International Journal of Heritage Studies

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

Beyond child’s play: heritage as process in

Singapore’s playgrounds

T. C. Chang & Osten B. P. Mah

To cite this article: T. C. Chang & Osten B. P. Mah (2020): Beyond child’s play: heritage
as process in Singapore’s playgrounds, International Journal of Heritage Studies, DOI:
10.1080/13527258.2020.1821236

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1821236

Published online: 06 Oct 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjhs20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2020.1821236

Beyond child’s play: heritage as process in Singapore’s

playgrounds
T. C. Changa and Osten B. P. Maha,b
a
Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore; bDepartment of Land
Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper develops the idea of heritage as a process that involves the Received 27 May 2020
interpretation and management of heritage sites. This understanding is Accepted 25 August 2020
developed empirically through a case study of mosaic playgrounds in KEYWORDS
Singapore. Investigating these playgrounds contributes to an expanded Heritage as process;
notion of heritage places beyond high-profile sites and monuments. With everyday geographies;
an explicit focus on the everyday users of playgrounds, we illustrate how interpretation; management;
the application of an ‘everyday geographies’ approach to the study of playgrounds; Singapore
heritage provides an analytical balance to understanding the heritage
process. A multiple methods approach is adopted, with findings drawn
from quantitative data based on questionnaire surveys distributed to
everyday users, qualitative data based on semi-structured interviews
with everyday users and state representatives, as well as secondary data
sources. Heritage is always in the process of becoming rather than a
constant given. Towards this end, we discuss the dissonant and consonant
heritage of playgrounds as perceived by everyday users, as well as the
necessity of change in and management of heritage sites. How, why and
whether the processes of change affect heritage are also critically
explored.

1. Introduction

We aim to design a new experience in the museum that will capture more of what we call ‘everyday heritage’ –
heritage taken not only from the grand pages of history, but from the lives of ordinary citizens.

Lawrence Wong (2014) Former Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth

Minister Wong’s use of the term ‘everyday heritage’ in a parliamentary speech echoes Butlin’s
(1987) notion of heritage as a radical concept. Heritage as a radical idea is oriented towards
‘reclaiming the lived landscapes of common people’ (Yeoh and Kong 1996, 60). In Singapore,
mosaic playgrounds (hereafter referred to as ‘playgrounds’) represent one such landscape invested
with national significance viz. the country’s first national heritage masterplan Our SG Heritage Plan
(National Heritage Board 2017a). As sociologist Kelvin Low (2017) observed, playgrounds have
been ‘consign[ed] with a heritage purpose’ through their inclusion in heritage trails designed by the
National Heritage Board (NHB). Another heritage purpose is exemplified by NHB’s feature of the
Dragon playground at Toa Payoh, one of Singapore’s earliest public residential town, as a venue for
the 2018 Singapore Heritage Festival.

CONTACT T. C. Chang geoctc@nus.edu.sg Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, 1 Arts Link, Kent
Ridge, Singapore 117570.
© T. C. Chang and Osten B. P. Mah
2 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

This study focuses on nine playgrounds presently found in several Housing and Development
Board (HDB) towns. Covered with glass mosaic tiles, these playgrounds represent the oldest
existing playground typology in Singapore developed in the 1970s till the 1990s (Ho 2003). Our
research advances the notion of heritage as a process, involving active interpretation and ongoing
management. Playgrounds were specifically chosen to illustrate how ‘heritage [can be defined] in
everyday places’ (Yeoh and Kong 1996, 61). To provide ‘analytical balance’ (Winter 2015, 998) to
apprehending the heritage process, we aim to accomplish two goals. First we seek to uncover the
(dis)agreements between state representatives and everyday users on heritage interpretation and
management, and secondly to explore the extent to which playground users perceive modifications
as impacting on the heritage significance of the sites. As a dynamic process, heritage evolves
through the ways everyday users contend its meaning and significance, as well as its fluctuating
status arising from maintenance and management.
The rest of this paper is structured across five sections. The next section offers a brief review of
heritage studies and highlights, in particular, the value of applying an everyday geographies
approach to understanding heritage as a process. Following this, we briefly outline the methodology
employed in this study and the context of HDB playgrounds (Section 3). The empirical findings are
then analysed across two sections (Sections 4 and 5). The first discusses heritage interpretation as
processual through the way heritage meanings and significance are constantly negotiated between
the state and everyday users. The second section explores the heritage management of playgrounds
and how users respond to the inevitability of change that attends a dynamic environment. In the
conclusion, we reflect on the conceptual contributions of this study as it speaks to broader debates
on national heritage and heritage scholarship. Far beyond child’s play, the study reveals that the
meanings of ‘playgrounds’, ‘heritage’ and ‘everyday users’ are always open to debate and change.

2. Heritage as process and everyday geographies

Heritage, as many have noted, is a notoriously difficult term to define (Graham, Ashworth, and
Tunbridge 2000; Kelly 2009). As Harvey (2001) commented, ‘there seem to be as many definitions of the
heritage concept as there are heritage practitioners’. While numerous studies have discussed heritage as
contested (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996; Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000) or a value-laden
idea (Tunbridge 1984; Hardy 1988), recent works have also espoused the notion of heritage as a process
(Harvey 2001; Smith 2006; Viejo-Rose and Sørensen 2015; Muzaini and Minca 2018).
Acknowledging that heritage ‘is made’ (Smith 2006, 239) and ‘not something that simply exists’
(Aplin 2002, 16), there is a growing awareness that heritage is dynamic and constantly evolving
(Howard 2003; Chang and Teo 2009; Silberman 2015). This processual understanding of heritage
invites us to go beyond ‘narrow’ conceptions of heritage (Harrison 2013, 111) postulated by a set of
Western-oriented ideas canonising an ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’ (Smith 2006). Numerous
academics from diverse disciplines have accepted the invitation to do so, enhancing understandings
of both temporal and scalar dimensions of heritage. This paper builds on these efforts by adopting
an everyday geographies approach which involves ‘everyday spaces’ of heritage in the form of
playgrounds as well as the ‘ordinary people’ using these spaces (Skelton 2017, 1).
To date, studies on the everyday geographies of heritage have been limited (Holloway and
Hubbard 2001). Literature on the attachment of heritage value to everyday spaces tends to be in the
context of Europe (e.g. Atkinson 2007, 2008; Robertson 2015; Valestrand 2015). Despite long-
standing calls for research into the quotidian spatialities of heritage in Singapore for example (Yeoh
and Kong 1996; Hou 2018), critical geographical studies on such spaces remain surprisingly few.
The focus has, instead, been on high-profile heritage sites ranging from historic districts (e.g.
Huang, Teo, and Heng 1995; Yeoh and Huang 1996; Kong and Yeoh 2003; Muzaini 2013), war
museums (e.g. Muzaini and Yeoh 2005, 2016) and tourism landscapes in the form of historic hotels
and theme parks (e.g. Yeoh and Teo 1996; Chang 1997; Chang and Pang 2017). In response to
Atkinson’s (2008, 392) call for ‘a sufficient focus on quotidian spaces . . . [to obtain] more
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 3

comprehensive understandings of the complex social memories that pattern our contemporary
world’, this paper examines an under-researched category of everyday heritage places in Singapore –
playgrounds. The everydayness of these places is evident in their daily uses and free access to all,
underscoring them as a form of ‘heritage [that] anyone can identify with’ (Ng 2008, 16).
To address the ‘comparatively lesser attention on heritage as a process understood, practised,
and experienced on the ground by the people themselves’ (Muzaini and Minca 2018, 1; emphasis
added), we sought to understand how everyday users might interpret playgrounds as heritage places
and view their management process. These insights help to promote a more nuanced understanding
of the heritage process in two ways.
First, by juxtaposing state representatives’ opinions on heritage interpretation and management
with those of everyday users, we show that heritage can be both dissonant and consonant, contested
on the one hand as well as ‘harmoniously experienced, [and] non-dissonant’ on the other (Graham,
Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000, 26). In so doing, Tunbridge and Ashworth's (1996) notion of
‘dissonant heritage’ is reviewed. While dissonant heritage embraces the inevitable contestations
between stakeholders in interpreting and using heritage (Smith 2006; Kelly 2009), we hope to show
the other side of the heritage coin too. Highlighting ‘non-dissonant’ dimensions helps to advance
Winter’s (2015, 998) critique that current approaches in the ‘politics of heritage’ have predomi­
nantly focused on ‘contestation, dissonance and conflict’. Sociologist Bella Dicks (2000), for
example, has been critiqued for assuming the omnipresence of conflict in heritage matters
(Robertson 2012). It is important to understand the dual-aspects of dissonance and consonance,
in providing a balanced perspective on how heritage is selected, interpreted and negotiated on a
daily basis.
Second, in our examination of everyday users’ assessments of heritage management, we also cast
a critical eye on its impact on users. Studies focused on the mixed results arising from the
management of heritage projects as it affects different groups of people (e.g. Swensen et al. 2012;
Pielesiak 2015). In the particular context of Singapore, there has been a preponderant critique of any
form of heritage-management as presaging an inevitable decline in heritage. Heritage management
is often viewed as compromising on ‘authenticity’ (Kong 2017, 252) viz. the demise of traditional,
small businesses due to adaptive reuse (Kong and Yeoh 1994, 2003; Chang and Teo 2009) or the loss
of authenticity arising from urban redevelopment (Chang and Huang 2009). As Muzaini (2013, 33)
summarised, the strategy of adaptive reuse in Singapore is popularly ‘seen to detract from the true
spirit of place and the overall integrity of the environment’. While much has been said of lived
spaces like old buildings and residential shophouses (i.e. liveable heritage), nothing has been said of
leisure landscapes like playgrounds or exercise corners (i.e. lively heritage). How and why routine
changes to such landscapes affect their heritage status offers novel insights into the everyday
management that attends them.
Beyond Singapore, the history and evolution of children’s playgrounds and the cultural heritage of
play also need to be acknowledged. Darian-Smith and Pascoe's (2013) co-edited book provides a wide
coverage encompassing material objects such as toys, intangible heritage such as songs and games, as
well as the spatial heritage of buildings, environments and landscapes across different countries and
cultures. Institutionalised playgrounds are created for children in schools and neighbourhoods, but
children are also ‘heritage makers’ (Smith 2013, 122) as they create their own play sites in the wild and
interpret playscapes in ways that might contravene adult design intentions. Heritage studies not only
consider how objects, landscapes and agency have evolved (Kinard 2015), but also changes in the use
of materials and playground equipment in different countries (Chancellor 2013; Darian-Smith 2012;
Shyu and Chou 2015; Darian-Smith and Sleight 2016). Political and nationalistic influences on
children’s play have also been explored (Bronikowska 2011; Wilson 2013; Smith 2017). Just as heritage
is understood to be a dynamic process, the playground too is a dynamic landscape shaped by
‘competing interests’ of economics, society and politics, and ever always a ‘commodity whose essence
is in constant flux’ (Smith 2017, 1057).
4 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

The Margaret Mahy Family Playground in Christchurch, New Zealand offers a fine example of a
multi-purposed site attended by diverse agendas (Smith 2017). Following a series of earthquakes
from 2010 to 2013, the multi-million park was rebuilt as part of the process of urban rebuilding and
provision of improved amenities for the public. In its design and re-conceptualisation process, the
park also took on additional responsibilities as an anchor rejuvenation project and a site of Maori
empowerment. The charitable trust Matapopore charged with ‘making NgāI Tūāhuriri and NgāI
Tahu values more visible within a newly reconstructed Christchurch downtown’ played a role in the
park’s redevelopment. As one of the country’s wealthiest tribes and a key player in its national
economy, the Ngāi Tahu exerted its influence to ensure that the playground incorporated Maori
texts in its story-arc and design motifs reflective of indigenous histories. The ultimate goal was to
transform Christchurch, and the playground, from a ‘dominant Anglophile settlement landscape’
into a ‘truly multicultural space’ post-earthquake (Smith 2017, 1066).
Echoing once again Atkinson’s (2008, 392) call to focus on ‘quotidian spaces’ to apprehend the
‘complex social memories that pattern our contemporary world’, we reassert the necessity to under­
stand everyday users’ perspectives on heritage. Be they positive or negative, it is the everyday users
who determine the existential authenticity of heritage spaces through their patronage and perceptions.
The focus on users and the perspective that ‘all changes are bad’ recalibrate what Leslie (2005) sees as
the tussle between ‘quality of place’ and ‘quality of life’ issues in urban studies. While the former is
concerned with place aesthetics and authenticity as captured in hardware like streetscapes and
architecture, the latter pertains to the needs and interests of local communities which are often
anything but cosmetic. It is the ‘quality of life’ of heritage users that concerns this study.

3. Engaging stakeholders: everyday users and state representatives

This study focuses on nine playgrounds presently found in several Housing and Development
Board (HDB) towns in Singapore (Figure 1). Two groups of participants form the backbone of this
research: (i) everyday users of playgrounds, and (ii) individuals working in state institutions
involved in the management of playgrounds. The users are in turn classified into two sub-groups:
‘young persons/adults’ (aged 14 and above), and ‘children’ (aged 13 and below). The deliberate
inclusion of the latter sought to address a lacuna in heritage studies as noted by Roche and Quinn
(2017, 7), who highlighted that children are ‘very much under-represented in heritage studies’. This
neglect is problematic as children are an active audience who make sense of their encounters with
heritage through routine use (Smith 2013). In this study of playgrounds, it behoves us even more to
include children and youth among the interviewees.

Figure 1. Locations of Singapore’s nine mosaic playgrounds (Source: Authors’ own).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 5

A total of 100 questionnaire surveys were also collected from ‘young persons/adults’ and ‘children’
from June to August 2018. The survey for both sub-groups of users was designed based on the need
for simple and clear question wording for ‘children’, and was split into two sections. The first queried
whether users attached heritage value to playgrounds and elucidated their opinions on state narra­
tives of these places (i.e. heritage interpretation). The second section sought to uncover users’ desired
futures of playgrounds and their perceived impacts of state-initiated modifications on the play­
grounds’ heritage significance (i.e. heritage management). Follow-up interviews were also conducted
with 24 everyday users to uncover the reasons behind their survey responses. All surveys with
children were undertaken alongside parents and caregivers, and entirely voluntary.
Recognising that the state is not an abstract, homogenous entity but comprised of individuals
working in different planning institutions (Kong 2011), semi-structured interviews were conducted
with three representatives from HDB and NHB. Considering that access to state representatives in
Singapore is often challenging for researchers (e.g. Chang and Pang 2017), these interviews were
significant as they evinced oft-inaccessible voices of the state. Despite the small sample size, we
triangulated their responses with information obtained from secondary sources ranging from parlia­
mentary reports, publications produced by the state, an exhibition organised by NHB and HDB (in
2018), to NHB’s heritage trail booklets. All interviewees’ names have been obscured for confidentiality
reasons.
Before proceeding, a brief word on HDB and NHB is required. In 1960, HDB was established as a
government statutory board to provide public housing for Singaporeans. To date, more than 1 million
apartment units have been completed in 27 towns and estates, housing over 80% of Singapore’s
resident population of 5.8 million. More than just housing, HDB is a one-stop agency that oversees all
aspects of residential development including car parks, green spaces and playgrounds. The 1970s, in
particular, saw an ‘explosion of unique playgrounds that emphasised local identities’ featuring
animals, use of mosaic and sculpture inspired by Henry Moore (Martin 2018). Over the years,
playgrounds have been the most popular because of their durability and eye-catching designs.
In 2003, 20 blocks of pre-war flats developed by the Singapore Improvement Trust, the predecessor
of HDB, in Tiong Bahru Estate were granted conservation status (Zaccheus 2013). On the contrary,
playgrounds do not have any of the two formal heritage statuses in Singapore – they are neither
gazetted as national monuments (like the Raffles Hotel for example) nor designated as conserved built
structures (such as select historic shophouses in Chinatown or Kampong Glam). However, the
typology of ‘mosaic playground’ received informal heritage recognition from NHB, from its listing
in the heritage trail booklets designed for HDB towns, and their citations as examples of community
heritage in Our SG Heritage Plan (NHB 2017a). This recognition is important for two reasons: (a)
heritage as listed in the Plan is the outcome of public consultation and community feedback; and (b)
the mosaic playgrounds are first time any playgrounds have ever been designated as heritage.
In coming up with Our SG Heritage Plan, NHB undertook 30 focus group sessions involving
over 730 participants and organised a roving exhibition in 2018 visited by 34,000 people (NHB
2017a, 6, updated in 2020). From feedback collected including 7,300 online responses, NHB devised
a four-fold classification of national heritage comprising: places, cultures, treasures, and commu­
nities. Playgrounds are classified under the first category amongst ‘Our places where we work, live
and play [that] hold many shared memories’ (8). In the discussion to follow, we examine ‘heritage as
process’ in two ways: the interpretation of playgrounds as national heritage, and how users respond
to their ongoing management.

4. Interpreting heritage places: playground narratives

The interpretation of heritage involves the selection of places and activities as heritage, as well as
the justification for their selection (Muzaini and Minca 2018). While the playgrounds of Singapore’s
HDB estates have been designated as ‘national heritage’ (NHB 2017b), the question remains as to
whether the public concurs with this perspective. Our survey revealed that 81% of everyday users
6 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

agree with this designation. However, the agreement is not unanimous and there is a vocal minority
of 19 users who disagree. Two reasons account for this heritage dissonance.
A majority of ‘young persons/adults’ and slightly more than half the ‘children’ among the 19
users cited their lack of personal childhood memories as a reason. This finding supports McDowell’s
(2008, 40) argument that memory is ‘inexorably connected to the heritage process’, and memory is
based on both personal and collective recollections (Sather-Wagstaff 2015; Seah, Hou, and Pang
2018). The absence of personal association with playgrounds is evident among some interviewees,
with two of them having this to say:
Although my father told me, in the olden days, people used to play on these playgrounds, I don’t see them as
heritage because I have never played in them when I was younger. (‘children’ interviewee #1).

I understand that the older generations would have played in these playgrounds when they were children, but I
did not grow up with them so like, I feel very disconnected from them. (‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #1).

Interviewees regard personal childhood memories as a precondition for heritage designation, even
as they acknowledge the collective memories invested by older Singaporeans. While the state frames
playgrounds as sites that ‘feature prominently in the minds of past and present residents’ (NHB
2017b), the public is free to disagree on personal and individual grounds.
A second reason is that some consider playgrounds as inadequate in embodying a country’s
heritage. While a few interviewees noted that public-residential playgrounds are not frequented by
those ‘who live in private housing’, others felt that amenities like ‘old-school, orange-coloured bus-
stops’ better reflect the nation as ‘more of us would have encountered and used these bus-stops’
(interviewees' quotes). As with the personal, the collective is also an important criterion as national
heritage must cater to all. Three dominant interpretations of playgrounds underscore the conso­
nance and dissonance between state planners and public users.

Sites of memories
In our survey, three reasons stood out as explanations for Singaporeans’ endorsement of play­
grounds as heritage. The first is that playgrounds have stood the test of time. All 81 survey
respondents who agreed with the state’s designation of playgrounds as heritage places aligned
with the NHB’s portrayal of playgrounds as sites of childhood memories (Table 1). The two Dragon
playgrounds at Toa Payoh and Ang Mo Kio, for example, have been described in Our SG Heritage
Plan as ‘playtime icons that . . . feature prominently in the minds of past and present residents’
(NHB 2017b). Many of the playgrounds were built in the 1970–1980s and have ‘grown up’ alongside
residents. The NHB representative we interviewed noted that playgrounds are very much part of the
personal biography of Singaporeans:
Each mosaic playground forms part of Singapore’s national consciousness and, as a whole, represent the focal
point for the growing up of Singaporeans born in the 1980s and 1990s.

The widespread popularity of playgrounds with different generations of Singaporeans is also

evident. As one child interviewee explains, ‘playgrounds are places where my parents and adults
from their generation remember playing before, just like how we are playing now’ (‘children’
interviewee #2). Even for the few who have not visited playgrounds, the fact that many of their

Table 1. Reasons why playgrounds should be designated as heritage places.

Reasons why playgrounds should be desig­ Number of ‘Young Persons/Adults’ Number of ‘Children’ select­
nated as heritage places selecting this reason ing this reason Total
Sites of memories 43 38 81
Well-loved places among Singaporeans 22 20 42
Landmarks of HDB towns/estates 18 14 32
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 7

friends and family have fond memories is enough justification of their significance. One interviewee
reflected:

Even though I didn’t get to play on a mosaic playground when I was young, I understand that a significant
portion of people would have memories of playing on such playgrounds when they were growing up. Just
because of the proportion of people who have such memories here, I feel that mosaic playgrounds should be
regarded as our heritage. (‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #3)

Instead of feeling ‘exclude[d]’ (Smith 2006, 30), the quote above suggests that some Singaporeans
regarded collective memory as justifiable endorsement of heritage status.

Well-loved places
Across multiple NHB platforms, playgrounds are described as ‘well-loved’ by the people (e.g.
NHB 2014, 2017b, 2017c). In the heritage trail booklets for Toa Payoh and Tampines HDB towns,
for example, playgrounds are described as the most cherished and beloved of heritage sites. Slightly
more than half (42) of the 81 survey respondents, with around the same number of ‘young persons/
adults’ and ‘children’, concurred with this reason (Table 1). Positive ‘sense of place’ (Smith 2006, 80)
is an important aspect of heritage; sense of place refers to the affective bonds between people and
place, often cultivated over time and patronage (Foote and Azaryahu 2009). Our study reveals two
emotional bonds contributing to positive sense of place.
First, users exhibit care towards playgrounds. The HDB officer we interviewed notes that the
board often receives ‘increasing number of concerns . . . from both residents and non-residents
concerning playgrounds when they are being removed or threatened with demolition’. As residen­
tial towns are constantly being redeveloped, many playgrounds have had to make way for new
developments, incurring the ire of residents. One interviewee notes that he often ‘detours and
checks whether a particular playground is still there’. The depth of concern for playgrounds is thus
very tangible.
Second, many users fondly recall playgrounds as places of fun and games. One youth recalls her
adventures at the Boon Lay Clock playground thus:

Every time my friends and I come to play at the Clock playground, we must always, always go down the slide!
It is so fun because the slide is very long! (‘children’ interviewee #3)

Parents similarly recall joyful times at playgrounds with their children. One parent describes
playgrounds as having a ‘certain aura’ because they are sites of many happy family moments and
where children make ‘new-found friends’ (‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #5). Nostalgia also
plays a role here. While one interviewee associated playgrounds with ‘good, old kampong days’,
another said that they evoke ‘fond memories of traditional games’.
This is not to say, however, that playgrounds are beloved by all. A total of 39 users did not select
‘well-loved places among Singaporeans’ as a reason why the playgrounds should be designated as
heritage places. Most of them felt that this interpretation of playgrounds presented an over-
romanticised conception, with users noting that countless many have disappeared over the years.
An interviewee thus describes the heritage designation of playgrounds as an act of ‘hypocrisy’.
Similarly, a child who was interviewed echoed: ‘If these playgrounds are indeed well-loved, then the
government should not have destroyed so many of the older ones in the past’ (‘children’ inter­
viewee #4).
The dire conditions of some playgrounds were also lamented. For example, an adult user noted:
‘the mosaic playgrounds are not really maintained properly, causing them to be very dirty, unsafe,
and not welcoming for children to play at all’ ('young persons/adults'interviewee #7). Vandalism at
the Ang Mo Kio Dragon playground (e.g. graffiti) and the proliferation of litter at the Tampines
Watermelon playground were also highlighted (Figure 2). Another commented that the Boon Lay
8 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

Figure 2. Vandalism at the Ang Mo Kio Dragon playground (Source: Authors’ own).

Clock playground is seldom used and has become a ‘white elephant’. As a process, therefore,
heritage sites have to be regularly used and well maintained.

Landmarks of HDB towns/estates

The third narrative supporting the heritage status of playgrounds pertains to their role as ‘HDB
landmarks’ (NHB 2017b). This view resonated with 32 of the 81 survey respondents who perceived
playgrounds as heritage (Table 1). Among them, interviewees revealed that playgrounds are the best
way to identify HDB estates. For example, an interviewee proudly proclaimed Toa Payoh as the
home of the Dragon playground:
Every time my friends ask me about Toa Payoh, I always hao lian1 to them that Toa Payoh is home to the
iconic Dragon playground . . . This playground also showcases the history of Toa Payoh as a mature estate.
('young persons/adults’ interviewee #6)

Other residents pointed to how particular icons speak to the history of the residential estates. For
example, the Watermelon playground serves as a symbol of the fruit farming history of Tampines
while the Sampan (boat) at Pasir Ris tells of the town’s fishing village past. More than just decorative
items, the iconography of playgrounds also helps to narrate place histories.
Not everybody, however, agrees that playgrounds are suitable heritage landmarks. A total of 49%
of users did not select ‘landmarks of HDB towns/estates’ as their reasoning for considering play­
grounds as heritage places. An interviewee said:
‘mosaic playgrounds are no longer landmarks today because parents and children of today don’t really go to
these playgrounds. A lot of children would rather stay at home to use their phones and computers’ (‘young
persons/adults’ interviewee #8).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 9

Others feel that while the Dragon playground in Toa Payoh has earned iconic status due to its age
and distinctive form, the same cannot be said of lesser known sites. Hence, many Singaporeans
can easily point to the Dragon playground as representing its neighbourhood but the same hardly
applies to the Clock or Mangosteen playgrounds for example. Recognisability is therefore an
important trait for a heritage site and few of the playgrounds can be identified as such in
Singapore.
To summarise, evidences of dissonant and consonant heritage exist in Singapore. While the
majority of people agree that the playgrounds are important national heritage, a vocal minority does
have valid reasons for disagreeing. Through interviews with everyday users, it is clear that their
understanding of heritage is processual. Heritage is something that one has grown up with – a
playground as a beloved site of childhood memory or a historic landmark in one’s neighbourhood.
Precisely for the same processual reasons, dissonant heritage arises when playgrounds are under-
utilised or confined to HDB residents. Heritage as a process is thus best ‘understood, practised, and
experienced on the ground by the people themselves’ (Muzaini and Minca 2018, 1). Not many
Singaporeans will disagree that the Dragon playground is an icon of Toa Payoh, one of Singapore’s
oldest and largest HDB estates. Even for those who have not visited it, seeing the playground on the
covers of magazines and used as a prop in National Day celebrations underscores its ‘process of
becoming’ a national landmark. A processual perspective of heritage must also contend with the
inevitable changes that regularly attend it. How do everyday users perceive heritage sites as they
undergo upgrading and maintenance? Do changes undermine or reinforce their heritage status? It
is these questions to which we now turn our attention.

5. Managing heritage places: playground modifications

Apart from selection and interpretation, the heritage process also encompasses managing and
maintaining places. In this section, we elucidate everyday users’ perceptions of these changes. While
the state has demolished numerous playgrounds in the past, the retention of the Dove playground at
Dakota Crescent marks a significant shift in the government’s assessment on heritage and grass­
roots feedback (Kamil 2017). The following excerpts from parliamentary speeches by Member of
Parliament Lim (2016) and Minister Wong (2018) reflect the importance of community feedback
on the Dove playground and why the government had a change of heart in retaining the flats and
playground at Dakota Crescent:

Lim Biow Chuan (Member of Parliament for Mountbatten): Sometime in 2015, several residents
approached me to argue that there is sufficient merit for the Government to consider preserving Dakota
Crescent . . . In the midst of the estate sits a dove shaped marble playground which I was told is the only dove
shaped playground left in Singapore . . . I hope that by speaking at this Motion, I can persuade the Government
to re-think its redevelopment plans for Dakota Crescent.

Minister Lim’s plea for the government to retain the Dove playground on the basis of resident
feedback was accepted two years later:

Lawrence Wong (Minister for National Development): [W]e are indeed paying more attention to heritage
elements in our planning process . . . We have considered the feedback [on Dakota Crescent] and in December
last year [2017], we announced that the central cluster of six buildings around the courtyard will be kept and
repurposed, and that includes the dove playground which I think many have fond memories of.

Our survey findings revealed that 76% of ‘young persons/adults’ and slightly less than half of
‘children’ (46%) also shared this desire for retaining historic playgrounds in HDB estates.
The conservation of playgrounds, however, comes with significant trade-offs. In land-scarce
Singapore, with 5.8 million residents living on a 711 sq. kilometre island, the retention of
heritage sites necessarily entails less land for future development. Advocates for conservation
are aware of the country’s land constraints as captured by the HDB officer we interviewed:
10 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

Although conserving playgrounds as national heritage is no doubt the best-case situation, doing so would
hinder future HDB developments, especially when we factor in Singapore’s land constraints.

Some interviewees also feel that as HDB high-rise residences are being upgraded, the same should
apply to their playgrounds. Mosaic tiles, for example, should be replaced with newer, graffiti-resistant
surfaces estates. Wholesale heritage conservation thus goes against the ‘maximization of economic return
from the land use’ (Kwek 2004, 114), a dictum in Singapore’s planning agenda. As part of its ongoing
conservation and management, the government has undertaken three forms of modification to the
heritage playgrounds (Table 2). The HDB introduced these changes ‘to meet the changing playtime needs
of children and families’ (quoted in Mohandas 2017). Among our survey residents, 86% of users selected
at least one of the three state-initiated modifications as change(s) they would like to see made to
playgrounds, underscoring what we regard as ‘lively heritage’, that is heritage that evolves to keep up
with the times.

Replacing sandpits with rubber mats

The retrofitting of rubber mats at playgrounds, replacing traditional sandpits, is a radical mod­
ification introduced in the 1990s (Figure 3). The HDB officer interviewed justified the move thus:
A significant number of town councils implemented this change because of the high economic and labour
costs incurred to clean up the sand brought by children into the corridors and walkways as well as clearing the
litter hidden in the sand.

Of the 81 users who regarded playgrounds as heritage sites, one group of 27 believes that the
alteration will help to strengthen playgrounds as community spaces by encouraging greater use
(Table 2). They reason that with ‘enhanced safety’ and ‘better hygiene’ (to use the words of two
interviewees), more children will be able to play there, creating their own happy memories.
Parents will also be more willing to bring their children along, as another interviewee reflects:
The parents of today are very different from parents of the past. Parents of today are very protective of their
kids. With the rubber floor protecting kids from suffering nasty injuries when they fall, parents will feel more
assured to let their children play on these playgrounds. (‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #10)

A second group of 27 users feel that playground modifications will have no impact on their
heritage significance, while a third group also numbering 27 contends that the loss of sandpits
weakens their original look and feel (Table 2). For this third group, the sandpits play a pivotal role
and getting rid of them will tarnish their memories. One interviewee thus laments:
One of the games my friends and I used to play is called ‘quicksand’ where we basically cannot touch the sand
within the playground. When the town council removed the sandpit, I felt like a part of my childhood memory
was lost. The most unsettling part for me is from now on, I can only verbalise my memories of this game and
would never be able to share them entirely with my children. (young persons/adults’ interviewee #9)

The textual and sensual geographies of playing in the sand can never be replicated on a rubber mat. Even
as they acknowledge the hygienic concerns of sand, users feel that rubber mats are ‘too sanitised’ and ‘over
protect’ children from the rough and tumble of true play. Getting rid of the original playground texture
thus diminishes the ‘authentic heritage experience’ (Kelly 2009, 94) and ‘detracts from the true spirit of
place’ (Muzaini 2013, 33).

Addition of fitness corners

The incorporation of fitness corners into playgrounds represents another alteration initiated by
HDB (Figure 4). The installation of exercise equipment is meant to promote intergenerational
bonding as more people will be attracted (HDB 2013). With Singapore’s ageing population, it is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 11

Table 2. Impact of modifications on the heritage significance of playgrounds.

‘Young Persons/Adults’ ‘Children’
Response Number of research Percentage of research Number of research Percentage of research
participants participants participants participants

(i) Replacement of sandpits with rubber mats

Positive 10 23.3 17 44.7
No Change 12 27.9 15 39.5
Negative 21 48.8 6 15.8
Total 43 100.0 38 100.0
(ii) Addition of fitness corners
Positive 24 55.8 19 50.0
No Change 5 11.6 4 10.5
Negative 14 32.6 15 39.5
Total 43 100.0 38 100.0
(iii) Installation of newer play equipment
Positive 28 65.1 31 81.6
No Change 6 14.0 4 10.5
Negative 9 20.9 3 7.9
Total 43 100.0 38 100.0

also hoped that adults will be encouraged to exercise even as they keep an eye on their children in the
playground.
The fitness corners are perceived by a clear majority of the 81 everyday users (43 in total) as
strengthening the heritage significance of playgrounds (Table 2). Two reasons account for this view,
the first being that the playgrounds will become meaningful spaces for older Singaporeans too. Not
just children, but adults can rekindle their memories and ‘create new ones’ at the fitness corners
(‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #8); older Singaporeans can also ‘continue using the space even
though they have outgrown the playground’ (‘children’ interviewee #7). Thus, the change enhances
the meaning of playgrounds as community spaces, providing opportunities to foster new memories.
Secondly, the addition of fitness corners is perceived as a channel for older Singaporeans to share
their childhood reminisces with present-day users. One interviewee explains this point in detail,

As the elderly and adults exercise at the fitness corners, the nearby playground can trigger their childhood
memories. Reconnecting with these memories encourages them to recount their personal experiences to the
children of today. These first-hand accounts would allow children to better appreciate playgrounds as heritage
places, especially since there is no information board to educate them about these places. (‘young persons/
adults’ interviewee #6)

The ‘circulat[ion]’ of memories (Atkinson 2007, 534) is thus a premise of heritage sites, re-
introducing ‘memoryscapes’ to the community (Muzaini and Yeoh 2016) and reinforcing heritage
at the same time.
However, we should also note that 29 users had expressed concerns over the weakening effect on
heritage (Table 2). While some noted that the modern-looking ergonomic equipment are out of
place in a heritage site, others felt that they are ‘unhealthy distractions from the meaning of these
playgrounds as places of play’ (‘young persons/adults’ interviewee #11). With these equipment, the
term ‘heritage playgrounds’ may become a misnomer. The need to maintain some semblance of
‘objective authenticity’ (Silverman 2015, 69) is well captured by this critical response:

I feel that playgrounds should be kept in their original form so that we can play on them in the same way that
children used to play in the past. Any change might also affect the memories that older Singaporeans have of
playgrounds. (‘children’ interviewee #5)

While fitness corners might add to the ‘quality of life’ of residents, they have adverse effects on
heritage and ‘quality of place’ (Leslie 2005).
12 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

Figure 3. Replacement of sandpit with rubber mat for Boon Lay Clock playground (Source: Authors’ own).

Figure 4. Fitness corner next to Pipit Road ‘Baby’ Dragon playground (Source: Authors’ own).

Installation of newer play equipment

A third area of modification relates to the addition of new play equipment such as slides and
swings (Figure 5). HDB introduced them in consideration of feedback from residents on the need
for more playing options. Of the three modifications, the installation of new play equipment is
perceived by the greatest majority of users as enhancing the heritage value of playgrounds (59 users;
Table 2). In interviews with users, many expressed that such equipment will draw more children
and a wider segment of the community will become ‘more conscious of how playgrounds have
evolved’ as one user explained. As another interviewee puts it, people will appreciate the ‘differences
in the material and design between the old and new playgrounds’. New memories and senses of
place will thus be forged with a new generation of users.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 13

Figure 5. Newer play equipment installed next to Toa Payoh Lorong 1 ‘Baby’ Dragon playground (Source: Authors’ own).

Although only a minority feel that heritage will be compromised (12 users; Table 2), it is worth
highlighting their concerns. Users opined that the new play equipment will lead to people neglect­
ing the heritage sites as they are ‘more boring’ by comparison. As with the exercise equipment, the
new play equipment are often adjacent to the historic playgrounds. The irony is that such a
placement leads to the heritage playground assuming the status of ‘museum pieces’ – good to
look at, but unusable and not to be touched. This goes against NHB’s objective of bringing heritage
to the masses and inculcating in them, the usefulness and appeal of heritage.

6. Conclusion: beyond child’s play

Adopting the idea of heritage as process, this study has examined Singapore’s playgrounds
from an everyday geographies perspective. As a community landscape since the 1970s, the
playground is an everyday site which has been designated a national heritage (NHB 2017b).
How ordinary people perceive the heritage status of these places and negotiate the ongoing
changes constitute the focus of our research. Far beyond child’s play, this study allows us to reflect
on broader implications as the study speaks to issues on national heritage and the contestations
of/by everyday users.
Tunbridge and Ashworth's (1996) notion of ‘dissonant heritage’ is also reviewed. While dis­
sonant heritage focuses on the conflicts and contestations that attend heritage interpretation and
use, we show that the politics of heritage is a dynamic process entailing both dissonance and
consonance (Winter 2015). The designation of Singapore’s playgrounds reveals processual heritage
at work. Heritage is something that people have grown up with – a beloved site of childhood
memory and a recognisable landmark in the neighbourhood. Dissonant heritage is similarly
processual, arising from peoples’ under-utilisation of or limited access to playgrounds. What is
designated heritage is therefore open to contestation, often on highly personal and individual
grounds.
National heritages do not just ‘exist’; they have to ‘become’. The case study shows that the public
is not equally enamoured by all the nine mosaic playgrounds. While few would disagree that the
Dragon at Toa Payoh and Ang Mo Kio or the Dove at Dakota are national icons, the same cannot be
said of the other playgrounds which have not enjoyed as much recognition or publicity. Heritage
14 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

has had to ‘labour’ for its status; appearing in heritage-themed magazines and blogs, and in National
Day celebrations, the Dragon playgrounds have undergone a ‘process of becoming’ national land­
marks which the other playgrounds might not.
Heritage also undergoes change and regular maintenance as part of a process of standard place-
making and up-keeping (Lew 2017). The quotidian management of Singapore’s playgrounds by the
state is evident from the numerous changes that constantly attend them. While members of the
public are more favourable towards some (e.g. installation of new play and exercise equipment),
other improvements are seen as having compromising effects on the historicity of the site (e.g.
replacement of sandpits with rubber mats). Casting a critical eye on management approaches, it is
argued that the process of heritage maintenance is a sensitive one requiring calibration between
keeping up with the times and retaining the ‘overall integrity of the environment’ (Muzaini 2013,
33). The idea of ‘lively heritage’ was broached to underscore the need for change in order that
heritage might be appreciated by a new generation of users.
The processual understanding of heritage and an everyday geographies approach invite scholars
to go beyond a canonised conception of ‘Authorised Heritage Discourse’ (Smith 2006), to under­
stand how mundane heritage may be perceived and legitimised by the people who use them.
Mundanity is ‘not so much a quality inherent in an object’ (Holloway and Hones 2007, 556) but
the circumstances and conditions under which heritage is interpreted, managed and utilised.
Speaking to a broader relationship between mundanity and monumentality, the study of
Singapore reveals that while playgrounds may be mundane spaces, their inscription as national
heritage and public appraisal of their nostalgic symbolism can transform mundane places into
monumental sites. Future studies can certainly explore how different stakeholders continue to
negotiate the mundane-monumental dialectic in their interpretation and desired futures of every­
day heritage.

Note
1. hao lian (Teochew Chinese dialect) referring to a boastful claim.

Acknowledgments
The authors are deeply grateful to the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, which undoubtedly
boosted the quality of this paper. Many thanks to all research participants for patiently answering our many questions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr. T. C. Chang is an Associate Professor at the Department of Geography, National University of Singapore. He is a
tourism geographer by training and his research interests are in urban heritage and tourism, particularly in the Asian
context.
Osten B. P. Mah is a planner based at Research & Planning Group, Housing & Development Board, Singapore. He
recently completed his MPhil in Planning, Growth and Regeneration at the Department of Land Economy,
University of Cambridge. His research interests lie in heritage and planning.

Ethics declaration
This research was conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines set by the Department of Geography, National
University of Singapore (geosec@nus.edu.sg).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 15

References
Aplin, G. 2002. Heritage: Identification, Conservation and Management. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, D. 2007. “Kitsch Geographies and the Everyday Spaces of Social Memory.” Environment and Planning A 39
(3): 521–540. doi:10.1068/a3866.
Atkinson, D. 2008. “The Heritage of Mundane Places.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity,
edited by B. J. Graham and P. Howard, 381–395. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing .
Bronikowska, M. 2011. “Traditional Games Park - an Inspiring Educational Playground for All or a Utopia in
Modern Urban Agglomeration? Traditional Games Park Attraction or Utopia?” Polish Journal of Sport and
Tourism 18 (4): 319–323. doi:10.2478/v10197-011-0028-0.
Butlin, R. A. 1987. “Theory and Methodology in Historical Geography.” In Historical Geography: Progress and
Prospect, edited by M. Pacione, 16–44. London: Croom Helm.
Chancellor, B. 2013. “Primary School Playgrounds: Features and Management in Victoria, Australia.” International
Journal of Play 2 (2): 63–75. doi:10.1080/21594937.2013.807568.
Chang, T. C. 1997. “Heritage as a Tourism Commodity: Traversing the Tourist–Local Divide.” Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography 18 (1): 46–68. doi:10.1111/1467-9493.00004.
Chang, T. C., and S. Huang. 2009. “Geographies of Everywhere and Nowhere. Place-(Un)making in a World City.”
IDPR (International Development Planning Review) 30 (3): 227–247. doi:10.3828/idpr.30.3.3.
Chang, T. C., and J. Pang. 2017. “Between Universal Spaces and Unique Places: Heritage in Universal Studios
Singapore.” Tourism Geographies 19 (2): 208–226. doi:10.1080/14616688.2016.1183141.
Chang, T. C., and P. Teo. 2009. “The Shophouse Hotel: Vernacular Heritage in a Creative City.” Urban Studies 46 (2):
341–367. doi:10.1177/0042098008099358.
Darian-Smith, K. 2012. “Australian Children’s Play in Historical Perspective: Continuity and Change on the School
Playground.” International Journal of Play 1 (3): 264–278. doi:10.1080/21594937.2012.739826.
Darian-Smith, K., and C. Pascoe. 2013. “Children, Childhood and Cultural Heritage. Mapping the Field.” In Children,
Childhood and Cultural Heritage, edited by K. Darian-Smith and C. Pascoe, 1–18. London: Routledge.
Darian-Smith, K., and S. Sleight. 2016. “Histories of Play.” International Journal of Play 5 (3): 227–229. doi:10.1080/
21594937.2016.1242551.
Dicks, B. 2000. Heritage, Place and Community. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Foote, K. E., and M. Azaryahu. 2009. “Sense of Place.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by
R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, 96–100. Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishing .
Graham, B., G. J. Ashworth, and J. E. Tunbridge. 2000. A Geography of Heritage: Power, Culture & Economy. Great
Britain: Arnold.
Hardy, D. 1988. “Historical Geography and Heritage Studies.” Area 20 (4): 333–338.
Harrison, R. 2013. Heritage: Critical Approaches. New York: Routledge.
Harvey, D. 2001. “Heritage Pasts and Heritage Presents: Temporality, Meaning and the Scope of Heritage Studies.”
International Journal of Heritage Studies 7 (4): 319–338. doi:10.1080/13581650120105534.
HDB (Housing & Development Board). 2013. HDB Landscape Guide. Singapore: Housing & Development Board.
Ho, M. 2003. “Exit the Dragon.” The Straits Times, January 20, L6–L7.
Holloway, J., and S. Hones. 2007. “Muji, Materiality, and Mundane Geographies.” Environment and Planning A 39
(3): 555–569. doi:10.1068/a3925.
Holloway, L., and P. Hubbard. 2001. People and Place: The Extraordinary Geographies of Everyday Life. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited.
Hou, M. 2018. “For Heritage Sites to Have a Future, They Must Be Present in People’s Lives.” The Straits Times,
September 14, A20.
Howard, P. 2003. Heritage: Management, Interpretation, Identity. New York: Continuum.
Huang, S., P. Teo., and H. M. Heng. 1995. “Conserving the Civic and Cultural District: State Policies and Public
Opinion.” In Portraits of Places: History, Community and Identity in Singapore, edited by B. Yeoh and L. Kong, 24–
45. Singapore: Times Editions.
Kamil, A. 2017. “Dakota Crescent to Be Redeveloped with New Flats; Iconic Playground Stays” TODAY, December
11. Accessed 5 October 2018. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/dakota-crescent-be-redeveloped-new-hdb-
flats-dove-playground-be-retained
Kelly, C. 2009. “Heritage.” In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, edited by R. Kitchin and N. Thrift,
91–97. Cambridge: Elsevier.
Kinard, T. A. 2015. “Playground: A Historical Context.” Young Children 70 (4): 92–95.
Kong, L. 2011. Conserving the Past, Creating the Future. Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority.
Kong, L. 2017. “Conserving Urban Heritage: Remembering the past in a Developmental City-State.” In 50 Years of
Urban Planning in Singapore, edited by C. K. Heng, 237–256. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Kong, L., and B. S. A. Yeoh. 1994. “Urban Conservation in Singapore: A Survey of State Policies and Popular
Attitudes.” Urban Studies 31 (2): 247–265. doi:10.1080/00420989420080231.
16 T. C. CHANG AND O. B. P. MAH

Kong, L., and B. S. A. Yeoh. 2003. The Politics of Landscapes in Singapore: Construction of “Nation”. New York:
Syracuse University Press.
Kwek, M. L. 2004. “Singapore: A Skyline of Pragmatism.” In Beyond Description: Singapore Space Historicity, edited
by R. Bishop, J. Phillips, and W. Yeo, 112–124. London: Routledge.
Leslie, D. 2005. “Creative Cities?” Geoforum 36 (4): 403–405. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2005.02.001.
Lew, A. 2017. “Tourism Planning and Place Making: Place-making or Placemaking.” Tourism Geographies 19 (3):
448–466. doi:10.1080/14616688.2017.1282007.
Lim, B. C. 2016. “Singapore Parliamentary Report.” October 10, Vol. 94. Accessed 5 October 2018. https://sprs.parl.
gov.sg/search/topic?reportid=023_20161010_S0005_T0003
Low, K. E. Y. 2017. “Concrete Memories and Sensory Pasts: Everyday Heritage and the Politics of Nationhood.”
Pacific Affairs 90 (2): 275–295. doi:10.5509/2017902275.
Martin, M. 2018. “The Evolution of Singapore’s Playgrounds – Beyond Toa Payoh’s Famous Dragon.” Channel
NewsAsia, April 20. Accessed 22 May 2020. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/lifestyle/singapore-old-play
ground-mosaic-dragon-pelican-exhibition-10134506
McDowell, S. 2008. “Heritage, Memory and Identity.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity,
edited by B. J. Graham and P. Howard, 37–53. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing .
Mohandas, V. 2017. “No Child’s Play: Making Playgrounds Safer for Children in Singapore.” Channel NewsAsia,
January 12. Accessed 5 October 2018. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-child-s-play-mak
ing-playgrounds-safer-for-children-in-singapo-7568662
Muzaini, H. 2013. “Heritage Landscapes and Nation-Building in Singapore.” In Changing Landscapes of Singapore:
Old Tensions, New Discoveries, edited by E. Ho, C. Y. Woon, and K. Ramdas, 25–52. Singapore: National
University of Singapore Press.
Muzaini, H., and C. Minca. 2018. “Rethinking Heritage, but ‘From Below’.” In After Heritage: Critical Perspectives on
Heritage, edited by H. Muzaini and C. Minca, 1–21. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Muzaini, H., and B. S. A. Yeoh. 2005. “Contesting ‘Local’ Commemoration of the Second World War: The Case of the
Changi Chapel and Museum in Singapore.” Australian Geographer 36 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/00049180500050789.
Muzaini, H., and B. S. A. Yeoh. 2016. Contested Memoryscapes: The Politics of Second World War Commemoration in
Singapore. England: Ashgate.
Ng, T. Y. 2008. “Let’s Save that Dragon.” The New Paper, June 11.
NHB (National Heritage Board). 2014. “Discover Our Shared Heritage: Toa Payoh Heritage Trail.” Accessed 5
October 2018. https://roots.sg/Roots/visit/trails/toa-payoh-trail
NHB (National Heritage Board). 2017a. Our SG Heritage Plan. Available in PDF, Singapore: NHB.
NHB (National Heritage Board). 2017b. “Playgrounds – Well-loved Landmarks of Our Estates.” Accessed 5 October
2018. https://www.oursgheritage.sg/playgrounds-well-loved-landmarks-of-our-estates/
NHB (National Heritage Board). 2017c. “Discover Our Shared Heritage: Tampines Heritage Trail.” Accessed 5
October 2018. https://roots.sg/Roots/visit/trails/Tampines-Heritage-Trail-Tampines-Town-Trail
Pielesiak, I. 2015. “Managing ‘Ordinary Heritage’ In Poland: Łódź And Its Post-Industrial Legacy.” European Spatial
Research and Policy 22 (2): 73–92. doi:10.1515/esrp-2015-0026.
Robertson, I. J. M. 2012. “Introduction: Heritage from Below.” In Heritage from Below, edited by I. J. M. Robertson,
1–27. London: Ashgate.
Robertson, I. J. M. 2015. “Hardscrabble Heritage: The Ruined Blackhouse and Crofting Landscape as Heritage from
Below.” Landscape Research 40 (8): 993–1009. doi:10.1080/01426397.2015.1074986.
Roche, D., and B. Quinn. 2017. “Heritage Sites and Schoolchildren: Insights from the Battle of the Boyne.” Journal of
Heritage Tourism 12 (1): 7–20. doi:10.1080/1743873X.2016.1201086.
Sather-Wagstaff, J. 2015. “Heritage and Memory.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research,
edited by E. Waterton and S. Watson, 191–204. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seah, P., M. Hou, and N. Pang. 2018. “Study on the Perceptions of Singapore’s Built Heritage and Landmarks.”
Accessed 5 October 2018. https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/ips/report_nhb-fgds-interim-210618.pdf
Shyu, C. S., and M. J. Chou. 2015. “Whose Aesthetics World? Exploration of Aesthetics Cultivation from the
Children’s Outdoor Playground Experiential Value Perspective.” The International Journal of Organizational
Innovation 8 (2): 158–171.
Silberman, N. A. 2015. “Heritage Places: Evolving Conceptions and Changing Forms.” In A Companion to Heritage
Studies, edited by W. Logan, M. N. Craith, and U. Kockel, 29–40. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Silverman, H. 2015. “Heritage and Authenticity.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research,
edited by E. Waterton and S. Watson, 69–88. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Skelton, T. 2017. “Everyday Geographies.” In The International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth,
Environment, and Technology, edited by D. Richardson, N. Castree, M. F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu,
and R. A. Marston, 1–3. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, A. 2017. “The Global Game: Commodifying the Playground at the End of the Empire.” Interventions 19 (7):
1056–1067. doi:10.1080/1369801X.2017.1401947.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. New York: Routledge.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HERITAGE STUDIES 17

Smith, L. 2013. “Taking the Children. Children, Childhood and Heritage Making.” In Children, Childhood and
Cultural Heritage, edited by K. Darian-Smith and C. Pascoe, 107–125. London: Routledge.
Swensen, G., G. B. Jerpåsen, O. Sæter, and M. S. Tveit. 2012. “Alternative Perspectives? The Implementation of Public
Participation in Local Heritage Planning.” Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography 66 (4):
213–226. doi:10.1080/00291951.2012.707988.
Tunbridge, J. E. 1984. “Whose Heritage to Conserve? Cross-cultural Reflections on Political Dominance and Urban
Heritage Conservation.” The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien 28 (2): 171–180. doi:10.1111/j.1541-
0064.1984.tb00783.x.
Tunbridge, J. E., and G. J. Ashworth. 1996. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the past as a Resource in Conflict.
New York: J. Wiley.
Valestrand, H. E. 2015. “Text and Object: The Bus Shelter that Became Cultural Heritage.” International Journal of
Heritage Studies 21 (1): 81–98. doi:10.1080/13527258.2014.914558.
Viejo-Rose, D., and M. L. S. Sørensen. 2015. “Cultural Heritage and Armed Conflict: New Questions for an Old
Relationship.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Heritage Research, edited by E. Waterton and S.
Watson, 281–296. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, H. F. 2013. “Collective Life: Parents, Playground Encounters and the Multicultural City.” Social & Cultural
Geography 14 (6): 625–648. doi:10.1080/14649365.2013.800220.
Winter, T. 2015. “Heritage Diplomacy.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 21 (10): 997–1015. doi:10.1080/
13527258.2015.1041412.
Wong, L. 2014. “Singapore Parliamentary Report.” March 11, Vol. 91. Accessed 5 October 2018. https://sprs.parl.gov.
sg/search/report?sittingdate=11-3-2014
Wong, L. 2018. “Singapore Parliamentary Report.” March 6, Vol. 94. Accessed 5 October 2018. https://sprs.parl.gov.
sg/search/topic?reportid=009_20180306_S0004_T0005
Yeoh, B. S. A., and S. Huang. 1996. “The Conservation-Redevelopment Dilemma in Singapore: The Case of the
Kampong Glam Historic District.” Cities 13 (6): 411–422. doi:10.1016/0264-2751(96)00028-5.
Yeoh, B. S. A., and L. Kong. 1996. “The Notion of Place in the Construction of History, Nostalgia and Heritage in
Singapore.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 17 (1): 52–65. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.1996.tb00084.x.
Yeoh, B. S. A., and P. Teo. 1996. “From Tiger Balm Gardens to Dragon World: Philanthropy and Profit in the Making
of Singapore’s First Cultural Theme Park.” Geografiska Annaler Series B 78 (1): 27–42. doi:10.1080/
04353684.1996.11879694.
Zaccheus, M. 2013. “Conserve Façade, Owners of Pre-war Units Told.” The Straits Times, May 12. Accessed 5 July
2020. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/conserve-facade-owners-of-pre-war-units-told