PEOPLE’S PARTICIPATION IN THE PRESERVATION OFTHAI ARCHITECTURE IN RATANAKOSIN ISLANDs AREA

Abstract

           The objectives of this study were twofold : (1) to investigate the people’s participation in the preservation of Thai architecture in the Ratanakosin Island area, and (2) to determine the problems and obstacles relating to the people’s participation in preserving Thai architecture in the  Ratanakosin Island area. The study was qualitative in character. The sample consisted of 17 key informants; the key informants included people of high caliber. That was to say, they were topflight policy makers, high-ranking officers, and experts; and they all had deep knowledge and understanding as well as a lot of experience with the preservation of Thai architecture. The in-depth interviews were conducted with these key informants. The collected data were analyzed by dint of content analysis. The data analysis has brought to light the following facts :

              1) On people’s participation in the preservation of Thai architecture in the Ratanakosin Island area, it can be summarized as follows : (1) The number of people taking part in the preservation of Thai architecture in the Ratanakosin Island area was on the increase as compared with their participation in the past. It was so in large measure because they had better knowledge and understanding of the great value of Thai architecture. Furthermore, the Thai Constitution has an act that grants rights to Thai citizens and community members with respect to the management and surveillance of architectural objects or artifacts. This also enabled the people to take part in the preservation of Thai architecture to a much greater extent. (2) As regards the promotion and support from the governmental agencies as far as the preservation of Thai architecture was concerned, in a nutshell, the following points could be made. Various governmental agencies provided support in various ways. For instance, they allocated budgets for use in the preservation of Thai architecture, and they provided personnel or experts with a view to helping the people learn how to preserve Thai architecture and how to organize activities relative to the Thai architecture preservation. More importantly, the governmental agencies concerned made great efforts to urge people to participate in surveillance and protection of Thai cultural and architectural heritages. (3) The private sector’s participation and support concerning the preservation of Thai architecture, the private sector played an important part in the preservation of Thai architecture. This clearly indicated that the people in the private sector had social responsibilities to a certain degree. Realizing the important role played by business organizations, the Government adopted some incentive policy in such a way that the income tax reduction for business people was enforced. In other words, business people who made financial contribution to the preservation of Thai architecture were permitted to have income tax reduction. (4) With respect to the knowledge and understanding of people as to the preservation of Thai architecture, governmental agencies concerned made attempts to keep people constantly well-informed about the preservation of Thai architecture. Armed with deep knowledge and understanding of the Thai architecture preservation, the people came to realize the value of the preservation. Consequently, they were strongly committed to protect the architectural heritage for the benefit of posterity.

           2) On problems and obstacles pertaining to the people’s participation in the preservation of Thai architecture, the following facts have been discovered. (1) Some groups of people failed to appreciate the Thai architecture preservation (2) Comparatively speaking, people participation in the preservation were far from adequate. (3) The budgets from the Government were limited (4) The destruction of the Thai architecture by human beings and nature is now present. (5) Governmental agency authorities were somewhat negligent in paying attention to the people’s opinions or ideas about the Thai architecture preservation. And (6) The Government’s human resources responsible for the preservation of Thai architecture were inadequate.