Frontiers of Architectural Research (2019) 8, 94–105

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Frontiers of Architectural Research

www.keaipublishing.com/foar

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effects of urbanization on historical heritage

buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India
K. Kiruthigan, K. Thirumaran

Department of Architecture, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India

Received 18 June 2018; received in revised form 26 September 2018; accepted 28 September 2018

KEYWORDS Abstract
Urbanization; Urbanization is a common and inevitable occurrence everywhere. While growth and expansion are
Built heritage; beneficial for many people and businesses, there is a potential for loss of historical areas that are
Historic town; the heritage value to people. This paper investigates the effects of urbanization on the heritage
Kumbakonam buildings in the historical-heritage temple town of Kumbakonam in Tamilnadu, India. Heritage
temple towns are frequent targets for the rapid transition to urbanization that is often
accompanied by alteration of historical areas. The primary objective of this study was to identify
how urbanization could change the heritage characteristics in a temple town. An ordinal regression
model was used to analyze urbanization data from the heritage town of Kumbakonam. Our findings
revealed specific physical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural factors of urbanization that caused
identifiable and significant changes in the heritage characteristics of Kumbakonam. These factors
play a significant role and would aid in the implementation of the Local Development Plan (LDP) for
sustainable urban growth and preservation of the heritage character of Kumbakonam.
& 2019 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf
of KeAi. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction guidelines for planning, development, and implementation

A recent United Nations report (2017) said that by the year
2050, 69% of the population would be concentrated in urban
areas. Development, growth, and urbanization are inevita-
ble to provide jobs for a burgeoning population, but new
need to be created that include factors like cultural and
architectural heritage. The recent project on Urban
Conservation Planning in Southeast Asia (2017) of the Getty
Conservation Institute, is a good example of progressive
thinking in urban planning. The report emphasized the

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kiruthiga22@gmail.com (K. Kiruthiga).
Peer review under responsibility of Southeast University.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2018.09.002
2095-2635/& 2019 Higher Education Press Limited Company. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India
difficulties in the conservation of the urban cultural heri-
tage that countries like India, China, and other Southeast
Asia region confront under current urbanization models.
Excessive population growth, economic development and
lack of institutional or legal frameworks in several cases set
the stage for the destruction of the historic urban fabric.
“Historic heritage are places of significance to people on
account of historical, physical (ie, technological, archae-
ological, architectural) and cultural values. Historic
heritage is often referred to as cultural and historic
heritage or simply 'historic places'.” (2011)
Historic towns often exhibit a rich mixture of social,
cultural, architectural and historical heritage values
(Cohen, 1999; Cullen, 1961). However, streetscapes, urban
fabrics and buildings are developing and changing to suit the
demands of stakeholders while the role of urbanization in
preserving the heritage characteristics of the environment
is ignored. It is the responsibility of stakeholders to work to
conserve the distinctive character and quality of the
historic environment for future generations. Development
of towns and cities is not certainly destructive, but hapha-
zard growth, the ungovernable intrusion of modernization,
poor planning and inadequate awareness of heritage values
combine to produce a host of problems that threaten the
tangible and intangible heritage (Persson, 2004).
In developing countries like India, urbanization is taking
place at an unprecedented rate (Nandi and Gamkhar, 2013).
Urbanization threatens many heritage towns possessed of
unique aesthetic, architectural, cultural and historical signifi-
cance. The number of metropolises in India with a million or
more people has increased from only 18 in 2001–53 in 2011
(INDIA STATS, 2011) and historical-heritage temple towns are
especially undergoing a rapid transition due to urbanization
without regard for changes in their built heritage (Kiruthiga
and Thirumaran, 2017; Lee, 1996; PEARL, 2015). Thus, this
paper aims to identify the urbanization factors causing the
changes in the characteristics of built-heritage in the historic-
heritage temple town of Kumbakonam in Tamilnadu, India.
The primary goals of this paper are (1) to identify the factors
leading to changes in buildings and the heritage character of
Kumbakonam and (2) to investigate how these factors con-
tribute to changes in buildings in the selected study area. The
ordinal regression model was selected as the method for
attaining these goals because it is well suited for modeling
categorical data when it is not possible to utilize absolute
numerical measurements.
This paper is divided into five sections. Following the
introduction, Sections 2 and 3 explain the background of the
study and provide the conceptual framework for urbaniza-
tion and changes in built-heritage. Section 4 describes the
study area and the variables selected for the empirical
study. In that section, we discuss the empirical model, the
dependent and predictor variables used in the study. Then,
the following Section 5 describes the findings and discussion
and Section 6 presents the conclusions.
2. Background
UNESCO's recommendations on planning for the Historic
Urban Landscape emphasize that the urban heritage is a
95
social, cultural, and economic asset (UNESCO, 2011). The
identification, conservation, and management of historic
areas should be included in a broad approach in urban
planning that focuses on physical characteristics as well as
sociocultural and economic values. While most rapid urba-
nization in the Asian context results in a decline in the built
heritage of the historic environment (Zhang and Wan, 2015),
the conservation of heritage sites is alive and well in some
tourism and associated commercial markets (Amin, 2018).
Most of the Asian countries confront the pressure of
urbanization to protect the identity and continuity of their
rich heritage.
During the twentieth century, the influx of modernism
and large-scale reconstruction spurred many cities to elicit
change by the rejection of traditional architecture, building
techniques, and materials in favor of more modern methods
(Susan, 2011). Commercial establishments moving into the
settlement core pushed for the new architectural interven-
tions expecting old historical buildings to sacrifice their
heritage values (Tweed and Sutherland, 2007). Replacement
of old buildings with new construction extinguished the
social and cultural essence of the city and eliminated the
people's sense of place and identity (Marilena, 2010; Yung
et al., 2017). Beatriz and Francisco (2018) argued that
urban planning in historical heritage cities should make
allowances for the sociocultural, socioeconomic and histor-
ical context of the buildings.
The 2011 census revealed that from 1991 to 2011, the
urban population of India increased from 100 million to 200
million as a result of rampant urbanization. In India, each
townscape has its own unique diverse qualities, and transi-
tions in land-use. An increasing urban population with
different needs and aspirations and uncontrolled develop-
ment are drastically transforming the character of historic
areas. This transition can destroy the individuality of the
historic urban fabric, making all towns seem similar. Some
Indian cities have initiated conservation strategies in their
master plans for development, but most efforts to protect
the built heritage and its characteristic historic areas are
too weak and limited (PEARL, 2015). From the effects of
urbanization, the discontinued heritage flavor of the urban
fabric in the historic centers has to revive. Thus, we must
identify the factors impeding the continuity of heritage
values with respect to the preservation of the heritage
buildings. Our study of Kumbakonam as an example of
urbanization strategies that encompass historical as well
as modern factors proposes a conceptual framework to
analyze the impact of urbanization on the built heritage
and provide empirical guidelines for prohibiting needless
changes in heritage buildings in the historic parts of
the town.
3. Conceptual framework
Patrick Geddes, a renowned city planner of the 19th
century, began the analytical appraisal method of historical
towns, culminating in his urging against the demolition of
heritage buildings in the historic town of Madurai, India
(Karthik, 2017). Building on the ideas of Geddes, Giovannoni
advocated a ‘harmless’ form of development in which a
contemporary style was adapted to the built heritage of a
96
Fig. 1 Traditional shops selling copper vessels and utensils (Potramarai North Street).
historical town (Loes et al., 2013). Conservation of the
architectural, aesthetic, historical and cultural significance
of the built heritage was made the cornerstone of urban
planning for present and future generations (Feilden, 2003;
Oppong et al., 2018). The unique character of a city
depends in large part on preserving the existing built
heritage and limiting new interventions in architecture
and public spaces (Warnaby, 2009; Kropf, 1996). 1999 stated
that the historic towns and their buildings should be
preserved as testimonials of the past. Rodwell (2007)
advocated thorough documentation of the heritage attri-
butes of the houses in a historic town as a way to enumerate
these features and monitor changes due to modernization.
Most historical-heritage towns are under pressure for urba-
nization and development with the concomitant hazards of
discontinuity in architectural style and loss of the harmo-
nious relationship between the old and new built environ-
ments (Shahrul et al., 2013). Orbasli (2008) argued that
urbanization threatens the physical fabric and sociocultural
aspects of heritage towns while Beatriz and Francisco (2018)
widened historic cities research through spotlighting socio-
cultural, economic, historical and physical factors.
3.1. Kumbakonam: urbanization and built
heritage changes
Kumbakonam, the temple town famed for its historic
architecture and cultural heritage, was for centuries under
the rule of its great legendary kings. They left their stamp
on the town in the form of grand palaces and residences,
temples and religious buildings. Up until the British colonial
period, Kumbakonam had maintained the unique style and
individual flavor of its urban fabric. Many temples in the
town exhibit the architectural styles of the period during
which the kings ruled the town; the residential buildings
indicate the vernacular architecture of the region; the
commercial buildings express the colonial style. Even after
independence in 1947, the town was able to maintain a
good balance between development and preserving its
heritage character.
Over the past few decades, however, Kumbakonam has
been beset by a growing pressure of urbanization whose
thirst for development has little concern for the historical
attributes of the built heritage. Particularly, in the historic
center of town, rampant growth and modernization are
K. Kiruthiga, K. Thirumaran
rapidly replacing the historical heritage characteristics with
amorphous, contemporary, and global designs. The very
physical settings of the town, especially the buildings, are
being irrevocably altered and with their passing, the overall
fabric and flavor of the place will soon only be a memory
preserved in a few remaining structures and photographs.
Kumbakonam has a presence, an almost physical body that
gives joy to its people, provides a focus for their religious
life and a backdrop for their everyday activities. There is an
intangible value in the visual aspects of a place, the way it
inhabits the landscape, the appearance of its buildings
against the skyline predominating the temple gopurams,
the very materials from which they are constructed—the
brickworks, stone copings, decorative ironwork, wooden
railings, roofing tiles, etc. The heights of the original
buildings were proportioned for the town skylines and the
temple towers. (Ground floor (G), Single storied (G+ 1),
Multi-Storied (above G +1)), architectural elements (orna-
mental gates, arched windows, decorated parapets, pila-
sters, cornices, tiled roofs, lean-to-roofs), expose the
heritage characteristics. On the other hand, urbanization
process with the development pressure, increase the occu-
pancy rate and land value. Commercial establishment
speeds overcome the residential settings which induce to
change the building use. In this process, the buildings keep
modified and intervening in global trends results in the loss
of the built heritage settings.
The town was familiar for copper vessel and utensil
businesses passed on from generations to generations.
Fig. 1 shows the traditional copper vessels shop in the
Potramarai North street. Only a few shops exist in the
traditional style, and others are modified to the current
trend (see Fig. 2). Further, the land values have increased in
the recent decades. The building owners kept partitioning
their buildings and rented them for commercial purposes.
The streetscapes and skylines are mostly affected by these
changes. Concerning the town's significant built heritage,
the factors which cause the changes have to be identified,
and proper measures to balance the urbanization and the
historical heritage settings should be undertaken. Careless
disregard of the potential adverse effects of new interven-
tions due to urbanization, these factors threaten the
existing urban fabric. The targets of urbanization and
changes in built heritage are represented in Fig. 3. In the
following sections, we establish an empirical model for
urbanization by defining those variables with the most
Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India 97

Fig. 2 Commercial buildings with contemporary architecture (Thanjavur Main Road).

significant potential for reshaping the building heritage of

Kumbakonam Town
Kumbakonam.
Built – Heritage
Urbanization
(Buildings in the Historic core)
4. Empirical analysis
Quantitative changes Qualitative changes
(modifications) (Interventions)

4.1. Study area

Physical Factors
1. Architectural Elements
2. Building Materials Kumbakonam, a historical town in Tamilnadu state in India
3. Building Height
was chosen for our study area (Fig. 4). The town consists of
Socio-Economic Factors Changes in 45 municipal administrative wards, which are included, with
Built-Heritage
4. No.of.Occupants
5. Land value
approximately 500 streets. The town encompasses an area of
6. Ownership Type 12.58 km2 with 44% of the land used as residential and 2.75%
as commercial. The total population of the town is 140,156
Socio-Cultural Factors
7. Building Use with a population density of about 11,000 people per km2.
8. Real world factors There are more than 188 temples in the municipal adminis-
tration area (TNUIFSL, 2007). The emperors of Kumbakonam
Fig. 3 Conceptual framework for urbanization and changes in Town established its unique style of architecture in the
built-heritage. temples and urban fabric (Champakalakshmi, 1979). The
divine and magnificent composition of Kumbakonam town

Fig. 4 (i) Tamilnadu map showing the location of Kumbakonam in the Thanjavur District and; (ii) Google earth map of Kumbakonam
showing municipal boundaries.
98
4 N
1
Pie chart represents the Land use in Study Area
2
7% 5%
78%
Study Area 1. Adi Kumbeswarar Temple 5. Nageshwara Temple
2. Ramasamy Temple
3. Sarangapani Temple
4. Somesar Temple
(i)
Fig. 5 (i) Key map showing the study area in Kumbakonam; (ii) Building use in the study area of Kumbakonam.
Fig. 6 Mahamahamkulam – the sacred water tank with Sri
Adikumbeshwara Temple Tower.
manifest in its temples and the sacred water tanks has
shaped the town as a historically important native settlement
(Nanda, 1996). The study area includes 12 streets in the
historic center of Kumbakonam upon which are 373 buildings,
two sacred water tanks and key temples (Fig. 5). The sacred
water tank, Mahamahamkulam (Fig. 6), is famous for its
festival every twelve years and the Potramarai Theertham
(holy water) water tank retains rich religious significance.
The connecting vein of these two sacred water tanks is the
processional route of the key temples during the festival.
This stretch of state highway (Thanjavur Main Road) is also
the major commercial corridor of the town, and the land-use
changes and developments have occurred predominantly
along this road (Kiruthiga and Thirumaran, 2017). Hence,
the selected study area has important heritage features at
risk of disruption by commercial development.
4.2. Variable selection
A total of eight variables delineating physical, socioeco-
nomic and sociocultural factors of the buildings were
selected for the empirical analysis. Data about the 373
K. Kiruthiga, K. Thirumaran
5
10%
Commercial
Residential
Mixed 6
Institutional
6. Kasi Viswanathar Temple
7. Abhimukhewara Temple 7
(ii)
buildings was referenced for statistical analysis and con-
solidated for the study. The predictor variables were chosen
for propagating the characteristics of the built heritage of
Kumbakonam. Table 1 summarizes the predictor variables
used in the statistical analysis of the effects of urbanization
on the built heritage in Kumbakonam from 1990 to 2015.
4.2.1. Dependent variable: changes in building
Most urbanization impact analyses focus on changes in the
total amount of covered land area; but, since this study was
about the effect of urbanization on the built heritage, the
data on covered land areas was deemed unsuitable because
the historic center was the origin of the town settlement.
Hence, we decided to examine the modifications and
changes to buildings as a result of urbanization using
questionnaire surveys of selected respondents over a period
of 25 years. Based on the survey data, the buildings were
categorized according to the level of change. The study
relies on field observations, photo documentation, and
interviews with local residents who have lived in the town
for more than 25 years. The categories of the dependent
variables according to the level of change in building
classification were as follows:

Category 1: Building with low level of change

Category 2: Building with medium level of change

Category 3: Building with medium level of change
Fig. 7 shows the level of changes in each building in the
selected study area, while the graph in Fig. 8 depicts the
level of changes in buildings in each street of the study
area. It is evident that most of the buildings in the study
area had a high level of change (Cat. 1). Along the
commercial corridors of the study area, the streets num-
bered 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 had the highest level of changes. On
the other hand, most of the buildings in the Mahamaham-
kulam and Porthamarai Theertham water tank precincts
show low or medium change (Cat.2 and 3).
Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India 99

Table 1 Summary of the variables used in the ordinal regression model.

Variable Symbol Description Unit / scale of

measurement

Dependent variable Y The percentage of modifications or interventions made in Measurement converted

Change in Built-Heritage
Predictor variables
Traditional Architectural
Elements
Traditional Building Con
struction Materials
Building Height
Number of Occupants
Ownership
Land Value
Real World Factors
Building Use
each building from 1990 to 2015. into Ordinal
X1 The percentage of change in contextual architectural Measurement converted
elements in each building. into Ordinal
X2 The percentage of change in traditional building construc- Measurement converted
tion materials in each building. into Ordinal
X3 Categorical factor with a value of 1 denotes the G G or G +1 or more than G
building; a value of 2 denotes G+1 building; or a value +1Nominal
of 3 denotes more than G+ 1 building.
X4 Number of occupants in each building. Continuous
X5 Categorical factor with a value of 1 denotes an owned Owned or Rented or Par
building; with a value of 2 denotes a rented building; or, tially RentedNominal
with a value of 3 denotes a partially rented building
X6 Market land value per sq. ft. in ₹ of each building. Continuous
X7 Binary factor with the value of 2 in the case of real world Yes or No
facts influencing the changes in buildings or a value of 1 in
the case of real world facts not influencing the changes in
buildings.
X8 Categorical factor with a value of 1 denotes residential; a Residential, mixed or
value of 2 denotes mixed (Residential + Commercial); and commercial
a value of 3 denotes commercial.

18.7 %

59 %
22.3 %

Buildings with low level of change

Buildings with medium level of change

Study Area Buildings with high level of change

(i) (ii)

Fig. 7 (i) Key map showing the study area in Kumbakonam (ii) Level of changes in buildings in the selected study area of
Kumbakonam.

4.2.2. Predictor variables There is a decline in the contextual architectural elements

Each building in the study was observed and the existing
features documented. The driving factors for changes in the
buildings were the predictor variables as follows:
4.2.2.1. Architectural Elements (X1). Each town or region
has contextual architectural elements identified from build-
ings which existing for at least four to five decades (Fig. 9).
of most of the buildings in the study area.
4.2.2.2. Building Construction Materials (X2). Like archi-
tectural elements, the traditional construction materials of
buildings existing for more than five decades which were
used as a predictor variable. Fig. 9 shows the materials used
in the heritage buildings of the town. New architectural
100 K. Kiruthiga, K. Thirumaran

High Medium Low

90

LEVEL OF CHANGE IN BUILT HERITAGE C_BH (%)

80
1. Potramarai North Street
2. Potramarai South Street
70
3. Potramarai East street
4. Potramarai West Street
60
5. Thanjavur Main Road
50
6. Nageshwaran North Street
7. Nageshwaran East Street
40
8. Post Office Road
9. Mahamahakulam North street
30 10. Mahamahakulam West Street
11. Mahamahakulam East Road
20 12. Mahamahakulam South Street

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
STREETS IN THE SELECTED STUDY AREA

Fig. 8 Graph showing the level of changes in buildings in each streets of the study area.

styles usually do not utilize locally available materials which with minimal residential use. These changes in building use
slowly ruins the heritage character. are clearly reflected in changes in the built heritage.
4.2.2.3. Building Height (X3). Kumbakonam underwent
notable development and commercial pressure over the
last decades as more G + 2 buildings were built. However, 4.3. Model description
the principal temples are located in the historic center
which was dominated by the impressive articulations of the The relationship between the effect of urbanization on built
temple gopurams (vertical tower of the temple shrine), heritage and the likelihood of its changing factors was exam-
whereas the variations in building height were more con- ined by using an ordinal regression model. This statistical model
cerned with built-heritage changes. has been used in the assessment of land use changes like urban
4.2.2.4. Number of Occupancies (X4). The occupancy rate of sprawl and the rate of deforestation (Minetos and Polyzos,
each building reflected the growth in population density 2010). Similar studies have been conducted by Boereback
associated with urbanization of the area and also included (2012). The ordinal logistic regression model demonstrated
the household numbers and the commercial population rate. the relationship between the dependent variable (with various
4.2.2.5. Land Value (X5). Building owners continued mak- categories) and one or more predictor variables (Norusis, 2004).
ing divisions in the building for sale or rent. We observed a The ordinal regression model can therefore be used to examine
continued increase in the value of land over the past few the level of change in a building (low, medium or high) when it
decades due to the impact of urbanization. is not possible to evaluate this with a continuous variable. The
4.2.2.6. Ownership Type (X6). Most of the buildings have construction of an ordinal regression model can be done with
been divided up by owners and are partially rented for any of its five kinds of link functions. The link functions could be
commercial purposes. Few older buildings were abandoned, varied according to the nature of the dependent variable. In
and remaining old buildings were left for lower rents or this study, the logit link function was used.
occupied by the owners. The general model of the Logit link function for ordinal
4.2.2.7. Real World Factors (X7). This variable defines the regression is:
!
reasons for the changes in buildings from the stakeholders’
 γj
perception. In spite of sentimental value and rich heritage, link γ j ¼ log ð1Þ
1 γ j
residents willingly adopted new interventions. The reasons
given by occupants, developers, designers and everyday And,
users are as follows: !  
γj PðY i rjÞ


Financial constraints for maintenance log
1 γ j
¼ log
PðY i 4jÞ
¼ αj  β1 X 1i þ:::þ βk X ki ð2Þ

Non-availability of materials and techniques  

Suitability of type of construction γ
Where log 1 j γ is the above mentioned Logit link.

Performance requirements of the building
j

Not impressive in the contemporary setting
The link index j refers to the level of changes in the

Soundness of the building building (high, medium or low);

Increasing economic viability
γ j is the cumulative response probability up to and
4.2.2.8. Building Use (X8). The study area was originally a including Y =j;
residential settlement with minimal commercial use. In
Yi is the response variable, for the observations i = 1…n;
recent decades, however, this characteristic has been
k is the predictor variables associated with the observed
reversed so that now the area is almost totally commercial changes in the dependent variable;
Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India 101

Ornamental Parapet wall (Brick with Cement Plastering)

Cornice (Cement Plasters)

Pilasters (Cement Plasters)

Band molding (Cement Plasters)

Lean-to-roof (Clay)

Decorated Entrance gate (Iron)

(i)

Ornamental Parapet wall (Brick Lime Mortar)

Cornice (Lime Mortar)

Arched windows (Wood)

Pilasters (Lime Mortar)

Band moldings (Lime Mortar)

Cornice (Lime Mortar)

Lean-to-roof (Asbestos Steel Sheets)

Decorated Entrance door (Wood and Iron)

(ii)

Pot tiled Roofing (Clay)

Cornice (Cement Plasters)
Band moldings (Cement Plasters)
Arched windows (Wood)
Pilasters (Cement Plasters)
Decorated Entrance gate (Iron)

(iii)

Fig. 9 Buildings with contextual architectural elements and building materials. (i) Building at Mahamahakulam South Street, age
more than 45 years; (ii) building at Portramarai North Street, age more than 80 years; and (iii) building at Mahamahakulam West
Street, age more than 50 years.

α is the intercept of the regression equation or threshold
for each cumulative probability;

β k is the coefficients of the predictor variables or else
the locations of the model.

The threshold α and the regression coefficient βk are
unknown parameters to be estimated by means of the
maximum likelihood algorithm.
It is often the case that the level of change in a building
depends not only on the action of individual factors,
but also on the interaction of multiple factors upon the likely
levels.
4.4. Model fitting information
In Appendix A, a case processing summary of the model is
given. It shows the number of buildings in each category of
the dependent variable and categorical predictor variables
with its cumulative percentages. At this stage, we needed
to check whether the selected ordinal logistic regression
model improved the competence to predict the dependent
(outcome) variable. The following tests were designed to
check whether the selected model fits the data. Firstly, the
Test of Parallel Lines: In an ordinal regression model, we had
to make strict assumptions, called parallel assumptions in
102 K. Kiruthiga, K. Thirumaran

which, we assume that the slopes (regression coefficients)
are identical for all dependent (outcome) categories. If the
assumption fails, some other statistical model can be
applied. Table 2 presents the results of the Test of Parallel
Lines, in which the slopes are assumed to be the same for all
three categories of changes in the building, and it yielded
the statistical significance of 0.63. Consequently, the
assumption of parallelism may not be dropped and the null
hypothesis is sustained because the location parameters are
equivalent over the outcome levels.
Table 3 shows the model fitting information. It gives the
 2 log likelihood for the intercept only and final models.
Chi-square is to test the difference between the 2 log
likelihood for the two models and the chi-square statistic
(p o 0.0005) argues that the final model accords well with
significant development of an intercept-only model. Pear-
son's chi-square statistic is calculated to test if the observed
data are in agreement with the fitted model. The results of
the chi-square statistic (p 4 0.05) based on the deviance
suggest that the model does fit very well. Lastly, the
pseudo-R2 mirrors the association between the dependent
variable and the predictor variables. Pseudo-R2 for McFad-
den (0.785), Cox and Snell (0.817), and Nagelkerke (0.958)
were relatively smaller than the R2 of the linear regression
model and the results are therefore considered satisfactory.
Table 4 presents the confusion matrix which summarizes
the predictive ability of the empirical model. For the high
level of changes in building category, the model assigned
218 out of 220 (99%) of the cases correctly. In the medium
level of changes in building category, the correctly assigned
cases are 75 out of 83 or 90.4%. At the low level of changes
in building category, the correctly assigned cases are 70 out
of 70 or 100%. Therefore, the predictive ability of the
confusion matrix for this model is very high in the first and
last category, and the success percent is 97.3%. Further, the
receiver operating characteristic curve also shows that
the prediction score of the model i.e. the area under the
curve = 0.98 which means the model is perfectly correct
with 98% (predict perfectly). Fig. 10
5. Findings and discussion
Table 5 shows the parameter estimates, including the
regression coefficients, standard error, Wald statistic test,
significance level and the 95% level of the confidence
interval for upper and lower bounds. Fig. 11 shows the
confidence interval and prediction interval for the model
which represent the minimal margin of error in the para-
meter estimates. The threshold estimate for [C_Bldg =
1.00] is the cutoff value between low and medium and
the threshold estimate for [C_Bldg = 2.00] is the cutoff
value between medium and high. The estimates define the
ordered log-odds (logit) slope (regression coefficient). The
standard interpretation of the ordered logit coefficient is
that for a one-unit increase in a predictor variable, the
respective regression coefficient in the ordered log-odds
scale is expected to change the dependent variable level
when the other variable is consistent.
For example, the slope for Architectural Elements (X1)
showed statistical significance for the first and second cate-
gories, indicating that medium and high changes in
Table 4 Confusion matrix.

Level of change in Predicted response Total

Table 2 Test of parallel linesc.
buildings category
Model  2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.
High Medium Low
d
Null Hypothesis 82.412
High N 218 2 0 220
General 73.528a 60.826b 13 0.63
% 99%a 1% 0 100%
a
The log-likelihood value cannot be further increased Medium N 8 75 0 83
after maximum number of step-having. % 9.6% 90.4% 0 100%
b
The chi-statistic is computed based on the log-likelihood Low N 0 0 70 70
value of the last iteration of the general model. Validity of % 0% 0% 100% 100%
the test is uncertain. Total N 226 77 70 373
c
Link function: Logit. % 60.6% 20.6% 18.8% 100%
d
The null hypothesis states that the location parameters
(slope coefficients) are the same across response categories. a
Percentage of correctly assigned cases by the model.

Table 3 Model fitting information.

Model  2 Log Likelihood Chi-Square df Sig.

Intercept only 715.985

Final 82.412 633.572 13 0.000
Pseudo R-Square Goodness-of-fit
Cox and Snell 0.817 Chi-Square df Sig.
Nagelkerke 0.958 Pearson 157.635 679 1.000
McFadden 0.785 Deviance 82.412 679 1.000

Link function: Logit

Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India 103

architectural elements were associated with a high level of
changes in buildings. The preponderant use of contemporary
architectural elements in the historic center of Kumbakonam
clearly overshadowed the regional architectural elements. With
regard to changes in Building Materials (X2), we saw positive
statistical significance in the first and second categories. The
facades of commercial buildings and some new residential
developments were mostly constructed with aluminum clad-
Fig. 10 Graph indicates the receiver operating characteristic
(ROC) curve for the regression model.
dings and glass panels and these changes in building materials
had a great impact on the historical integrity of heritage sites.
For the next variable, Building Height (X3), the results showed
statistical significance in the first and second categories (G+2
and G+1). Increasing heights of buildings in the study area
obviously had serious consequences on the built heritage.
The coefficient of the X4 variable (number of occupants in
each building) had a positive sign and a statistical significance
of 0.0357 which means that the number of occupants, an
indicator of use and growing urbanization, was highly asso-
ciated with the observed changes in buildings. As the occu-
pancy rate increased so did the level of change in a building.
The indicator of Occupancy Type (X5) of each building had a
positive and statistically significant value for the first and
second categories. The occupancy type, whether rented or
partially owned, exerted positive pressure on the level of
change in a building. Next, the variable of Land Value (X6) of
each building in the selected streets showed a negative
association with the outcome variable. However, since the
value was not statistically significant, we could not show
association of land value with building alteration.
The variable representing Real-World Factors (X7) got a
positive sign for the ‘yes’ category which means that the
residents of the selected study area were likely to perceive

Table 5 Parameter estimates.

Estimate Std. Error Wald df Sig. 95% Confidence Interval

Lower Bound Upper Bound

Threshold [C_Bldg = 1] 12.836 4.371 8.622 1 0.003 4.268 21.403

[C_Bldg = 2] 21.999 5.127 18.412 1 0.002 11.951 32.048
Location Architectural Elements
High 4.257 0.951 20.037 1 0.028 1.095 3.633
Medium 8.236 1.613 26.062 1 0.014 5.074 11.398
Low 0a . . 0 . . .
Building Materials
High 5.517 1.233 20.013 1 0.018 0.934 3.100
Medium 4.179 1.293 10.499 1 0.001 1.645 6.713
Low 0a . . 0 . . .
Building Height
G+2 9.667 1.801 28.817 1 0.015 6.138 13.197
G+1 5.394 1.004 28.838 1 0.016 3.425 7.363
G 0a . . 0 . . .
Number of Occupants 7.235 3.509 4.251 1 0.039 0.357 14.113
Occupancy Type
Rented 3.405 1.523 5.001 1 0.025 0.421 6.390
Partial 3.160 1.253 6.357 1 0.012 0.703 5.616
Owned 0a . . 0 . . .
Land value  0.330 0.171 3.708 1 0.054 0.665 0.006
Real World Factors
Yes 0.418 0.749 0.312 1 0.045 1.050 1.887
No 0a . . 0 . . .
Building Use
Commercial 4.323 0.859 25.327 1 0.018 0.546 2.823
Others 3.495 0.675 26.809 1 0.047 1.759 3.457
Residential 0a . . 0 . . .

Link function: Logit.

a
This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.
104 K. Kiruthiga, K. Thirumaran

Confidence Interval Prediction Interval

3.2 5

3.1 4

3 3

2.9 2

2.8 1

2.7 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
y lower upper pred lower upper

Fig. 11 Graph shows the confidence interval and prediction interval for the model.

changes to their buildings in terms of real-world influences. development plan guidelines need to accord more con-
Real world factors scored a higher impact for built heritage sideration for the built heritage and its urban fabric.
changes as they were confirmed to be more liable for such Commercial pressures as highlighted in the building use
changes. Finally, the Building Use variable (X8) had a positive factor, emphasize how important this aspect of urban
regression coefficient. The statistical significance of the Com- planning is to halt the decline in a town's traditional
mercial category was 0.018, and of the others, the category heritage characters. Socioeconomic factors like the num-
was 0.047. The positive coefficient means that commercial ber of occupants, changes in land value and ownership
buildings are more likely to undergo a high level of change than type are also of critical importance in developing strate-
buildings used for other purposes and that building use has a gies for allowing new developments and interventions
significant positive impact on the built heritage. without compromising historical integrity. Direct inputs
from the stakeholders are also strictly necessary because
our study showed clearly that they pay close attention to
6. Conclusions real-world factors when making decisions, affecting the
level of change in their buildings.
In this study, we identified and investigated the factors Built heritage settings of temple towns could have been
correlated with urbanization-related changes in building in passed down for generations as the most valuable memories
the selected study area of Kumbakonam town. Urbanization of a city has been relentlessly torn down. All of these
led to changes in the built heritage which are gradually historical heritage characters attempting to cultivate a
decaying the heritage character of the city. We used an ordinal richer understanding of the town come into conflict with
regression model to assess the identified factors and demon- the pressure of urbanization. In the context of historic
strated that this model allowed us to manage the categorical towns like Kumbakonam, clear and positive guidelines need
data when it was not possible to do so with continuous to be established for the conservation of the built heritage
variables. The results are clearly explaining that the buildings to retain and revive the character of the town. While
with the high level of changes occurred in the study area of urbanization and development of a town are inevitable, it
Kumbakonam which were induced by various independent is not incompatible with growth in the conservation of the
variables. Notably, changes in the building materials, architec- uniquely valuable characteristics of the architectural heri-
tural elements, building height, building use are considered the tage and creates a town people can call home. The planning
primary factors which influenced the buildings heritage char- authorities, local architects, stakeholders and the popula-
acter. By controlling these factors, we can able to revive the tion of the town, all together, should develop appropriate
town's heritage characters which need proper local develop- measures to maintain and celebrate the beautiful fabric and
ment plan. Without regulations and directives, the urban flavor of their historical heritage.
planners follow their ideas which seldom involved heritage
preservation. Even when the ancient buildings are spared, they Appendix A
are so modified by replacement of traditional materials and
styles with the current crop of contemporary architectural Table A Case Processing Summary
styles that they become painful to view.
In preparing a Local Development Plan (LDP) for a town N Marginal Percentage
like Kumbakonam, it is vital to focus on the built heritage
and its characteristic influences on the sociocultural life of C_Bldg High 220 59.0%
the town in order to preserve as much as possible of its Medium 83 22.3%
heritage. In general, our study demonstrated that the Low 70 18.8%
identified factors were highly associated with changes in Architectural High 160 42.9%
the physical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural aspects of Elements
the town's buildings within which the built heritage and its Medium 130 34.9%
unique characteristics exist. In the case of physical factors, Low 83 22.3%
such as the architectural elements, building materials, and Building Materials High 210 56.3%
building height, the municipal administration and local Medium 93 24.9%
Effects of urbanization on historical heritage buildings in Kumbakonam, Tamilnadu, India 105

Low 70 18.8% Marilena, V., 2010. A definition of cultural heritage: from the
Building Height G 48 12.9% tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 11, 321–324.
G+1 117 31.4% Minetos, D., Polyzos, S., 2010. Deforestation processes in Greece: a
G+2 208 55.8% spatial analysis by using an ordinal regression model. For. Policy
Ownership Owned 51 13.7% Econ. 12, 457–472.
Partial 191 51.2% Nanda, V., 1996. Cambridge Kumbakonam Project: the ritual
topography of Kumbakonam. Archit. Des. 124, 30–34.
Rented 131 35.1%
Nandi, S., Gamkhar, S., 2013. Urban challenges in India: a review of
Real World Factors Yes 296 79.4% recent policy measures. Habitat Int. 39, 55–61. http://dx.doi.
No 77 20.6% org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.10.001.
Building Use Commercial 291 78.0% Norusis, M., 2004. SPSS13.0 Advanced statistical procedure compa-
Others 45 12.1% nion. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Residential 37 9.9% Oppong, R.A., Marful, A.B., Sarbeng, Y.K., 2018. Conservation and
character defining elements of historical towns: a comparative
study of Cape Coast and Elmina streets and castles. Front. Archit.
Res. 7 (1), 37–55.
References Orbasli, A., 2008. Architectural Conservation. Blackwell, Oxford.
PEARL, 2015. Urban heritage in Indian cities, Compendium of good
Amin, H.M., 2018. The impact of heritage decline on urban social practice- National Institute of Urban Affairs. Prepared by Indian
life. J. Environ. Psychol. 55, 34–47 (Accessed 1 April 2017). National Trust of Arts & Cultural heritage.
Beatriz, M.P., Francisco, J.N.G., 2018. Housing building typology defini- Persson, P., 2004. Urbanization – contemporized heritage. A future for
tion in a historical area based on a case study: the Valley, Spain. the past Historic Cities in Development, Sida’s Urban Development
Cities 72, 1–7. Division.
Boereback, J.J., 2012. Sense of Place; Attachment to, Identity with and Rodwell, D., 2007. Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities.
Dependence of Shopping Locations (thesis). Eindhoven University of Blackwell, Oxford.
Technology, Real Estate Management and Development. Shahrul, Y.S., Hasnizan, A., Elma, D.I., 2013. Heritage conservation and
Champakalakshmi, R., 1979. Growth of urban centers in South regeneration of historic areas in Malaysia. Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci.
India: Kudamukku Palaiyarai, the twin city of the Cholas. Stud. 105, 418–428.
Hist. 1, 1–31. Susan, M., 2011. Contemporary architecture in historic urban
Cohen, N., 1999. Urban Conservation. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. environments. GCI, Hist. Cities.
Cullen, G., 1961. The Concise Townscape. Van Nostrand Reinhold, TNUIFSL, 2007. (PDF) (Report) - Conversion of City Corporate Plan
New York. to Business Plan for Kumbakonam municipality. Commissioner of
Feilden, B., 2003. Conservation of historic buildings. Tech. Stud. Municipal Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu.
Arts, Archeol. Archit. 3. Tweed, C., Sutherland, M., 2007. Built cultural heritage and
INDIA STATS, 2011. Million plus cities in India as per Census. Press sustainable urban development. Landsc. Urban Plan. 83 (1),
Information Bureau, Government of India. 62–69.
Karthik, R.-C., 2017. Patrick Geddes in India: anti-colonial nationalism UNESCO, 1999. Heritage: legacy from the past to the future.
and the historical time of ‘cities in evolution’. Cities 166, 71–81. UNESCO, 2011. Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape,
Kiruthiga, K., Thirumaran, K., 2017. Visual perception on the including a glossary of definitions.
architectural elements of the built heritage of a historic temple Urban Conservation Planning in Southeast Asia, 2017. Our projects.
town: a case study of Kumbakonam, India. Front. Archit. Res. 6 The Getty Conservation Institute.
(1), 96–107. Warnaby, G., 2009. Look up! retailing, historic architecture and city
Kropf, K., 1996. Urban tissue and the character of towns. Urban center distinctiveness. Cities 26 (5), 287–292.
Des. Int. 1 (3), 247–263 (1996). Yung, E.H.K., Zhang, Q., Chan, E.H., 2017. Underlying social
Lee, S.L., 1996. Urban conservation policy and the preservation of factors for evaluating heritage conservation in urban
historical and cultural heritage: the case of Singapore. Cities 13 renewal districts. Habitat Int. 66, 135–148.
(6), 399–409. Zhang, Y., Wan, G., 2015. International trade and the urbanization of
Loes, V., Ana, R.P.R., Bernard, J.F.C., 2013. Urban heritage: putting the developing countries: evidence from Asia. Soc. Sci. China 36 (2),
past into the future. Hist. Environ.: Policy Pract. 4 (1), 3–18. 186–204.