Alor Gajah heritage

Melaka is indeed a place that someone should never miss to visit especially when the State was awarded UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008.  This declaration definitely may flourish the State’s economy through visitor’s arrival and it is a sign for a healthy growth for tourism industry.  However, despite Banda Hilir which has been the centre of tourism attraction, there are some other sites located at Alor Gajah, 26km or 40 minutes away from Bandar Hilir which are unpopular among visitors.  Such sites are Megalith stone, Cherana Puteh hot spring and Dol Said mausoleum (highlights bravery of a Malay warrior who fight against British).  Based on my visit, I may summarise that those sites are lacking in their landscape maintenance.  Credit should be given to  Alor Gajah municipal council for promoting them as tourism attractions in their websites but sadly, the sites are in dire need for their comprehensive maintenance.  As for now, I do not know the extent on how their images (sore?) have been brought up to visitor attention.

I may say that the sites are still in their original natural setting.  I assume that their fate are at a juncture whether it confirms to the concept of imageability or just a pitiful eyesore to the public.  Therefore, an interrogation on the concept of sites imageability should be explored.  I might want to share the notion which is brought by Lynch (1960) where he asserts that imageability would be easily understood when people generate a map in their mind of a particular place and this map affects how individuals move around and explore their region.  We could say here when imageability of a setting is weak, people tend to ignore and don't even bother as the sites bring no benefit at all.  Why?  their lifeless and dry manner presentation result to less enjoyment in visitor experience.

I might want to suggest that the local authority redesign their marketing approach with the aim to make the public become aware on their unique characterestics.  From my experience, I only could identify two useful site attributes while spending about half an hour at each site.  Such attributes are relaxing environment and bilingual interpretation board.  On the contrary, there are many attributes that sounds negative such as lack of maintenance that result to wild weeds, shrubs, scattered dried leaves, no place to sit, too quiet, scary, feel insecured, dirty shelter and the list continues with too many negative responses should need to highlight.  In this manner, cooperation from the government and local community is highly essential through careful maintenance and landscape beautification programme. 

What make me confuse is where do the sites fit in the product life cycle? Is it at exploration level? decline stage? saturation? need to rejuvenate? I argue that none of the stage could confirm.  The mausoleum has been rebuilt and some make over to original burial ground with concrete was done by museum department.  Cherana Puteh hotspring was also redeveloped with proper landscape design and the site of megalith stone always remain hiding in the bush, together with its interpretation board made of stone.  Some 20-30 years ago the sites were with their original setting and still no visitors are interested in them. Ironically, that none of the site receive warm visitor arrival after they are 'modernized' with refresh look. For me, I may conclude that the sites are at pathetic level and dying.

Based on my site observation with my colleague, Akmal Adanan, a professional photographer and a tourism lecturer at UiTM Melaka, we have managed to capture some shots of a very beautiful natural landscape (but ignored?).  It is very confusing that such a beautiful natural setting with trees, lots of shades and cool breeze air receives apathetic response from the public.  Damn, I seriously contend that the local authority should need to formulate suitable strategies that could attract more visitors to these highly potential sites.

Perhaps, as a start, a marketing approach for these under visited sites should be redesigned to uplift its image.  Since there is no clear announcement to redevelop these areas, it is however, something to ponder whether or not the site is known for tourist attraction or simply an eyesore landscape.  In addition, people are projecting an unsafe and scary image in their mind because they say that the sites are located in solitude area with no landscape maintenance.  The places are dull, with no cheerful activities.  Drawing from this situation, visitors with little information and description about the sites may feel uneasy. 

In simple line, I may want to suggest that in order to rejuvenate the sites, it might need strategic marketing and promotion to include adequate information, skilful on-site interpreters and regular maintenance.  But, there is only one question to ponder… will the visitors care?  This is a question needs further investigation through visitor studies as the data could lead to a significant finding.  Perhaps, we might want to identify the level of consumption benefits from visiting those places and people need to be told many times so that they might become aware on the uniqueness of the State’s attraction.

References:

Lynch, K. (1960).  The image of the city.  Cambridge:  MIT