penang hill landscape evolution and heritage conservation

The Penang Story – International Conference 200218-21 April 2002, The City Bayview Hotel, Penang, Malaysia

Organisers: The Penang Heritage Trust & STAR Publications

Penang Hill: Landscape Evolution, Heritage Conservation, and

Sustainable Tourism

S. Robert Aiken, Professor of Geography at Concordia University

E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Tropical hill stations owed their origin and early development to colonialism. They were

specialized highland outposts of colonial settlement that initially catered to Europeans in search

of health, relaxation, and amusement. Today, many such places are popular tourist attractions.

Penang Hill was established by the East India Company in the late 18th century, making it one of

the earliest imperial outposts of its kind in the British colonies. Always small and only modestly

developed, it has never consisted of much more than a mosaic of open and wooded spaces, a

network of winding roads and paths, and a collection of named bungalows at staggered

elevations, each set in its own compound. Because it has, thus far, largely escaped the

consequences of large-scale development, it continues to possess a heritage of considerable

natural and cultural value. The paper is divided into three parts: the first describes the evolution

and composition of the hill-station landscape; the second deals with natural and cultural heritage

and the need to conserve it; and the third argues that any proposal for the development of Penang

Hill as a place of resort should pay attention to the principles of sustainable tourism.

S. Robert Aiken, Penang Hill: Landscape Evolution, Heritage Conservation, and Sustainable Tourism

1/28

mailto:[email protected]



Penang Hill: Landscape Evolution, Heritage Conservation, and Sustainable Tourism

Tropical hill stations were functionally specialized highland outposts of colonial settlement that

initially catered to Europeans in search of health, relaxation, and amusement. They originated in

the Netherlands East Indies and British India in the early 19 th century, and this novel type of

settlement eventually appeared in other parts of Asia that came under colonial domination,

including Malaya (Spencer and Thomas 1948; Crossette 1999). Generally small and isolated,

always defiantly out of place, the colonial hill stations were insular little worlds that symbolized

European power and exclusiveness (Kenny 1995).

What was the rationale for these purpose-built places? One argument is that their major

function was to serve as places of refuge from the perceived health hazards of the lowlands,

which were mainly attributed to the baleful and pestiferous effects of the tropical climate

(Mitchell 1972). But the hill stations were also, indeed primarily, resorts, that is to say, they were

specialized social places that Europeans frequented for fun and relaxation, for social intercourse

with family and friends, or for mere dalliance. The point of reference or model for the hill station

as a place of resort was the metropolitan spa and the generally later seaside resort. As King points

out, the hill station ‘provided in its physical, social, psychological and “aesthetic” climate, the

closest approximation to conditions of life “at home”’ (1976: 165).

Detached from the alien land and life of the lowlands, secluded in the cool and airy

highlands, the hill stations offered isolated, exclusive milieus where European sojourners could

feel at home. Home was the model or ideal, for more than anything else the colonial hill stations

were replacement or substitute places – places that were intended to resemble and feel like well-

loved distant homelands. No wonder that visitors to the highland resorts commented so frequently

on their bracing air, on their familiar-appearing landscapes and architecture, their neat little

gardens, and on other simple reminders of home. Nostalgia was the common experience of most

visitors.

The British established four hill stations in Malaya: Penang Hill, Maxwell’s Hill, Fraser’s

Hill, and Cameron Highlands. Penang Hill, situated on the lovely island of Penang, was

established by the English East India Company in the late 18 th century, which would appear to


2/28



make it the oldest hill station in the British Empire. The other three hill stations were positioned

on the flanks of the Malay Peninsula’s rugged spinal column, the Main Range, and they were

developed in the 1880s, 1920s, and mainly 1930s, respectively. All four hill stations lacked most

of the institutions that characterized their Indian counterparts. Small and only modestly

developed, each was essentially a collection of bungalows. Only extensive Cameron Highlands

experienced any appreciable growth, and that came mainly from the development of commercial

agriculture, not from its role as a place of health-and-recreation.

It has long been an article of faith among scholars that the hill stations of the upland

tropics invariably owed their genesis and early development to colonialism. Peninsular

Malaysia’s newest hill station, Genting Highlands, is a major exception to that rule. Situated on

the Selangor-Pahang border some 50 km from Kuala Lumpur, to which it is linked by road and

helicopter service, Genting Highlands dates from the post-colonial 1960s. Now a sizeable tourist-

and-gambling resort with posh hotels, condominiums, a cable-car system, and other facilities and

amenities, it was founded by two local Asians, not by representatives of Western élites (Reed

1979).

None of Peninsular Malaysia’s older hill stations has grown appreciably since the end of

the colonial period in 1957, although numerous proposals for their development have been

advanced. In 1979, tiny Maxwell’s Hill was renamed Bukit Larut and its old bungalows were

stripped of their colonial names, but otherwise it remains largely unchanged. Nor, with the

exception of a few new hotels and a variety of rather minor tourist attractions, has there been

much development at Fraser’s Hill or Penang Hill, while the economy of Cameron Highlands is

still mainly based on specialized commercial agriculture. There has, on the other hand, been a

change in the composition of the hill-station clientele, most of whom are now domestic holiday-

makers and international tourists (Aiken 1994).

This paper focuses on the genesis, development, and heritage value of Penang Hill and

the need to protect it for the benefit of present and future generations. It is divided into three

parts: the first describes the evolution and composition of the hill-station landscape; the second

deals with heritage, both cultural and natural, and the requirement to conserve it; and the third


3/28



argues that any proposal for the future development of Penang Hill as a place of resort should pay

attention to the principles of sustainable tourism.

Penang and Penang Hill

Penang Hill

The island of Penang, or Pulau Pinang, lies off the coast of Province Wellesley near the northern

entrance to the Strait of Malacca. Distance to the mainland varies between three and sixteen

kilometres. A bridge connecting it to the mainland was opened in 1985. Nearly quadrilateral in

shape, the island is composed almost entirely of granite, has an area of approximately 294 km 2,

and consists of a mass of dissected hills rising sharply from a narrow coastal plain. Elevation

increases towards the north-central part of the island, where Western Hill (the highest point on

the island) and Penang Hill are located. In spite of the word ‘hill’ in the name, the hill station

occupies part of a narrow, steep sided, undulating ridge whose highest elevation is about 760 m

above sea level. Between the upper ridge and the inner edge of the coastal plain west of George

Town several erosional remnants stand out as isolated, generally rounded hills. These features

were stripped of their rain-forest cover early in the colonial period and bungalows were erected

on or near their summits.

The present-day hill station consists of a mosaic of open and wooded spaces, a network

of winding roads and tracks, and a collection of bungalows at staggered elevations, together with

a variety of generally minor structures. The upper tier of bungalows is more or less linked by

Jalan Tuanku Yahya Petra (formerly Summit Road) and various footpaths. A funicular railway

descends form near the top of Strawberry Hill to the lowlands close to Ayer Itam. From atop the

hill station, great vistas unfold over George Town and across the shipping channel to the verdant

coastal plain of Province Wellesley and Kedah to culminate in the distant blue-green mountains

of the Main Range.

The built-up part of the hill station extends from the vicinity of the defunct Crag Hotel in

the north to a little way beyond Fern Hill to the south, and it is within this area that the great

majority of Penang Hill’s historic buildings, together with their annexes, gardens and other

surrounding features, are found. The most intensively developed part of the area is Strawberry


4/28



Hill, where a relatively extensive tract of flat-to-undulating land is occupied by a complex of

public buildings and other structures, including the top-station of the funicular railway, the Tea

Kiosk, a community hall, and a mosque. Flat land within the built-up area is at a premium, and

most of it has already been utilized.

Much of the area surrounding the built-up part of the hill station is wooded. Secondary

forest, criss-crossed with tracts and trails, covers the southern slope of the hill-station ridge, and

extensive tracts of largely undisturbed lowland tropical rain forest clothe the complex of hills to

the north of the ridge. The general region of which Penang Hill is a part is characterized by

generally steeply sloping topography and granite-derived soils that are shallow, contain little

organic matter, and are readily erodible.

Early Penang

Francis Light, a private or ‘country’ trader long resident in the East, took possession of Penang on

behalf of the East India Company in 1786. Penang was primarily acquired for naval and strategic

reasons, although the Company hoped that it would also serve as an entrepôt for tropical produce

from the Malay Peninsula and the neighbouring archipelago.

After about 1799, the Company’s earlier doubts about the importance of the island were

set aside, and, in 1805, Penang was made the fourth presidency of India (the other presidencies

being Bengal, Bombay, and Madras). The Company’s new expectations were based mainly on

several panegyrics that greatly exaggerated the natural, economic, and strategic advantages of

Penang, including its potential as a naval base (Macalister 1803; Leith 1804; Popham 1805). But

Penang soon proved a great disappointment to the Company, and, in 1826, it was combined with

Malacca and Singapore to form the presidency of the Straits Settlements. Penang remained the

headquarters of government until 1832, when the capital of the Straits was moved to Singapore.

The basic outlines of Penang Hill took shape during the first two decades of the 19 th century,

when the hill station enjoyed a brief heyday. One result of Penang’s elevation to the status of a

presidency was the arrival on the island of a new, enlarged staff of civil servants and military

officers, and it was mainly from this official class that there arose some demand for health-and-resort

facilities on the ridge overlooking George Town. But as the total number of Europeans on the island


5/28



probably did not average more than 300 in this formative period, the hill station remained small and

only modestly developed. When the presidency was abolished in 1830, the Company’s staff of

officials and its expenditure on the island were reduced greatly, while the pool of other potential

users of the hill station, such as planters, merchants, and traders, remained very small. A period of

stagnation ensued that lasted until the 1920s, when a funicular railway brought new life to the hill

station.

Development of Penang Hill

Penang Hill was probably the first imperial outpost of its kind in the British colonies because it

originated in the late 18th century, whereas the earliest hill stations in India date from around

1820. As early as 1787 a rough track had been cut through the rain forest to the signal house on

the crest of the ridge overlooking George Town. The first dwellings on Penang Hill – they

probably date from the late 1790s or very early 1800s – were bungalows erected by the East India

Company for the temporary accommodation of its civil and military officials (Leith 1804: 10-11).

Called variously Government Hill, Great Hill, or simply The Hill, the core of the early hill

station occupied part of the undulating upper ridge between Fern Hill and Strawberry Hill. The pre-

eminent hill-station site was atop Flagstaff Hill, where Bel Retiro, the governor’s bungalow, was

located. This structure consisted of two large thatch or atap-covered bungalows connected by a

covered plank passage or gallery that was cool and airy when opened along the sides. Towering

above Bel Retiro was a flagpole that served as a beacon or signal station.

Nearby on Mount Hygeia (named for the Greek goddess of health) accommodation for

Company employees was available at Convalescent Bungalow. Visitors to the island who wanted to

spend a night on the hill sometimes used Convalescent Bungalow, although such a sojourn required

official permission. On a neighbouring elevation stood Fern Hill, the medical officer’s residence,

which also contained a dispensary for invalids (Ward 1830). Slightly below and a little to the north

of Bel Retiro, on what was generally called Haliburton’s Hill, was the spacious bungalow of Thomas

Halyburton (as his name was actually spelled), a British merchant and sometime sheriff of Penang

(Wathen 1814; Bastin and Rohatgi 1979). The bungalow on this hill was sometimes referred to as


6/28



Belle Vue or Bellevue, and the hotel that now occupies its site has retained the latter form of the

name.

Another commodious bungalow stood on nearby Strawberry Hill. According to a Dutch

visitor in 1824, the summit of the hill was graced by ‘a shady and scented garden of roses and

strawberries, whence this spot has derived its name of Strawberry Hill’ (cited in Bastin and Rohatgi

1979:30). The site of the old bungalow and gardens has been occupied for several decades by the Tea

Kiosk, below which is the upper terminus of the funicular railway. These bungalows, together with a

few others about which little information has survived, were loosely connected by a tree-lined path

(now called Jalan Tuanku Yahya Petra) that petered out on the summit of Western Hill, which had

been cleared of forest but was not built on or cultivated.

The rounded hill immediately below the upper ridge was linked by a winding path to the

track leading up to the hill station, although the bungalow there, called Highlands of Scotland, and

cleared land were primarily part of the plantation economy. The neighbouring hills, including Mount

Olivia, the Pentlands (or Pentland Ridge), and Mount Elvira, lacked direct access to the hill station

and were too low to be of much value to invalids. They occasionally served as places of refuge and

resort, but they functionally were not part of the hill station.

The early hill station was reached in two stages: from George Town to the foot of the ridge

on horseback or by palanquin or gharry (usually a two-wheeled carriage or cart drawn by a horse or

pony and plying for hire), and from there to the crest of the ridge by Sumatran pony or in a sedan

chair. Readers of Dennys’s 1894 Descriptive Dictionary of British Malaya were informed that

[t]he charge for a pony up the hill is $1½, and the same for the mount down. The

charge for a chair coolie up is 35 cents, and a similar charge for the journey down.

From five to eight coolies are required for each chair, but, of course, this is

regulated by the weight of the person to be carried. Before ascending the hill it is

necessary to make arrangements with either Messrs. Hin Lee and Co., or Boon Tek

and Co., who will provide the necessary ponies or coolies at the foot of the hill (p.

284).


7/28



Several additional bungalows were erected on or below the crest of the main ridge in the half

century or so after about 1830, and the Crag Hotel opened for business in 1895. But few other

changes occurred before or indeed for some time after the completion of the funicular railway in

1923. Over the years from around 1928 to 1941, however, the railway had a considerable impact on

Penang Hill because, among other things, several miles of contour roads and paths were constructed

and these opened up sites for new bungalows at staggered elevations; a police station, a post office, a

Public Works Department (PWD) office, and several other structures were erected on or near

Strawberry Hill; a reservoir and pumping station were built on Tiger Hill; dwellings and other

structures for railway employees were constructed near the railway line; several non-Europeans

acquired hill-station bungalows; and the accessibility of the hill station was greatly enhanced.

The Penang Hills Railway was completed in 1923 (three English engineers had attempted to

build a similar kind of railway in the 1890s, but the equipment they installed failed to operate).

About 2 km long and rising some 726 m above sea level, the railway negotiated the steep gradient of

the ridge in two entirely independent sections: from the lower station near Ayer Itam to a transfer

station about half-way up the rise, and from there to the upper station on Strawberry Hill. The

railway featured numerous viaducts and a precipitous tunnel near the top end of the line, making its

construction a considerable engineering feat. With the opening of the hill railway, Penang Hill soon

became a popular holiday resort. The number of visitors to the hill station increased from 136 000

before the war to 351 000 in 1951, according to a 1952 guidebook to the island.

Penang Hill has changed very little over the past half-century, although proposals for its

development have been floated from time to time. No plan for the hill station has generated more

controversy than one announced in late 1990. Drawn up by a subsidiary of Berjaya Corporation,

it called for, among other things, a 200-room hotel on the site of the former Crag Hotel, a

condominium development, a cable-car linking the Botanic Garden to the hill station, a shopping

and entertainment complex, and a theme park. Opponents of the massive scheme joined forces to

form an organization called ‘Friends of Penang Hill’, whose stated goal is to protect the natural

and cultural heritage of the hill-station area. The project has not gone ahead.

Landscape with Bungalows


8/28



Landscape is a rather ambiguous concept whose meaning is elusive. It is the humanized scene,

nature variously made over by humans, that I have in mind, or what geographers call cultural

landscape (Meinig 1979). The landscape, the continuous surface that we see around us, mirrors

the interaction between humans and environment over space and through time. Cultural landscape

has material or tangible content but it is also a symbolic expression of cultural values and

meaning. Viewed from this latter perspective, it is a medium ‘to be perceived, read, and

interpreted on the ground, in written texts, and through artistic images’ (Olwig 1996: 645).

Bungalows and their gardens were, and indeed still are, the characteristic cultural artifacts

in the Penang Hill landscape. Whether on the plains or in the hills, no other building or construction

was nearly so redolent or symbolic of the imperial presence as the bungalow, the basic residential

unit of the European colonial community. Typically, the bungalow was well away from its

neighbours and set in a clearly demarcated compound. Virtually all bungalows were built by amateur

architects who were military engineers or employees of PWDs. Both the name and form of this

adaptable house-type – it served not only as private dwelling but also, for example, as rest-house,

hotel, club, and district office – originated in India, where the Europeans there apparently adopted

and adapted the indigenous huts of rural Bengal to accord with their own social and cultural

preferences.

A bungalow in early 19th-century Penang was a hill dwelling for temporary use by

Europeans. The term at that time apparently was rarely applied to lowland dwellings, which were

usually called ‘houses’ or ‘residences’. Company bungalows with names of English, Scottish, or

literary provenance pre-empted the scenically most attractive and airy sites on the upper ridge above

George Town. Social status and elevation were in tandem: the governor’s bungalow, Bel Retiro,

occupied the most commanding site atop the hill, with the bungalows of lesser officials and

merchants below. Several of the bungalows, including Convalescent Bungalow, were relatively

small.

The bungalows were low, one-storey dwellings that were oblong or square in shape. They

sat on slightly raised plinths or on low brick pillars, and they had mud or woven-mat walls,

pyramidal atap-covered roofs, and all-round deep verandas supported by slender wooden posts. The

verandas were protected from heat and glare by split green-bamboo screens or chicks that could be


9/28



rolled up when not in use. Internally, they probably comprised an open central area that was used for

lounging and dining, with bedrooms opening off on either side. Intended for temporary occupation,

the bungalows were only partially furnished.

Each bungalow was set in a spacious compound that was demarcated by fences of linked

hurdles or screens of trees and shrubs to ensure privacy and seclusion. A large area around each

bungalow was cleared of vegetation and allotted to a garden, a gravel drive running down to a

roadside gate, and, to the rear of the dwelling, a kitchen, servants’ quarters, a well, and storage

space for conveyances; the open space also admitted light and allowed ventilation. The result was

a privately controlled, more or less self-contained milieu that was largely sustained and

maintained by the labour and services of dependent Asians.

Some of Penang Hill’s bungalows eventually acquired an overlay of fashionable

architectural details, while others were replaced by more substantial structures, including a few of

two storeys. The old bungalow on Strawberry Hill was replaced by another, called the Tea Kiosk.

Both the form of this building and the composition of its surrounding garden were typical of the

handiwork of the PWD. Bel Retiro acquired a stone wing in 1890, and the northern end of the

building, which had been neglected or damaged during the Japanese Occupation, was reconstructed

in 1949. Other more elaborate bungalows or houses include the main part of the former Crag Hotel,

itself essentially an assemblage of bungalows, and Southview Bungalow, built of granite blocks.

To my knowledge, very little has been written about the bungalow gardens on Penang Hill,

and I have not conducted an inventory or a detailed study of them. I offer only a few comments about

the gardens during the colonial period, and hope that someone else will bring the story up to date.

Most of early Penang’s senior Company officials were probably selected from the middle

class of the finely graded metropolitan society, and among their landscape tastes and preferences was

a love of the informal or ‘natural’ landscape garden and a growing interest in exotic plants. It is clear

from the appearance of the grounds surrounding Suffolk House, the most elegant of the early 19 th-

century residences in the lowlands, that ideas associated with the picturesque landscape garden had

reached the island by that time. Suffolk, John Crawfurd wrote, resembled an ‘English gentleman’s


10/28



mansion and park, where clove and nutmeg trees . . . are substituted for oaks, elms, and ashes. The

grounds contain from two to three hundred spotted deer’ (1828: 10).

Most of the bungalow gardens on Penang Hill were probably small, modest creations,

although visitors to the hill station praised them for their elegant tastefulness. They were usually

constricted by the steeply sloping local topography, and the garden at Bel Retiro comprised a series

of sharply descending terraces. As the hill retreat of the governor, however, Bel Retiro could boast

the largest and most elaborate of the hill-station gardens. The bungalow was surrounded, and almost

concealed, by fine trees and shrubs, and the garden was stocked with a variety of exotics.

The exotic species in the Penang Hill gardens included pineapples and sunflowers, two New

World plants with a long history in South-East Asia; roses, strawberries, and other flora from

temperate climates that reminded the hill-station clientele of home; and a selection of flora that was

probably introduced from places like India and Burma, the hinterlands of Macao and Canton, and the

Moluccas – in all of which it is known that British plant hunters were active in the early 19 th century.

Penang was on a major trade route, so other sources of introduced plant species cannot be

discounted.

The main features of the Penang Hill gardens during the early 1800s were a lawn-like green

sward, scattered shrubs, a few flower beds, and here and there some large trees that were probably

remnants of the original rain forest. The general effect was one of ‘contrived naturalness’. By the

mid-19th century, some of the gardens had become more elaborate and showy, reflecting

metropolitan taste for greater formality.

A good idea of what British gardens in the lowlands were like in the 1920s can be obtained

from Kathleen Gough’s A Garden Book for Malaya (1928). It is reasonable to assume that the hill-

station gardens of the inter-war period were generally similar in layout to those of the lowlands,

except that they featured a greater emphasis on flowers and shrubs from temperate climates.

Briefly stated, the garden that the British preferred was semi-formal in design and featured

well-kept lawns that evoked restfulness and provided a background to flowers and shrubs; flower

beds that were square, circular or oval in shape; trees to sit under and to shade the house from the


11/28



back premises; well-chosen and well-disposed shrubs; herbaceous borders; and pot plants like cool-

looking ferns or decorative flowering plants. Nearest the house was the flower garden proper,

together with beds and borders. Pot plants were displayed on verandas, on strands in the open space

below houses raised on pillars, and along the drive or path in front of the house. As might be

expected, numerous plant species from cooler climates flourished in the highlands.

The siting, demarcation, content, and arrangement of the bungalow-compound embodied

and reflected social status, private or governmental control of space and labour, preferred visual

experiences, and a desire for privacy and separateness. The garden within the compound was a

particularly important means of maintaining self-identity, while well-loved flora from temperate

climates evoked nostalgia. Together with a network of shaded paths and tracks and a mosaic of open

and wooded spaces, the bungalow-compound provided the setting for the activities and lifestyles of

the peripatetic hill-station clientele.

Social Life and Leisure

During the whole of the colonial period, Penang Hill had few facilities for amusement and

leisure. It lacked a pub, a club, a race-course or cricket grounds, a public library, shops, or even a

native bazaar. In short, Penang Hill had none of the institutions or facilities that characterized

even small Indian hill stations. It was a relatively insignificant little belvedere of empire, and

even today it remains, as already noted, mainly a collection of bungalows.

In spite of its shortcomings, Penang Hill did possess certain attractions, including diverse

topography and generally splendid scenery, interesting and abundant flora and fauna, shaded paths

and open spaces for walking and riding, pleasant gardens and secluded bungalows with cool

verandas, the company of other Europeans, freedom from the constraints of lowland authority, and

opportunities to escape from the perceived baleful effects of the tropical climate and the socially

restricting presence of non-Europeans. Most forms of social interaction and leisure took place

outdoors – in part because the climate was agreeable, in part because there were few indoor facilities

– and tended to follow the dictates of fashionable behaviour in the contemporary metropolitan

society.


12/28



A trip to Penang Hill invariably included a visit to the waterfall or cascade some 6–7 km

northwest of George Town, which was a popular picnic spot and whose rugged grandeur appealed to

early 19th-century landscape tastes. There were bath-houses and a hotel near the falls, which were

incorporated, in 1884, into the Waterfall (or Botanic) Garden, also a favourite attraction on the way

to the hill station. Having visited the falls and the botanic garden, the sojourner could continue up the

winding path to the hill station, with an occasional stop along the way to admire the ever expanding

view of the lowlands or to inspect the rich diversity of the rain-forest flora and fauna.

Typical outdoor activities at the hill station included an early morning pony rode to Western

Hill, where there was ample open space for exercise on foot or on horseback; collecting specimens of

the local flora and fauna in the surrounding forests; walking or going on picnics or shooting

expeditions; painting and sketching; or simply admiring the scenery from a good vantage point.

Penang Hill acquired a hotel in 1895. Situated a little below and to the north of Strawberry

Hill and occupying the former property of a Scotsman, one Captain Kerr, this was the now defunct

Crag Hotel, a popular honeymoon resort and a focus of social life at the hill station for several

decades. The Crag was acquired around 1905 by the celebrated Sarkies brothers from Armenia, who

ran it as a branch of their more famous Eastern & Oriental Hotel in George Town. A comfortable

hostelry, it consisted of a ‘village of bungalows’ grouped around or near a large, central building that

contained sitting- and dining-rooms. Winding, shady paths connected the bungalows, and a rose

garden graced the site of the main building, where there were occasional dances and other social

gatherings. Both before and for some time after the completion of the funicular railway, the visitor to

the Crag Hotel was conveyed there in a sedan chair from Strawberry Hill.

A variety of social activities and leisure pursuits occurred in the bungalow compounds,

where they were associated in particular with the veranda, that cool, airy, and raised place where

friends were greeted and entertained, where dogs lolled, children played, vendors displayed their

wares, books were read, letters written, music performed and listened to, cards played, plants potted

and tended, where breakfast and sometimes other meals were eaten, and where sojourners lounged in

long low rattan chairs with fixed or folding leg rests.


13/28



The lifestyle of the colonial hill-station clientele was largely sustained and maintained by the

dominance-dependence relationship between the small but powerful European élite and the Asian

cultural groups that composed the majority of the population. Virtually everything had to be hauled

to Penang Hill from the lowlands – travellers and their accoutrements, fresh food, prepared drinks

and medicines, various household goods, ornamental plants, and even vegetable mould for the

gardens. Consequently there was a demand for bearers, porters, and other labourers, most of whom

were Malays or Tamils, as well as for haulage and delivery services. The flow of goods, services, and

labour was essentially unidirectional, and it was largely parasitic on lowland land and life. The fun

and relaxation that Europeans enjoyed at the hill station was largely made possible by the dualism

that characterized colonial society.

Penang Hill was a socio-cultural product of the dominant European colonial community

in an alien and distant milieu. The interaction of selected representatives of the metropolitan

society with the particular biophysical characteristics of the location yielded a cultural landscape

in which the bungalow compound was the main artifact. The bungalow symbolized cultural

transfer from India, while the layout and composition of the garden reflected local conditions,

metropolitan tastes, and possibly the movement of horticultural ideas from India (Aiken 1987,

1994).

Penang Hill Today

The composition of Penang Hill’s clientele has greatly changed since the end of the colonial

period. Today, it is Penangites themselves, together with other Malaysians and small numbers of

international tourists, not British sojourners, who comprise the majority of visitors to the hill

station. On the other hand, Penang Hill itself has changed very little over the past fifty years or

more. Several factors account for its arrested development, among them relative isolation, lack of

flat land to accommodate further growth, and competition from more popular tourist attractions.

What change there has been, it might be argued, has resulted from benign neglect: witness, for

example, the several bungalows that are sadly in need of repair or complete rehabilitation. Other

bungalows, I understand, are underutilized.


14/28



Because it has, thus far, largely escaped any form of large-scale development, Penang

Hill’s attractions for today’s visitors are much the same as they have always been: cooler air,

tranquillity, temporary residence in a bungalow (or at the Bellevue Hotel), walking and hiking,

admiring the flora and fauna, and enjoying the splendid vistas that unfold from various vantage

points.

Natural and Cultural Heritage

Heritage

Heritage, according to a UNESCO document, is ‘our legacy from the past, what we live with today,

and what we pass on to future generations’ (2000: n. p.). Heritage has burgeoned over the past few

decades from a largely élite preoccupation with ‘grand monuments, unique treasures, and great

heroes’ into a popular crusade that ‘now also touts the typical and evokes the vernacular’ (Lowenthal

1998: 14). A flourishing industry in its own right, heritage caters to an ever-growing clientele whose

interests span everything from Elvis memorabilia to the Holocaust. What has generated interest in

such a diverse set of heritages? Part of the answer appears to lie in dismay at the dizzying speed and

scale of change in our everyday surroundings, together with a profound loss of trust in the future.

Heritage interests and concerns range from the global to the local. ‘That the natural heritage

is global,’ writes Lowenthal (1998), ‘is now beyond dispute. Fresh water and fossil fuels, rain forests

and gene pools are legacies common to us all and need all our care. Cultural resources likewise form

part of the universal human heritage’ (p. 228). Global agencies with heritage agendas include

UNESCO, which seeks to encourage the identification, protection, and preservation of cultural and

natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity. A great many

pressure or interest groups, voluntary organizations, and other ‘collective enthusiasms’ are also

devoted to conserving and protecting legacies of various kinds. Examples include conservation

groups, nature societies, bird watching organizations, campaign groups to protect particular buildings

or streetscapes, and so on (Urry 1996). Penang, Crossette (1999) observes, has ‘long been a center of

multiple advocacy movements and protests, where social action groups and environmentalists

flourish’ (p. 166). Of particular importance in the present context is a network of organizations

called Friends of Penang Hill, whose goal is to conserve and protect the Hill’s natural and cultural

heritage (Khor et al. 1991).


15/28



Heritage and History

Heritage is often misconstrued as history. While the viewpoints of the two often converge – both, for

example, share an interest in making the past more accessible – their aims and modes of persuasion

differ significantly. Lowenthal (1998) makes the distinction succinctly: ‘History explores and

explains pasts grown ever more opaque over time; heritage clarifies pasts so as to infuse them with

present purposes’ (p. xv); and further, the most critical distinction between the two, he notes, is that

‘truth in heritage commits us to some present creed; truth in history is a flawed effort to understand

the past on its own terms’ (p. 119). Unlike history, which attempts through critical enquiry to tell a

‘true story’ about the past, heritage attempts to improve the past, celebrating selected aspects of it

while discarding others (Lowenthal 1998; Arnold 2000). As an outsider, I am not well placed to

appreciate what it is that Penang’s diverse cultural groups wish to celebrate – or discard.

Natural Heritage

Penang Hill – that is, the undulating and steep-sided ridge occupied by the hill station – is part of a

complex of dissected, generally wooded hills in the north-central part of Pulau Penang, and it is in

this larger context that I briefly describe its ecological significance and value.

The hill-station ridge forms the divide or watershed between several rivers and streams that

drain the surrounding region, and a number of water catchments that supply Penangites with part of

their water needs border the ridge. Considering that Penang is not a water-rich state and that, in fact,

it is heavily dependent on Kedah for a large proportion of its water needs, priority should be given to

retaining forest cover in these (and other) water catchments.

Much of the Penang Hill area is characterized by steep slopes, fast-flowing rivers, and

granite-derived soils that are easily eroded when cleared of vegetation. As long ago as the 1930s,

Soper (1938) warned of the dangers of soil erosion on Penang Hill, commenting that the soil

‘contains coarse quartz which renders it open and friable; it is consequently very easily eroded when

exposed, but if suitably covered it can absorb very heavy falls of rain’ (p. 408). The key phrase here


16/28



is ‘if suitably covered.’ More recently, a study of soil-erosion risk based on the rainfall

characteristics of Peninsular Malaysia placed Penang in the highest risk category (Morgan 1986).

The forests of the greater Penang Hill area not only protect soils from erosion and supply

Penangites with clean water but also provide valuable habitat for a rich assemblage of flora and

fauna, among which are some 80 species of birds that inhabit the hill; numerous mammals, including

tree shrews, civet cats, flying lemurs, squirrels, pangolins, and monkeys; and a diverse flora that

includes species that are endemic or rare (Khor et al. 1991).

Deforestation has proceeded apace in Peninsular Malaysia since the 1960s, with the result

that virtually all of the great lowland tropical rain forest is gone (Aiken and Leigh 1992). A remnant

of that once extensive forest realm still clothes the hills of Penang, and I would argue that it should

be treasured, not only for its ecological, scientific, and recreational significance but also for its

intrinsic value. That the Penang Hill forests are part of Malaysia’s natural heritage is beyond dispute.

The environmental record resulting from upland development elsewhere in Peninsular

Malaysia should give pause to planners and would-be developers of Penang Hill. At Genting

Highlands and Cameron Highlands, for example, clearing forest to make way for roads, hotels,

crops, and other land uses has resulted in severe soil erosion, river sedimentation, and mounting

threats to rare or endemic flora. These and other potential impacts of upland development are

clearly recognized in the government’s Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for

Development of Resort and Hotel Facilities in Hill Stations (Department of Environment 1995).

Cultural Heritage

In this section I focus on three aspects of Penang Hill’s cultural heritage: material culture

reflecting the historic character and evolution of the hill-station landscape; cultural values that

mirror long-standing affection for and attachment to the place; and, not to be forgotten, the

written and pictorial record of landscape and life on the Hill.

I should note here that I have not conducted a detailed study of any aspect of the

contemporary hill station and that, consequently, certain of my comments are speculative rather


17/28



than definitive. Furthermore, I recognize that there are several possible readings of the same

heritage; that ‘we are not well-informed as to how people’s popular memories, of a place,

industry, or social institution, are stimulated, enthused, and then organized into a potential

documentation of remembrance;’ and that ‘we know relatively little about just how people … use

and respond to heritage sites’ (Urry 1996: 53-54). Khor et al. (1991) provide a useful overview

of Penang Hill’s cultural heritage, and I draw liberally on their work in what follows.

Bungalows and gardens, open and wooded spaces, roads and tracks, numerous fine vistas

– these, as I have already suggested, are the main characteristics of the hill station’s cultural

landscape. The great majority of all structures on the Hill are of pre-World War II vintage, and

much of the charm and attraction of the place derives from its arrested development. Khor et al.

(1991) capture the essence of the place:

The location of the upper Hill, the sensitive way in which it has been developed

(with very limited development over so many decades), the absence of vehicular

traffic, the pleasant cool temperature, the spectacular views, the quietness broken

only by the musical sound of birds and wind through trees; the blending of the

small buildings and houses into the environment, and most of all the little roads

and trails in the midst of lush, tropical forests: these are some of the factors that

have given Penang Hill its unique atmosphere so beloved by all those who visit it

(p. 36).

And they provide a useful summary of what should be protected and conserved, including

(a) all cultural and natural features which express the Hill’s historic character; (b)

… the relationship between buildings and open spaces; (c) all pre-war buildings

and their interior and exterior formal appearances; (d) the historic surroundings

of buildings [including gardens and trees]; (e) the general historic hill resort area;

(f) vistas and views; [and] (g) the verdant hills as a backdrop to the city (p. 39).

To my knowledge there have been no studies of the attitudes and values that Penangites

and out-of-state visitors attach to Penang Hill. In view of Penang’s cultural diversity, it might


18/28



reasonably be expected that the hill station means different things to different socio-economic and

cultural groups. And what, if anything, is the significance of the fact that the hill station, like vir-

tually all other such places, is largely a product of colonialism? These matters aside, it is clear

from even casual observation that many Penangites enjoy escaping from the bustle of city life to

the peace and quiet of the nearby Hill.

Finally, it should not forgotten that the cultural heritage of Penang Hill includes what has

been written about the place in diaries and letters, topographical works, official reports, and other

published and unpublished sources; various representations of landscape and life on the Hill as

recorded in paintings, engravings, drawings, maps, postcards, and other illustrative materials; and

a great many memories.

Dispelling Myths

The protection and conservation of natural and cultural heritage is poorly served by certain

widely held misconceptions about nature and culture. I take a brief look at two persistent myths.

(i) Contrary to widespread opinion, nature is not characterized by stability, balance,

harmony, and equilibria, although the language of popular ecology and environmentalism

remains suffused with such notions. On the contrary, we live in a ‘non-equilibrium

world, in which change takes place all the time, in all sorts of directions and at all sorts of

scales, catastrophically, gradually, and unpredictably’ (Stott 1998: 1). Change is the

norm, stability illusory. In large part because stasis and stability have been emphasized

over flux and change, humans in nature are viewed as ‘the problem’, upsetting the

‘delicate balance, harmony and control’ that we so avidly desire (Stott 1998: 2).

Although nature is largely unpredictable and beyond our control, environmental

management is still largely guided by notions of stability and equilibrium. What is

required instead is to recognize and accept that change is the only constant, and that,

among much else, there is a need to devise land-use models, zoning regulations, risk-

management strategies, and other procedures to accommodate change. In addition, I

would argue that we should view human agency in a more positive light.


19/28



(ii) Many natural scientists and environmentalists view nature and culture as discrete and

incompatible essences. In their eyes, unsullied nature is superior to any product of

human intervention in nature. From this dualistic perspective, humans are seen as ‘the

problem’, because they despoil pristine nature and degrade the environment (Lowenthal

2000). Such views tend to overlook the fact that humans have been transforming the

natural world since the dawn of prehistory; that consequently very few, if any, truly

‘natural’ environments exist anywhere on earth today; and that in many parts of the world

‘human intervention has created and maintained environments which are arguably richer

and more diverse in species, scenic beauty, historical interest and recreational opportunity

than the natural forest and other ecosystems they have replaced’ (Green 1995: 405).

Catering to small numbers of travellers, tourists, and other visitors has always been

Penang Hill’s chief raison d’être. With this in mind, I now take a brief look at the role that

sustainable tourism might play in any future development of the Hill.

Sustainable Tourism

Tourism is the world’s largest industry and one of the fastest growing sectors of the global

economy. In 2000, it accounted for about ten per cent of global GDP. Visits to Asia, Africa, and

other developing regions have increased dramatically, and the World Tourism Organization

(WTO) predicts that by 2020 ‘Asia will be the most popular destination after Europe, attracting

more than a quarter of the world tourist traffic’ (Mastny 2001: 13).

The growth of tourism has contributed substantially to Malaysia’s economy. Tourist

arrivals in the country increased from 7.93 million in 1999 to 10.22 million in 2000, when

revenue from tourist spending amounted to RM17.31 billion (US$4.56 billion), according to the

WTO (2001). That tourism plays an important role in the national economy is recognized in the

Seventh and Eighth Malaysia Plans, which include incentives to stimulate its further

development.

Pulau Pinang has long been a favourite destination of visitors to Malaysia, most of whom

gravitate to its beaches and big resort hotels. In 1998, there were some 3.25 million visits to the


20/28



state, or roughly 40 per cent of all tourist arrivals in Malaysia in that year. Efforts to generate

more tourists include the massive scheme, already mentioned above, to develop Penang Hill.

It is well known that tourism, especially so-called mass tourism, can cause varying

degrees of harm to natural systems, cultural artifacts, and local populations. Popular tourist

attractions include coastal areas and fragile upland regions. Penang possesses both. Tourism

developments in such areas, including new hotels, resort complexes, and roads, often degrade

ecosystems, pose threats to the survival of wildlife, and generate large quantities of waste.

Because tourism is one of the world’s least regulated industries, it ‘often has negative

implications for local economies, cultures and ecosystems’ (Mastny 2001: 7). Ironically, tourism

often destroys the very beaches, forests, and other attractions that lured visitors in the first place.

There is a growing interest in alternative forms of tourism, and an increasing number of

environmentally and socially conscious consumers are seeking destinations and tour companies

that offer ecotourism, which the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN, now

called the World Conservation Union) defines as ‘environmentally responsible travel and

visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any

accompanying cultural features, both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low

negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local

populations’ (UNEP 2001). Ecotourism is the fastest growing sector of the tourism industry.

Penang Hill and Sustainable Tourism

Because the ecotourism label has been used by the travel industry to drum up a new clientele of

nature lovers and adventurers, and because the use of the ‘eco’ prefix implies that cultural matters

are excluded from ecotourism, any future plan to accommodate tourists on Penang Hill should

focus on the broader concept of sustainable tourism. A more inclusive concept, sustainable

tourism aims to fuse the principles of sustainable development with tourism and attempts to

harmonize a variety of economic, socio-cultural, and ecological concerns.

A sustainable tourism perspective on Penang Hill would emphasize, among other things,

the role that such tourism can play in generating revenue and employment for Penangites, while


21/28



maintaining the natural and cultural heritage of the Hill. Basic to such a perspective is the

requirement to respect local people’s cultures, lifestyles, and aspirations. Efforts to promote

sustainable tourism need to be shared among a wide range of stakeholders, including

governments, the tourism industry, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), host communities,

and tourists themselves (Wearing and Neil 1999; Mastny 2001).

Governments, NGOs, and the tourism industry are increasingly promoting the principles

of and best practices associated with sustainable tourism, and 2002 was designated by the United

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the International Year of Ecotourism. UNEP and

the WTO, which were jointly responsible for co-ordinating international activities during 2002,

acknowledge that there is little consensus about the meaning of ecotourism and that some

concerns still need to be addressed. They make a clear distinction between the concepts of

ecotourism and sustainable tourism: ‘the term ecotourism itself refers to a segment within the

tourism sector, while the sustainability principles should apply to all types of tourism activities,

operations, establishments and projects, including conventional and alternative forms’ (WTO and

UNEP 2002). I list the main principles of sustainable tourism below:

Contributes to conservation of biodiversity.

Sustains the well-being of local people.

Includes an interpretation / learning experience.

Involves responsible action on the part of tourists and the tourism industry.

Is delivered primarily to small groups by small-scale businesses.

Requires the lowest possible consumption of nonrenewable resources.

Stresses local participation, ownership and business opportunities, particularly for

rural people (UNEP 2001).In 1991, the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA)

adopted a code for environmentally sensitive tourism to reflect these principles

(PATA 2001). In a speech at the opening of PATA’s 50th annual conference in

April 2001, Prime Minister Mahathir endorsed the idea of sustainable tourism

when he obvserved that the government will continue to ensure that the tourism

industry in Malaysia is managed on the basis of sustainable development. He

added that ecotourism may represent the world's best hope for saving fragile

ecosystems (Anon 2001). On the face of it, then, the promotion of sustainable


22/28



tourism is a stated goal of the federal government.Likewise, the Sustainable

Penang Initiative (SPI) also implicitly backs the goal of sustainable

tourism through its stated support for integrated and holistic development

planning and public education about sustainable development and how to

achieve it. Indeed, the SPI has gained a reputation for its foresight in

charting Penang’s development based on the five principles of ecological

sustainability, social justice, economic productivity, cultural vibrancy, and

popular participation (SPI n.d.). The Malaysian Nature Society, which

represents the broad base of support for the protection and conservation of

Penang Hill’s natural and cultural heritage, advocates sustainable tourism,

if properly carried out, as a viable alternative to proposed massive

development schemes (Chan 1999).Given the lack of regulation in the tourism

industry in general and a trend toward ‘greenwashing’ tourism with

unsubstantiated ‘eco-friendly’ attributes, sustainable tourism providers are

increasingly looking to accreditation by eco-labeling certification schemes.

Sustainable tourism development on Penang Hill should be guided by the work

being done to produce reliable standards and certification systems for this

burgeoning industry. Such systems allow companies and agencies to adopt

mutually recognized standards that help consumers identify reliable and authentic

sustainable tourism goods and services. As part of this attempt, a set of principles

and an agreed framework (The Mohonk Agreement) was developed identifying

the key common elements of a sustainable tourism certification program. This

agreement has already been used to develop and guide tourism certification

projects in several countries (CEC 2001).Sustainable Tourism at World

Heritage SitesThe need to promote sustainable tourism has been recognized by

UNESCO, which, together with UNEP, recently launched a four-year project

called ‘Linking Conservation of Biodiversity and Sustainable Tourism at World

Heritage Sites’ (UNEP 2002). Lessons that are relevant to the sustainable

development of Penang Hill as a tourist venue may, in due course, be learned

from this project, which attempts, through work with various stakeholders, to

bring conservation education, planning, business development, training, and


23/28



marketing techniques together. The aim is to create a blueprint for other

initiatives by demonstrating that local people can work together to conserve their

heritage by balancing the demands of tourists with the needs and cultural

traditions of residents and local users, while protecting landscapes and the

environment. UNESCO is also working jointly with PATA on a project called

IMPACT, the aim of which is to produce a series of publications based on

individual case studies of heritage sites in the Asia-Pacific Region. Drawing on

real experiences, the case studies will be used to educate tourism industry

personnel and heritage managers on ways of further developing the tourism

industry while preserving the region’s natural and cultural heritage (UNESCO

2001). The sustainable development of Penang Hill’s tourist attractions

requires careful planning, with the involvement of all stakeholders, so that its

unique historical, cultural, and biological heritage is protected for present and

future generations.EnvoiIs there scope for further development of Penang Hill?

The answer is yes, provided it is small-scale, pays attention to the fragile nature

of the hill-top habitat, respects the cultural heritage of the place, and focuses on

improving existing hill-station services and facilities. Large-scale projects, on

the hand, are likely to eliminate or greatly alter two of the main attractions of

Penang Hill, namely, the charming tranquility of its cultural landscape and the

rich diversity of its natural environment.


24/28



REFERENCESAiken, S. Robert. 1987. Early Penang Hill. Geographical Review 77: 421-

39.Aiken, S. Robert. 1994. Imperial belvederes: the hill stations of Malaya. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Aiken, S. Robert, and Colin H. Leigh. 1992. Vanishing rain forests: the

ecological transition in Malaysia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Anon 2001. Sustainable tourism

development, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Daily Express,

http://www.sabahtourism.com/ecotourism.htm, Viewed 3 March 2002.Arnold, John H.

2000. History: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bastin, John, and

Pauline Rohatgi. 1979. Prints of Southeast Asia in the India Office Library: the East India

Company in Malaysia and Indonesia 1786-1824. London: Her Majesty's Stationery

Office.CEC. 2001. From principles to practice: compendia of in situ sustainable tourism in

North America. Montreal: North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation

(CEC): http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/tourism-8e2_EN.pdf, Viewed 10 March

2002.Chan Ngai Weng. 1999. Penang Hill – Teluk Bahang cable car system: what are the

hidden costs? Malaysian Nature Society, Penang Branch:

http://www.el.net.my/naturesociety/ article7a.htm, Viewed 3 March 2002.Crawfurd, John.

1828. Journal of an embassy from the Governor-General of India to the Court of Siam and

Cochin China. London: Henry Colburn, reprinted Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, Oxford

University Press, 1967 and 1987.Crossette, Barbara. 1999. The great hill stations of Asia.

New York: Basic Books.Dennys, N. B. 1894. A descriptive dictionary of British Malaya.

London: 'London and China Telegraph' Office.Department of Environment, Ministry of

Science, Technology and Environment, Malaysia. 1995. Environmental impact assessment

guidelines for development of resort and hotel facilities in hill stations. Kuala Lumpur:

Department of Environment.Gough, Kathleen. 1928. A garden book for Malaya. London:

Witherby.Green, Bryn H. 1995. Principles for protecting endangered landscapes: the work

of the IUCN-CESP working group on landscape conservation. In Cultural landscapes of

universal value, edited by B. von Droste, H. Plachter, and M. Rössler. New York: Gustav

Fischer Verlag.Kenny, Judith T. 1995. Climate, race, and imperial authority: the symbolic

landscape of the British hill station in India. Annals of the Association of American

Geographers 85 (4):694-714.Khor Kok Peng, Martin et al. 1991. Penang Hill: the need to

save our natural heritage. Penang, Malaysia: Friends of Penang Hill.King, Anthony D. 1976.

Colonial urban development: culture, social power and environment. London: Routledge and

Kegan Paul.Leith, Sir George. 1804. A short account of the settlement, produce, and


25/28



commerce, of Prince of Wales Island, in the Straits of Malacca. London: J. Booth.Lowenthal,

David. 1998. The heritage crusade and the spoils of history. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Lowenthal, David. 2000. Environmental history: from the conquest to the

rescue of nature. In Cultural encounters with the environment: enduring and evolving

geographic themes, edited by A. B. Murphy, D. L. Johnson, and V. Haarman. Lanham, MA:

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Macalister, Norman. 1803. Historical memoir relative to

Prince of Wales Island, in the Straits of Malacca. London: Printed for the author by J. H.

Hart.Mastny, Lisa. 2001. Traveling light: new paths for international tourism; Worldwatch

Paper 159. Washington DC: Worldwatch Institute.Meinig, D. W. ed. 1979. The

interpretation of ordinary landscapes: geographical essays. New York: Oxford University

Press.Mitchell, Nora. 1972. The Indian hill-station: Kodaikanal; Department of Geography

Research Paper No. 141. Chicago: University of Chicago. Morgan, R. P. C. 1986. Soil

erosion and conservation. Essex, England: Longman Scientific & Technical.Olwig, Kenneth

R. 1996. Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers 86 (4):630-53.Popham, Sir Home. 1805. A description of Prince of

Wales Island, in the Streights of Malacca; with its real and probable advantages and sources to

recommend it as a marine establishment. London: John Stockdale.Reed, Robert R. 1979. The

colonial genesis of hill stations: the Genting exception. Geographical Review 69:463-

68.Soper, J. R. P. 1938. Soil erosion on Penang Hill. Malayan Agricultural Journal 26: 407-

13.Spencer, J. E., and W. L. Thomas. 1948. The hill stations and summer resorts of the

Orient. Geographical Review 38:637-51.SPI. n.d. The Sustainable Penang Initiative home

page: http://www.seri.com.my/spi/, Viewed 3 March 2002.Stott, Philip. 1998. Biogeography

and ecology in crisis: the urgent need for a new metalanguage. Journal of Biogeography 25

(1): 1-2.UNEP. 2001. About ecotourism. United Nations Environment Programme,

Production and Consumption Unit:

http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/ecotourism/home.htm, Viewed 3 March 2002.UNEP.

2002. Pioneering conservation and tourism project wins innovative private sector backing: new

funding helps kick-start International Year of Ecotourism. Protected Areas Management,

Press Release, 24 January. http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/sensitive/

world_heritage/press_release.htm, Viewed 3 March 2002UNESCO. 2000. About the

Convention: World Heritage information kit. United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization: http://www.unesco.org/whc/toc/toc_index.htm, Viewed 16 March


26/28



2002.UNESCO. 2001. The effects of tourism on culture and the environment in Asia/Pacific.

UNESCO Culture in Asia and the Pacific, IMPACT Sponsorship Programme:

http://www.unescobkk.org/ culture/culture_press_kit/inpact.htm, Viewed 16 March

2002.Urry, John. 1996. How societies remember the past. In Theorizing museums:

representing identity and diversity in a changing world, edited by S. Macdonald and G. Fyfe.

Oxford: Blackwell Publishers/The Sociological Review.Ward, T. M. 1830. Contribution to

the medical topography of Prince of Wales Island, or Pulo Pinang. In Official papers on the

medical statistics and topography of Malacca and Prince of Wales' Island and on the

prevailing diseases of the Tenasserim coast. Penang: Pinang Government Press.Wathen,

James. 1814. Journal of a voyage, in 1811 and 1812, to Madras and China. London: J.

Nichols, Son, and Bentley ... and Black, Parry, and Company.Wearing, Stephen, and John

Neil. 1999. Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possibilities. Oxford: Butterworth-

Heinemann.WTO 2001. Tourism highlights 2001: updated. World Tourism Organization:

http://www.world-tourism.org/market_research/data/pdf/highlightsupdatedengl.pdf,

Viewed 3 March 2002.WTO and UNEP. 2002. WTO-UNEP concept paper – International

Year of Ecotourism 2002: http://www.world-tourism.org /sustainable/IYE/WTO-UNEP-

Concept-Paper.htm, Viewed 16 March 2002.


27/28

penang hill landscape evolution and heritage conservation

Documents