How Do We Rebuild a Disaster damaged Heritage Settlement: A study of the Post- Earthquake Reconstruction of the Village of Taoping. A Traditional Qiang Settlement in Sichuan China

摘要

This research is about post-disaster reconstruction of culture heritage settlements, notudas an activity but conceptually, by addressing the question of how do we preserve audheritage settlement damaged by disaster? Underpinning that issue is a case study ofudTaoping Qiang Village. Taoping is a Qiang Minority’s traditional settlement whichudwent through a post-earthquake reconstruction from 2008 to 2011 in Sichuan, China.udIn my thesis heritage settlement is understood as “lived-in cultural heritageudsettlements”. The “lived-in” situation refers to heritage settlements which suspendsudthe natural coherence between inhabitants and dwellings. This coherence refers toudsettlements renovate and maintenance according to their needs and wills of theirudinhabitants. Which in turn are driven by their livelihoods, social practices and livingudhabitus etc. “Lived-in” heritage illustrates a state in which the protected old dwellingsudhost a present-day mode of living. “Lived-in” heritage also displays the coexistence ofudhabitation and conservation. Furthermore it implies a complicated relationshipudbetween those two actives.udTo rebuild a heritage settlement after disaster is not only to rescue the damagedudhistorical buildings but also to reestablish the homes of the inhabitants. This researchudis built on that recognition and regards the local community as a key player in theudreconstruction of heritage settlements. To understand possible behavior and reactionudof the community to the reconstruction we need to know its social context. Hence myudresearch employs “modernity” and “citizenship” in order to set up a “reference frame”.udThe extent of modernity and state of citizenship substantially impact the underlyingudattitude and reactions of the community.udI employ a three-stage investigation in the Taoping case, those of past, present, future.udPhase one covers the two uncoordinated “reconstructions” of Taoping, the officialudreconstruction and the subsequent self-restoration. The reason for the latter was theudfailure of the first to recognize the key role of the community. They focused onudrebuilding homes rather than saving heritage. In stage two I focus on theudreconstruction’s impact on the present-day life of the community. (Re)building onudagricultural land forced the local community to alter their means of livelihood, from agricultural to tourism. Hence the village of Taoping was converted from an oldudvillage into a tourist attraction, a showcase of traditional Qiang life. Consequentlyudthose activities devalued the heritage settlement. In stage three I discuss the resilienceudof the reconstructed Taoping and how they can meet natural hazards in the future. Theudmodels of testing the resilience of Taoping show that Taoping is still vulnerable toudseismic hazards and extreme-weather-caused floods and landslides.udMy study shows that the Taoping community was not to take part in the officialudreconstruction because of the top-down policymaking regime and current state ofudcitizenship, inhabiting the inhabitants to wield their rights. Livelihood shifts mayudbenefit the social modernization and enhance the community’s economic citizenship,udhowever, it neglects the development of a culture of modernity and the responsibilityudof citizenship. The fact that Taoping remains vulnerable to hazards is the consequenceudof a reconstruction that did not recognize the complexity of a “lived-in” state.udThe insights gained through this research highlight that heritage settlementudconservation after disaster inevitably have to consider the interaction betweenudhabitation and conservation. To clarify the relationship between community and theudhistorical dwellings is crucial. So is the risk assessment in order to enhance theudresilience and thus secure the future of rebuilt heritage settlement.