Description
Randolph Hester, Jr., a landscape architect at the University of California-Berkley, pioneered this approach in the Town of Manteo, NC in the early nineteen-eighties. The participatory process assists a community with identifying its “sacred structure”—the buildings, places, and landscapes that are central to its function and character. Sacred sites (alternatively “sacred places” or “sacred spaces”), according to Hester, are rarely the loveliest vistas or most striking buildings—they are humble, often homely elements that are nonetheless at the center of a community’s daily life. Sacred places may also be evident only in the background of community awareness—he found that it often takes work, and a way of looking at a community from a fresh perspective—for citizens to notice the most special places around them.
Steps
In general, the process of mapping sacred spaces involves three main steps: identification and mapping of sacred places, validation of the map or list, and implementation of protective measures. In a first attempt to identify sacred spaces, Hester conducted informal interviews and asked people about the most important places in their community. He then used the process of “behavior mapping” to test the responses—he walked around the town, noted the places that people congregated and used, and identified the functions and uses of those places (Fig. 2.8). Hester found that the most popular and important places in community life were rarely mentioned in interviews.
To account for the seeming discrepancy in community values, Hester then “validated” his research using a newspaper survey, asking people to rank the value of the places he identified. Those places ranked highest by respondents were considered most important to save, and Hester finally translated the results into maps of the sacred spaces and guidelines for development or conservation (Fig. 2.9.). In subsequent processes and other communities, the original maps and lists of important spots were created by focus groups of citizens or in planned charettes, rather than by an outside research team or single individuals.
While not a component of his original research, Hester has revisited Manteo to evaluate the success of the project and subsequent redevelopment. His evaluation criteria included the degree to which the sacred places have been protected, as well as qualitative consideration of the community’s values and awareness of sacred spaces. Hester found that the vocabulary and concepts of Manteo’s sacred structure were alive and well in the community, and the majority of the community’s sacred places were still intact and in use.
Pros and Cons
The process in Manteo, NC was successful, both in terms of immediate results and long-term implementation. The combination of behavior mapping, interviews, and surveys resulted in a list of places that none of the processes could have created on its own, and a list of places that the community might not otherwise have recognized as important. The concrete products—maps—also gave the community important tools for evaluating development decisions and measuring results. Manteo managed to come together around the project, agree on important elements of the community, and progress with development goals without sacrificing community character. While very successful at protecting the most important physical elements of the community, the process of mapping sacred spaces does not necessarily capture all the non-physical elements of a community’s heart and soul. Hester theorized that a community value like “friendliness” might be preserved by protecting the diner and post office where people meet and socialize, but there is no clear evidence that this is the case.
While less of a concern, it is also important to note that the meaning of the term “sacred space” (sometimes used interchangeably with “sacred place” or “sacred structure”) has been muddied over the years, and other initiatives may be confused with this process. Some programs or places have used the term “sacred structure” to refer to a specific building (church, temple, or historical monument, for example), while Hester and Manteo considered the sacred structure of a community to be more like an infrastructure—a comprehensive set or places and elements that matter to a community. “Sacred place” terms have also been used extensively by religious organizations and anthropologists to refer to places that are sacred in a spiritual or religious sense to a certain group, though not necessarily important to a community as a whole. Hester’s use of the term is effectively the opposite—his results showed that historically sacred places (churches, graveyards) often fell far down on the list of most important elements in a community.
Examples
Manteo, NC is the most notable and successful example of a community using sacred place mapping to protect its character and assets. The process has also been used in Chattanooga, TN; Seattle, WA; Dayton and Cleveland, OH; and Union County, PA. In other examples, communities have created maps of sacred spaces without using them in planning processes.
