Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management 2014, 4(2), 60-73 Local Cultural Heritage Sites and Spatial Planning for the Bantik Ethnic Community in Indonesia Pingkan Peggy Egam 1 and Nobuo Mishima 2 1 Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, 1, Honjou-Machi, Saga City, 840- 8502, Japan, Lecturer at Sam Ratulangi University, Indonesia, E-mail: epingkan@yahoo.com (corresponding author). 2 Professor, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Saga University, 1, Honjou-Machi, Saga City, 840-8502, Japan, E-mail: mishiman@cc.saga-u.ac.jp Engineering Management Received February 5, 2014; received revision April 6, 2014; accepted April 7, 2014 Available online May 10, 2014 _________________________________________________________________________________________ Abstract: The course of a city’s development has an effect on both spatial and social aspects, and this situation affects ethnic communities. As a result of recent urban developments, the cultural values of a community that are embedded in living arrangements have been disturbed, thus obscuring, or even hiding, the rich cultural heritage therein. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the spatial characteristics of local neighborhoods based on a wealth of cultural heritage objects. This research focuses on the physical cultural heritage of the Bantik settlement in Malalayang. The spatial characteristics of cultural heritage objects are analyzed, based on physical and other characteristics. The results indicate that, although the Bantik ethnic community in Malalayang, Indonesia, has physical cultural heritage sites, it is unable to effectively develop these as significant cultural spaces because of the physical separation of their locations, the declining meaning of these sites to the community, and the lack of support from indigenous organizations. Distance is not the only determinant of the optimization of cultural space. Planning for cultural spaces involves three zones: 1) a promotion zone, 2) a core zone, and 3) a buffer zone. The greatest potential for developing a cultural space is in the vicinity of Minanga Road and the Niopo Stone, with the physical object reinforcement of similar sites. To improve cultural space, it is not enough to only rely on the existence of a physical object, it is necessary to create a close relationship between the object and the community with the support of indigenous organizations. Keywords: Distance, cultural space, physical cultural heritage, spatial planning, Bantik ethnic community. _________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Background In countries with a stable history (infrequent revolutions and wars, etc.), urban development is gradual, depending on underlying urban needs (Choen, 2004). However, in developing countries such as Indonesia, the urban development process causes spatial changes (along with changes in associated property rights (Christensen, 2013)), which are triggered by increased populations and the frequency of building projects (Yunus, 2006). As the city develops, the consequences of spatial planning (Yunus, 2005) and socio-economic activities (EEA Report, 2006) become an important factor in the growth of the city. Spatial planning involves the coordination or integration of the spatial dimension of sectoral policies through a territorially based strategy (United Nations, 2008). Therefore, planning is transformed into a proactive agent (Albrechts, 2004; Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2010), supported by monitoring as part of spatial planning models (Wegener, 2001). Over the last half century, a more conservation- based approach has evolved in town planning; the process extended across the historic city in the post-war period, intensified during the 1960s, and was then subsequently re-ordered following the rejection of architectural modernism. Due to the expanded scope of planning, the approach to conservation objectives had to be increasingly articulated at very different scales: city, town, village, or smaller areas within these (Larkham, 2003; Pendlebury, 2003). Translated into the arena of built cultural heritage, innovation in urban heritage governance must provide room for a new discourse of urban development (Nyseth, 2012) and the routines of governance practices (Healey, 2006). A basic requirement (Bertolini et al. 2005) for a cultural heritage site is that it can be used as a potential source of local cultural heritage, even when there is strong pressure for other uses of the site, or pressure for urban development in the local vicinity. The accelerated pace of heritage resource creation is a widely implemented contemporary phenomenon (Graham et al., 2000; Hewison, 1987). Cultural heritage strongly reflects the influence of inter-related and powerful environments (Prinder, 2003). Cultural heritage is an expression of a community’s lifestyle and is passed on from generation to generation. These include the customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions, and values. Cultural heritage is an asset that can be used as an element of cultural identity in