This document presents a conceptual framework for rehabilitating the riverscapes of historical heritage cities in Malaysia. It begins with an introduction discussing the importance of urban natural landscapes and landmarks. It then discusses problems with rapid urban development damaging urban identity. The aim of the research is to develop a conceptual framework to guide the preservation of riverscapes in historical cities. The framework includes developing a theoretical foundation drawing from landmark, environmental, and perception theories. It will then outline expected social, economic, and environmental outcomes of implementing the framework. The discussion notes the importance of preserving urban heritage to maintain a sense of identity and community. The conclusion states that the conceptual framework examines new characteristics of landmarks in relation to human perception and environmental protection.

1. Title
Historical Heritage City’s Riverscape Rehabilitation
In Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework and
Expected Outcomes
a Mohammad Mir Ghasemi, b,*Arezou Shafaghat,c Hasanuddin Bin
Lamit
• aDepartment of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Built
Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, 81310,
Malaysia, mirghasemim@yahoo.com
• b Construction Research Center (CRC), Construction Research
Alliance (CRA), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, 81310,
Malaysia, b-hasanuddin@utm.my
• cCenter of Built Environment in the Malays World (KALAM), Faculty
of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor,
81310, Malaysia, arezou@um.my
Theme: Group 8 (Sociology, History and Anthropology)

2. Introduction
Urban Natural Landscape As Urban Landmark
• Urban landscape as one of the significant elements in urban development and
rehabilitation provides aesthetic, horticultural, design and environmental sustainability
that makes more meaningful contributions with cultural aspects (Conan, 2003,
Summerville and Adkins, 2007), and connection between people and the urban visual
qualities (Lynch, 1960).
• The concept of urban landscape design and environmental psychology has direct
relationship with how people understand and sense the nature, how they preserve
environment and green area, and how nature affects them (Nassauer, 1997; Kaplan,
1998, Lamit et al, 2013a).
• The urban natural landscape can be considered as urban landmark if it is gradually
modified to provide magnificent survival and deep associations with culture, religion
and economic (Kasapoğlu and Ecevit, 2004, Clerici, 2009), and historical background.
Constructing memorable urban landscape and the use of landmarks to urban
rehabilitation with appropriate and conceptual designs is the main role of landmarks
(Moughtin et al., 1995;Hopman, 2007).

3. Introduction
The Association between Urban Landscape Landmark and Sense of
Attachment
• People usually develop a physical and emotional relationships with places where have
interaction so-called place attachment. Attachment to a place has been described in
different disciplines, however, it has not been appropriately explored in urban landmark
studies (Ziaei, 2013). Landmarks are one of the physical elements of the city that can
influence the sense of place in users (Lynch, 1960), and sense of attachment.
Urban Natural Landscape As Urban Landmark
• Urban landmarks provides physically or spiritually uniqueness in terms of visibility,
impressive qualities and characteristics where has a contrast with surroundings Lynch
(1960). The urban landmarks have significant characteristics; singularity, spatial
prominence, user’s familiarity, and cultural and historic meaning (Lynch, 1960), and
prototypicality (Sorrows and Hirtle, 1999), catalyst and navigation tools, legible and
imageable city maker, and sense of place attachment creator (Lamit, 2004).

4. Introduction
• The “perception consists of experience, memory, and reaction” (Bell et al., 2011).The
perception is the psychological process that individuals can make sense of environment
(Bourassa, 1991). Any individual interprets the environment based on his/her exclusive
experiences and education by different perceptions (Bartunek 1996, Moughtin et al.,
1995).
Riverscape as an Urban Landscape Landmark
• According to history of civilization, the most of cities have been developed nearby rivers
(Maclonis et al., 1998), such as cities in Malaysia, named, Kuala Lumpur, Terengganu,
Malacca, Kuantan, Kota Bharu, and Kuching (Andaya et al., 2001).
• Indeed rivers in cities can fulfills aesthetic, place meaning, place legibility, prospects,
excitement, recreation, attractiveness, health, psycho physiological benefits, people
willingness, emotional feeling, relaxing, happy mood, leisure time.

5. Problem Statement
(Gap in research)
• Since the-industrial age, most of the cities around the world are facing some
challenges due to transformations. Majority of researchers believed that this
phenomenon is the main cause of declining urban landscape areas.
• The poor connection between rush development, urban regeneration, economic
globalization, standardized urban environment, and also lack of proper association
between urban ecosystem, local history, culture and people expectation caused of
loosing urban identity and meaning of urban landscapes (Wheeler, 2004).
Development within short
time
Pressures on cities
Serious damage
Urban area and
resources
Serious damage
Value of urban
aesthetics
Urban quality
Affect
Loosing
Familiarity
Meaning
Characteristics
Urban quality
Harmony and
Aesthetic
Krupat, 1985; Lamit, 2003

6. Problem Statement
(Need in practice)
• These rush transformations have led the urban landscape areas to be disorganized,
lacking in visual and physical coherence (Hall, 2003). Consequently, it has been
observed that the new condition is reducing urban identity due to lack of attachment
to place (Ujang, 2008), significantly, to heritage and historical places.
• Although different scopes of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors
connection have been investigated (Halpenny, 2010), a few studies have evaluated
landmark attachment in correlation to pro-environmental behaviors (Ramkissoon,
2012), and rehabilitation activities.
Context of Malaysia
Government vision
To develop and fully
industrialized
By
2020
Rush development
Fast urbanization
Changes in the
meaning
Disassociations
with the local
culture
Disassociations
with people
perception and
life style
Jabatan Perancangan Bandar and Desa (JPBD,
2005, 2006) ; Ismail et al., 2008; Hall, 2003.
Improper
physical changes
NEED
INPRACTICE

7. Aim Of Research
• According to all mentioned problems on poor associated between riverscape
attachment and pro-environmental preservation behaviors, and also, the importance
of riverscape preservation and conservation in Malaysia historical heritage cities
rehabilitation, this research is motivated to address the need of developing the
‘heritage historical city riverscape preservation and rehabilitation conceptual
framework’.
• The aim of developing this conceptual framework is to provide a mind-map solution of
riverscape preservation for Malaysia government, involved stakeholders, and public
people.

8. Research Design
• To identify the new and profound characteristics, quality and value of landmark in
terms of the link between human perception, environment protection and landmark
attachment in a natural riverscape ,it is necessary to carefully formulate the proper
framework to explain how people respond in such situation and promoting landmark
qualities.
• Regarding to sustainable environment, the concept has established as known as ‘natural
capital stock’ which is about all natural resources. Indeed this concept is all about using
natural resources in the way that protecting and preserving them for future generation
in order to have sustainable environment, social benefit and social well being (Pearce et
al., 1990;Agyeman et al. 2002, Lamit et al., 2013c).
Research Design
Phase1: To develop
historical city riverscape
preservation Conceptual
Framework
To create Theoretical
Framework for supporting
CF
Phase2: To Outline the
future Outcomes
Social
Economical
Environmental

10. Research Output
AUTHORS METHOD
RIVERSCAPE
RestorationSceneries
Riverine
Ecologicalintegrity
Riverscape
Streamecology
Rivermanagemetn
Aestheticpreference
Perception
Waterquality
Environmentalsustainability
Soilerosion
Urbanization
Landscapepattern
Landscapeprotection
Landscaperehabilitation
Environmentalmanagemetn
Landscapequality
Socialbenefit
RiverRehabilitation
Well-being/Healthiness
Recreation
Socio-economicvalue
Watertreatment
Socio-Culturalperception
Emotionalinfluence
Visualsense/Attractiveness
Preference
Anthropogenicimpacts
Riverfrontdevelopment
EnvironmentalEducation
Marineconservation
Environmentalquality
Knowledge
Pereceivednaturalness
Wetland
Cognitivestructure
Meaning/Value
PersonalandsocialValue
Importance/Satisfaction
Natural/Culturalheritage
Susanne Muhar(2008) survey map √ √ √ √ √
Ting Zhou(2013) (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission) data source √ √ √ √ √
Berit Junker(2007) photographic simulations/Questionnair √ √ √ √
Ting Zhou(2012) Experimental √ √ √ √ √
Zhaoling Zhang(2010)
use map and TM satellite image remote
sensing data
√ √ √ √ √
Xiaohui He(2011) Spot images √ √ √ √
Daniele La Rosa(2013) photo interpretation √ √
Tibor Er}os(2010) Qualitative/Literature √ √ √ √
Yves-François Le Lay(2013) Photo questionnaire √ √ √ √
HERVE´ PIE´GAY(2005) Questionnaire/Photo/Interview √ √ √ √ √ √
Jarmila Mìkotová(2006) √ √ √ √ √
E. Ulrika Åberg(2013) questionnaire surveys √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Yvonne Pflüger(2010) online photographic survey √ √ √ √
HE Sheng-Bing(2007) Experimental √ √
Anne Chin(2006) Quantitative/Survey √ √ √
Yves-François Le Lay(2007) Photo questionnaire/Observation √ √ √ √ √ √
A. Faggi(2011) Questionnaire/Interview √ √ √
M.Z. Azrina(2005) Surveys and samplings √ √ √
Azlina Binti Md(2010) Interview √ √ √
Hafizan Juahir(2010) Literature √ √
CHAN NGAI WENG(2005) Literature √ √ √ √ √ √ √
SarahMcAuliffe(2013) Questionnaire/Interview √ √ √ √ √
Ruth Panelli(2005) Literature √ √ √ √
Yves-François Le Lay(2013) Photo questionnaire √ √ √
Berit Junker(2007) Photographic simulation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Meredith Dobbie(2012) photographic surrogates/Interview √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Marylise Cottet(2013) Photo questionnaire √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Silva Larson(2013) mail-out questionnaire √ √ √
Jérôme Gandin(2012) Interview/Observation/Literature √ √ √ √ √ √ √

11. Research Output

12. Research Output
Conceptual Framework

13. Research Output
Theoretical Framework

14. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.9.1 Landmark Theory
One of the most powerful descriptions about characteristics of
landmarks in Geographic Information Science area (GIS) has
demonstrated by Sorrows and Hirtle (1999). The authors compare
similarities between real and electronic space and propose three
different feature of a landmark. These aspects are:
•Visual Prominence, which describes the visual importance of a spatial
feature
•Semantic Salience, which describes the cultural or historical
importance of the feature
•Structural Significance, which explains the role that the feature plays
in environments configuration.
1.9.2 Pro Environmental Theory
The theory that has main concept to realize the how values and moral
norms affect on pro environmental behavior is known as Value-belief-
norm (VBN) theory (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). The
theory keep saying that environmental behavior results from
personal norms (PN) in terms of acting towards pro environmental.
1.9.3 Hydrophilia Theory
“Hydrophilia” is the preference for water as a visible feature and
historically the aesthetic importance of water in the landscape was
known as early as the Mesopotamian and Egyptian gardens (Herzog,
1985).
1.9.4 Biophilia Theory:
Wilson (1984) defined Biophilia as the “innate tendency to focus
on life and life like processes”. The biophilia hypothesis declare
about human dependence on nature consist of:
•Inherent (biological based)
•Part of our species evolutionary heritage
•Associated with human competitive advantage and genetic
fitness
•Likely to increase the possibility for achieving individual
meaning and personal fulfillment
1.9.5 Landmark Identification Theories
Fundamentally an element as a landmark must show up some
exclusive characteristics in terms of size, color and function to
define an area in contrast with environment. Raubal & Winter,
2003 proposed a technique to indicate and find out landmarks
by evaluating their saliency in terms of qualities from the main
identified three points as known as visual characteristics,
semantic values and structural attraction. In addition landmarks
elements have some aspects in terms of way finding and
navigation especially visibility value (Winter, 2003; Millonig,
2007). This part will concentrates on theories of identifying
landmarks focusing on the three main aspects as known as
“structure, semantics and visibility”.
RO2
RO2
RO3
RO1
RO4

15. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1.9.6 Visual Perception Theory
The relationship between components of an environmental scene is
conceptualized as a multi dimensional concept in terms of image or
picture, and preference (Kaplan, 1982). In particular, a difference was
described between two types of properties as known as complexity or
coherence that is represent the two dimensional aspects, or picture
before one that is immediately perceive and those properties
suggested in the picture such as secret and legibility, that guide one to
assume what would be beyond element to be perceived
immediately. Because visual perception is assumed to receive only
what is immediately available from a fixed observation point, rather
than being a dynamic process (Kaplan, 1989).
1.9.7 Attachment Theory
Investigation on attachment theory has done for the first time by
Bowlby (1979, 1980), in terms of relationships between infant and
parent.He has defined attachment as “emotion-laden target–specific
bond” that could be developed between a person and a specific
person or thing (Bowlby 1979). Furthermore he has elaborated
attachment as an essential human need for security and survival. The
theory of place attachment concentrates on phenomena connected
with human and place bonding. Indeed this theory relates to the
concept of an positive bond among people or particular place as long
as they feel comfortable and safe with that (Giuliani &
Altman,1992;Moore,1994;Shumaker,1983;Williams et al.,1992).
1.9.8 Landmark Perception Theory
According to Gestalt (1990), in terms of theory
of visual perception, “landmarks are elements
with defining characteristics that are different
from their surroundings and easily recognized
or discernible from a particular station”.
Landmarks may be exactly buildings that are
different from their surroundings as well as an
element of the urban scene such as open spaces
or interesting thing such as an old clock or a
place where some special event has been
happened on it (Moughtin et al, 1999 and
Lamit,2004).R
Research Underpinning
RO1,3
RO1

16. The Sustainability outcomes of Malaysia Historical Heritage City
Riverscape Rehabilitation Conceptual Framework
implementation

17. Discussion
• One of the most significant issues is that the urban heritages should be
valued, understand and preserve for the next generations in good and
same condition to provide and recover the sense of identity and
community in urban area (Lowenthal, 1999; Steinberg, 1996; Tweed,
2007).
• Today most of these qualities have threatened, physically damaged or
even destroyed specifically less tangible elements in urban area such as
streets, people perception and activities, historical urban elements, open
spaces and urban natural texture (ICOMOS, 1987; Tauseef, 1993;
Steinberg, 1996; Tweed, 2007).
• Furthermore less tangible or intangible features are normally excluded in
the process of defining urban heritage and implementation of urban
conservation. This remarkable situation has lead to impact on
characteristics of historical cities and consequently failing of place
identity in cities (Tweed, 2007).

18. Conclusion
• This study is developed the conceptual framework on the new and profound
characteristics, quality and value of landmark in terms of the link between human
perception, environment protection and landmark attachment in a natural riverscape
in historical cities that would have positive effect on social, economical and
environmental issues.
• Thus this conceptual framework would have some positive effect such as social
benefits, economical growth and environmental quality and preservation in heritage
cities.
• Moreover these finding would be useful for those experts who has relevant affect on
Unban heritage quality such as Architects, Landscape architects, urban planner, urban
designer decision makers and etc.