstruction. However, for the rebuilding of Swoyambhu, the government-funded the
project and worked more closely with the community and had a better outcome. In Boudha,
community involvement without government funding completed the reconstruction with
the results showing that even without external resources, a community could successfully
rebuild. The results from these three studies suggested that the central part of rebuilding is
community. Resourcing during reconstruction is indispensable. However, without
community involvement even substantial resource could not deliver successful recovery.
Chandrasekhar (2012) argued that lower community participation creates difficulty in
recovery plan implementation. The failure of community inclusion is believed to impede the
recovery. Without active involvement, the community is disconnected from the recovery
process. The lowest involvement in the study, in Ranipokhari, correlates with disconnection
from the recovery. Gabler et al. (2017) identified that public influence after a disaster could
be beneficial in creating resilience. The case from Boudha showed strong public influence
IJDRBE
11,1
52
10. and a quicker recovery. However, even though there was a significant public influence in
Ranipokhari, there was also a failure to drive recovery. In Boudha, the public influence was
enhanced by involvement in recovery. However, in Ranipokhari, the public influence was
without involvement in recovery. The result suggested that the communities needed to
involve in the recovery. Retaining traditional cultural heritage was important for the people
in Kathmandu. Ranipokhari showed that community members strongly opposed
reconstruction because reconstruction started without the consideration of traditional style.
This research demonstrates that if the public are involved and supported, recovery is
better. The recovery of Boudha reflected the importance of the community supports each
other in the recovery. The restoration of Boudha was important for the livelihood of the
community. The business activities around the Boudha were interrupted due to the disaster
impact. However, the community-supported each-other and reconstructed the Boudha.
Subsequently, business activities re-started.
Social capital provides support for communities during long-term recovery (Blackman
et al., 2017). During the reconstruction, assistance from social networks, which deliver
support to recovery is required (Fitzpatrick, 2016).
Aldrich (2012) suggested that good bonding, bridging, and linking capitals can bring a
better recovery. However, this research shows that the restoration of cultural heritage requires
more than existing social capital. Mishra et al. (2017) identified bonding capital as prominent
during the immediate response phase. The study areas showed strong ties, which served the
communities well during the response phase. Bonding capital was useful in collecting the fund
for the reconstruction of Boudha. Putnam (2001) indicated the bridging capital as a pathway to
external assets. The three study areas provided similar levels of bridging capital.
In Kathmandu, bridging capital with community participation is found in the form of
Guthi. The Guthi ensured the social networks and communities’ activities in the community.
Active participation and support from Guthi were evident. During recovery, additional
resources are required (Olshansky et al., 2012), and the linking capital can bring these
resources (Thapa and Pathranarakul, 2019; Aldrich, 2010). However, in Ranipokhari
substantial amount of external resources were evident (Onlinekhabar, 2019) but the recovery
is still delayed. It is evident from the case study of these three heritage sites that there is a
crucial role of social capital in the recovery. Social capital has been shown to be reinforced
through community participation and community support.
Conclusion
Despite similar bridging, bonding and linking social capital, the recovery patterns across the
three study areas were not the same. The study suggested that despite similar social capitals,
variation in community involvement and community support can alter recovery outcomes. The
recreation of social networks in the post-disaster era enhances the recovery process. However,
community involvement is critical. Cultural heritage is part of daily activities for the
community members and the restoration of heritage sites without the active community
involvement can produce lost historical value. This research demonstrated that the community
involvement is critical to the reconstruction and maintenance of cultural heritage.
References
Ahmed, I. (2017), “Community, heritage and social capital: informal heritage management in old
Dhaka”, Open House International, Vol. 42, pp. 65-72.
Aldrich, D.P. (2010), “Fixing recovery: social capital in post-crisis resilience”, Journal of Homeland
Security, Forthcoming.
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
53
11. Aldrich, D.P. (2012), Building Resilience: Social Capital in Post-Disaster Recovery, University of Chicago Press.
Aryal, A., Wilkinson, S. and Chang-Richards, A. (2019), “Community participation to build back better: evidence
from the 2015 Nepal earthquakes”, in Asgary, A. (Ed.), Resettlement Challenges for Displaced Populations
and Refugees, Springer International Publishing, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92498-4_13.
Baradan, B. (2006), “Analysis of the post-disaster reconstruction process following Turkish
earthquakes, 1999”, International Conference on Post-Disaster Reconstruction Meeting
Stakeholder Interests. University de Montreal, Florence, Citeseer.
Barakat, S. (2003), “Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster”, Humanitarian Policy Group,
Network Papers, Vol. 43, pp. 1-40.
Barenstein, D. (2008), “From Gujarat to Tamil Nadu: Owner driven vs. contractor driven housing re-
construction in India”, 4th International i-REC Conference on Building Resilience: achieving
effective post-disaster reconstruction, 30 April-2 May 2008, Christchurch.
Batteate, C. (2006), “Urban disaster risk reduction and regeneration planning: an overview”, Focus,
Vol. 3, pp. 11-17.
Berke, P.R., Kartez, J. and Wenger, D. (1993), “Recovery after disaster: achieving sustainable development,
mitigation and equity”, Disasters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 93-109, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7717.1993.tb01137.x.
Bevan, R. (2016), The Destruction of Memory: Architecture at War – Second Expanded Edition,
Reaktion Books.
Bhagat, S., Samith Buddika, H.A.D., Kumar Adhikari, R., Shrestha, A., Bajracharya, S., Joshi, R., Singh,
J., Maharjan, R. and Wijeyewickrema, A.C. (2018), “Damage to cultural heritage structures and
buildings due to the 2015 Nepal Gorkha earthquake”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 22
No. 10, pp. 1861-1880, doi: 10.1080/13632469.2017.1309608.
Bhandari, R.B. (2014), “Social capital in disaster risk management; a case study of social capital
mobilization following the 1934 Kathmandu valley earthquake in Nepal”, Disaster Prevention and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 314-328, doi: 10.1108/DPM-06-2013-0105.
Blackman, D., Nakanishi, H. and Benson, A.M. (2017), “Disaster resilience as a complex problem: why
linearity is not applicable for long-term recovery”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 121, pp. 89-98, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.018.
Bonapace, C. and Sestini, V. (2003), Traditional Materials and Construction Technologies Used in the
Kathmandu Valley, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Paris.
Bourdieu, P. (1997), “The forms of capital”, in Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H., Brown, P. and Wells, A.S. (Eds),
Education-Culture, Economy, and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bredenoord, J. and Van Lindert, P. (2010), “Pro-poor housing policies: rethinking the potential of
assisted self-help housing”, Habitat International, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 278-287, doi: 10.1016/j.
habitatint.2009.12.001.
Bue, E.F.L. (2011), Buddhist Art and Architecture in Nepal, Oxford University Press.
Byrne, D. (1991), “Western hegemony in archaeological heritage management”, History and
Anthropology, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 269-276, doi: 10.1080/02757206.1991.9960815.
CERA (2012), Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch, Cantebury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(CERA), Christchurch.
Chandrasekhar, D. (2012), “Digging deeper: participation and non-participation in post-disaster community
recovery”, Community Development, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 614-629, doi: 10.1080/15575330.2012.730538.
Chapagain, N.K. (2008), “Heritage conservation in Nepal: policies, stakeholders and challenges”.
Cleere, H. (2011), Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, Routledge.
Coleman, J.S. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 94, pp. S95-S120, doi: 10.1086/228943.
Dewi, C. (2017), “Rethinking architectural heritage conservation in post-disaster context”, International
Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 587-600, doi: 10.1080/13527258.2017.1300927.
IJDRBE
11,1
54
12. Dhaubanjar, G. (2014), “Ranipokhari: a national heritage of Nepal”, Ancient Nepal, Vol. 186, pp. 1-8.
DOA (2007), Integrated Management Framework, Department of Archaeology, Government of Nepal,
Kathmandu.
DOA (2015), Preliminary List of Affected by the Earthquake on April, 25, 2015, [April 25, 2015 ed.
Department of Archeology, Kathmandu.
DOA (2019), Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site (Nepal) (c 121 BIS) 1 February 2019, Government of
Nepal Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation Department of Archaeology, Kathmandu.
Dynes, R.R. (2002), “The importance of social capital in disaster response”, Disaster Reseach Center Paper.
Edson, G. (2004), “Heritage: pride or passion, product or service? ”, International Journal of Heritage
Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 333-348, doi: 10.1080/1352725042000257366.
Fitzpatrick, T. (2016), “3 - Community disaster resilience”, in Clements, B.W. and Casani, J.A.P. (Eds),
Disasters and Public Health, 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heinemann.
Garrison, M.B. and Sasser, D.D. (2009), “Families and disasters: making meaning out of adversity”,
Lifespan Perspectives on Natural Disasters, Springer.
Gabler, C.B., Richey, R.G. and Stewart, G.T. (2017), “Disaster resilience through public–private short-
term collaboration”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 130-144.
Gatti, M.P. (2018), “Maintenance, reconstruction and prevention for the regeneration of historic towns
and centers”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 9,
pp. 96-111, doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-10-2016-0043.
GON (2015), PDNA (Post Disaster Needs Assessment), National Planning Commission, Kathmandu.
Graham, B., Ashworth, G.J. and Tunbridge, J.E. (2000), A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture and
Economy, Arnold.
Gray, J. (2011), “Architecture and architechn
e: building and revealing in high-caste nepalese houses”, South
Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 89-112, doi: 10.1080/00856401.2011.549086.
Guthi-Sansthan (2014), “Guthi Sansthan [online]”, Guthi Sansthan nepal, Kathmandu, available: www.
guthisansthan.org.np/eng/ (accessed 23 April 2019).
Hawkins, R.L. and Maurer, K. (2009), “Bonding, bridging and linking: how social capital operated in
new orleans following hurricane Katrina”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol. 40 No. 6,
pp. 1777-1793, doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp087.
Hean, S., Cowley, S., Forbes, A., Griffiths, P. and Maben, J. (2003), “The M–C–M0
cycle and social capital”,
Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 56, pp. 1061-1072, doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00103-X..
IUCN (2011), IUCN Evaluation of World Heritage Nominations Guidance for Desktop Reviewers, World
Heritage Centre.
Johnson, C., Lizarralde, G. and Davidson, C.H. (2006), “A systems view of temporary housing projects in
post-disaster reconstruction”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 367-378,
doi: 10.1080/01446190600567977.
Jokilehto, J. (2007), History of Architectural Conservation, Taylor and Francis.
Kadel, M. (2011), Community Participation in Disaster Preparedness Planning: A Comparative Study of
Nepal and Japan, Asian Disaster Reduction Center Final Report.
Kerr, A. (2000), “Public participation in cultural resource management: a Canadian perspective”,
Patrimonio y Conservaci
on. Arqueología. XII Asamblea General Del ICOMOS
Lam, L.M. and Kuipers, R. (2019), “Resilience and disaster governance: some insights from the 2015
Nepal earthquake”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 33, pp. 321-331, doi:
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.10.017.
Lawther, P.M. (2009), “Community involvement in post disaster re-construction-case study of the
British red cross Maldives recovery program”, International Journal of Strategic Property
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 153-169, doi: 10.3846/1648-715X.2009.13.153-169.
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
55
13. Lekakis, S., Shakya, S. and Kostakis, V. (2018), “Bringing the community back: a case study of the post-
earthquake heritage restoration in Kathmandu valley”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 8, p. 2798, doi:
10.3390/su10082798.
Lizundia, B., Davidson, R.A., Hashash, Y.M. and Olshansky, R. (2017a), “Overview of the 2015 Gorkha,
Nepal, earthquake and the earthquake spectra special issue”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. S1-S20, doi: 10.1193/120817EQS252M.
Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to
reconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 385-398, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.01.006.
Mackee, J., Haugen Askland, H. and Askew, L. (2014), “Recovering cultural built heritage after natural
disasters: a resilience perspective”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built
Environment, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 202-212, doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-09-2012-0032.
Mahdi, S. (2012), “Factors determining the movements of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Aceh”,
in Reid, A.J.S., Daly, P. and Feener, R.M. (Eds), From the Ground up: Perspectives on Post-
Tsunami and Post-Conflict Aceh, ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute.
Mannakkara, S. and Wilkinson, S.J. (2015), “Supporting post-disaster social recovery to build back
better”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 126-139, doi: 10.1108/IJDRBE-06-2013-0019.
Mishra, A., Ghate, R., Maharjan, A., Gurung, J., Pathak, G. and Upraity, A.N. (2017), “Building ex ante
resilience of disaster-exposed mountain communities: drawing insights from the Nepal
earthquake recovery”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Vol. 22, pp. 167-178, doi:
10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.03.008.
Murphy, B.L. (2007), “Locating social capital in resilient community-level emergency management”,
Natural Hazards, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 297-315, doi: 10.1007/s11069-006-9037-6.
Murzyn-Kupisz, M. and Działek, J. (2013), “Cultural heritage in building and enhancing social capital”,
Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 35-54,
doi: 10.1108/20441261311317392.
Nakagawa, Y. and Shaw, R. (2004), “Social capital: a missing link to disaster recovery”, International
Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, Vol. 22, pp. 5-34.
Nepalnews (2000), “Fables of Boudhanath and Changunarayan”, Vol. 10, available at: https://web.archive.
org/web/20070209001048/, www.nepalnews.com.np/contents/englishweekly/independent/11-09/
tourism.htm (accessed 14 April 2019).
Norris, F.H., Stevens, S.P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K.F. and Pfefferbaum, R.L. (2008), “Community
resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness”, American
Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 127-150.
Olshansky, R.B., Hopkins, L.D. and Johnson, L.A. (2012), “Disaster and recovery: processes compressed
in time”, Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 173-178.
Omidvar, B., Zafari, H. and Derakhshan, S. (2010), “Reconstruction management policies in residential and
commercial sectors after the 2003 bam earthquake in Iran”, Natural Hazards, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 289-306.
Onlinekhabar (2019), “Rs 1.6 million needed to remove concrete structures from ranipokhari”,
Onlinekhabar, (accessed 12 April 2019).
Platt, S. (2017), “Factors affecting the speed and quality of post-disaster recovery and resilience”,
International Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Springer, pp.
369-403.
Post, K. (2016), Unesco Concerned about Inappropriate Rebuilding of Ranipokhari, The Kathmandu Post
(accessed 1 September 2016).
Pradhan, R. (1996), “Historical background of the Kathmandu world heritage sites with special
reference to Patan monument zone”, Prachin Nepal, Vol. 139, pp. 49-59.
Putnam, R.D. (1993), Making Democracy Work: civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University
Press c1993, Princeton.
IJDRBE
11,1
56
14. Putnam, R.D. (2001), Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster.
Samuels, A. (2010), Remaking Neighbourhoods in Banda Aceh: Post-Tsunami Reconstruction of
Everyday Life, Earthscan.
Sander, T. and Lowney, K. (2006), Social Capital Building Toolkit (Version 1.2), Harvard University,
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge.
Sanyal, S. and Routray, J.K. (2016), “Social capital for disaster risk reduction and management with
empirical evidences from Sundarbans of India”, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
Vol. 19, pp. 101-111.
SBDAC (2018), Purification and Consecration Ceremony of Boudha Stupa, [Online] Shree Boudhanath
Area Development Committee, kathmandu. (accessed 18 April 2019).
Sirisrisak, T. (2009), “Conservation of Bangkok old town”, Habitat International, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 405-411.
Slusser, M.S. (1982), Nepal Mandala: A Cultural Study of the Kathmandu Valley, Princeton University Press.
Stovel, H. (1994), “Inscription of the kathmandu valley on the world heritage list (1979)”, ICOMOS
International Wood Committee (IIWC) – 8th International Symposium, 23-25 November 1992,
1994 IIWC, TAPIR FORLAG, Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur.
Thapa, V. and Pathranarakul, P. (2019), “Gender inclusiveness in disaster risk governance for
sustainable recovery of 2015 gorkha earthquake, Nepal”, International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, Vol. 34, pp. 209-219.
Tiwari, S.R. (2016), “B. arch. third year/first part: history of nepalese architecture [online]”, Kathmandu.
available: www.kailashkut.com/index.php/2016/05/16/b-arch-third-yearfirst-part-history-of-nepalese-
architecture/ (accessed 18 April 2019).
TUTA (2012), Historical and Environmental Study of Rani Pokhari, Tribhuvan University Teachers’
Association, Kathmandu.
UNESCO (2016), “Press release: UNESCO very concerned about inappropriate rebuilding of historic
structures”, in Particular Ranipokhari Kathmandu: UNESCO, UNESCO, Kathmandu.
Ward, J., Becker, J. and Jonhnston, D.M. (2008), Community Participation in Recovery Planning: A Case
Study from the 1998 Ohura Flood, GNS Science.
Weise, K. (2015), “The discussion on community involvement”, in Weise, K. (Ed.), Revisiting
Kathmandu Safeguarding Living Urban Heritage, UNESCO, Kathmandu.
Corresponding author
April Aryal can be contacted at: aary953@aucklanduni.ac.nz
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Recovery of
cultural built
heritage
57
