The sound heritage of Kotagede: the evolving soundscape of a living museum

Abstract

Kotagede, the capital of the ancient Mataram Kingdom and currently an area in the Yogyakarta Province of Indonesia, is known as a ‘real living museum’. It was previously a residential area with many vital premises and heritage buildings that became a tourist area. Its locally established activities enrich the visual and sound environment of the vicinity. However, it has gradually lost its distinguishing sounds. A series of studies aims to improve the possibility of restoring past soundmarks to preserve the intangible heritage and make living museums as rich as possible. This paper reports the initial stage of the series, which focuses on capturing the rich historical sounds of Kotagede. The study was carefully designed to collect comprehensive data on heritage sounds using qualitative methods consisting of an initial focus group discussion (FGD), in-depth interviews, and a final FGD. These methods resulted in a large amount of data that were processed and classified using the descriptive phenomenology approach with the Colaizzi protocol. The study found that Kotagede has various soundmarks grouped into local and outside sounds. The locally rooted sounds can be grouped into eight categories, some of which can be extended as past and present sounds and a few that have persisted from the past to the present. In the subsequent stage, this classification and local leaders' concerns helped the researchers select and prioritise sounds for preservation and tourism purposes. The study emphasises the importance of choosing suitable participants to provide detailed and comprehensive information.

1 Introduction

A place or area should have markers to make it unique and different from other places. In the past, these markers were in the form of landmarks, soundmarks and even smellmarks. These unique markers arose from activities that produced sounds and smells that were less varied and less crowded in previous times, so they did not mask each other. Heritage sites consist not only of buildings, artefacts and other tangible features but also intangible features. Both aspects are essential, especially when the sites are also intended as museums and tourist destinations. Engagement in a museum allows visitors to form inquiries and to conduct knowledge-based exploration and active understanding (Rozan 2016). A cultural heritage site, such as a living museum, is a venue that combines tangible and intangible cultural heritage (Hitchcock et al. 2004). Living museums engage multiple senses and thus constitute organic and integral spheres rather than spaces defined through the relationships between objects that are identified visually (Naumova 2015). Therefore, a heritage site that is also a living museum can create immersive experiences for visitors when tangible and intangible heritage sites are retained.

The terminology of ‘living museums’ often refers to living history museums, which are ‘cultural institutions that teach historical lessons by recreating past environments; … open-air museums – multibuilding depictions of “historical places” – that explicitly use interpreters in period costumes to demonstrate past ways of life’ (Gordon 2016, 9). Living outdoor museums have an explicit curatorial approach that underpins what is on display: which buildings are selected for the museum, how they are restored and fitted, what objects are displayed within them and what kinds of human activities are enacted, usually by occupational animators and actors (Ciolfi and McLoughlin 2012). In line with this definition, many living museums have been established worldwide, such as the Highland Fold Museum in Scotland (Wilkinson 2009; Carruthers 2003); Australia Museum Village (Young 2006); Historic Fort Snelling in Minnesota and Conner Prairie in Indiana (Tyson 2008); China Folk Cultural Village in Shandong (Hitchcock et al. 2004); Bali Museum in Indonesia (Hitchcock 1995); and Sarawak Cultural Village in Malaysia (Latrell 2006, 2008; Muzaini 2018). Nonetheless, the earlier definitions and all of the abovementioned living museums differ from Kotagede. In Kotagede, the tangible and intangible aspects are neither artificial nor played by actors; it is an actual living museum where the actors are locals who live their daily lives in the area. Unlike typical living museums, environmental conditions, both visual and aural, that naturally arise from daily activities can be redeveloped to maintain the authenticity of a ‘real’ living museum when local activities evolve to meet the community's changing needs.

Kotagede is a subdistrict in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Its territory was much larger when it was the former capital of the ancient Mataram Kingdom long before the current kingdom in Yogyakarta (Fig. 1a and b). The kingdom was established in the sixteenth century, and this vital civilisation spread Islamic teachings and culture combined with Javanese traditions (Rindrasih and Witte 2021). Yogyakarta's monarchy is now in a sultanate form instead of a kingdom. Kotagede is officially located in two regencies or districts in the Yogyakarta Special Province: Yogyakarta City and Bantul Regency. Within Yogyakarta City, it is a subdistrict, namely, Kotagede, which spreads across three urban villages (in Bahasa Indonesia kelurahan), namely, Rejowinangun, Prenggan and Purbayan, with a total area of approximately 3 km². Another part lies in a subdistrict, Banguntapan, which is administratively in Bantul Regency. The area, which spans different administrative regions, often creates complexity related to policy and development. One of these issues is related to tourism. An example is the increasingly vibrant tourism objects and activities in Yogyakarta City compared to the Bantul Regency due to differences in policies and the involvement of authorities. This study includes both regencies.

Fig. 1

a The past Mataram Kingdom map over Java, Madura, and Bali Islands with Kotagede as the capital (Source: Museum Nusantara’s website https://museumnusantara.com/). b Map of current Java Island in Yogyakarta Province (red), where Kotagede is located. It was the capital city of a vast territory but is now a tiny area in the southeastern part of Yogyakarta City, expanded to the Bantul Regency (Source: Google Map)

Tangible aspects, such as building styles, spatial elements, and community lifestyles, remain largely the same in their authentic conditions, especially in Purbayan and Prenggan, but they have changed significantly in Rejowinangun, in contrast to intangible aspects. Most of Kotagede’s intangible elements have changed. Clapp (1999) noted that authenticity is an attribute of heritage quality. This statement is in accordance with MacCannell (1973), who noted that authenticity is the central aspect that attracts tourists who want to experience real things. Authenticity has also been understood as intersubjective and is consequently labelled constructed authenticity. In this view, authenticity depends on the criteria used to define it; thus, it is inherently socially constructed (Cohen 2007). As such, a nonauthentic heritage tourism attraction can still be experienced as authentic according to the subject who experiences it. Dueholm and Smed (2014) suggest that different conceptions of authenticity can coexist within tourism settings and that new technologies can be implemented to strengthen heritage sites as tourist attractions while paying attention to authenticity and ongoing authentication processes. Chhabra et al. (2003) suggest that only some components of an experience need to be authentic as long as the combination of elements generates the expected nostalgic feelings. These are crucial references for restoring Kotagede's sound heritage, which may need to combine authentic aspects and the use of technologies to present past conditions and to generate nostalgic feelings. The authenticity implications are even more challenging as Kotagede embraces different urban villages and districts with potentially different policies.

Kotagede has reasonably maintained visual objects inherited from the past, such as the Great Mosque, the tomb complex (the Royal Cemetery Complex), the Legi Market, and many rich houses, namely, Kalang Houses (Santosa 2007; Nakamura 2012). Some objects might not be entirely authentic as an enormous earthquake struck the area in 2006, severely damaging many buildings (Rindrasih and Witte 2021). Kalang is the name of an ethnic group that migrated to Kotagede. They were exiled because of their physical appearance, which differed from that of the local community. ‘Kalang’ comes from ‘dikalangi’ or ‘be confined’. The Kalang people were known as hard workers. They worked as carpenters, blacksmiths, silversmiths, and merchants, and they later played a vital role in developing Kotagede. The Kalang people transformed from the lowest caste into a thriving and prosperous community. They have large, stylish houses that have become tangible symbols of the heritage of Kotagede.

Because the Mataram Kingdom is a Muslim Kingdom, religious life in Kotagede was and still is easily seen and heard. In addition to religious activities, daily activities consisting of domestic and occupational or economic activities enrich the sound environment of Kotagede. Occupational activities included craftsmanship, garment production, florists, and culinary activities. Sadly, as local activities have shifted along with evolving occupations and lifestyles, the sound environment has changed accordingly, leaving Kotagede less unique than it was previously. This study aims to investigate the heritage acoustic environment that composed the unique soundscape of Kotagede to explore the possibility of restoring its intangible heritage as well as promoting an immersive living museum in Kotagede. The final goal of restoring historical sounds faces significant challenges due to modernised daily activities and possible resistance from local communities. According to Pardoen and Guesney (2024), this type of study requires numerous cross-checks to validate information and the adoption of different perspectives on the data to regain heritage sounds. This becomes challenging as it involves tourism purposes and the sustainable preservation of intangible heritage.

2 Methodology

In soundscape studies, researchers value sounds as resources and assume that all sounds are subject to personal preference (Pijanowski 2024). Thus, collecting data on as many perceptions as possible is essential in a soundscape study. A quantitative approach with a questionnaire survey is widely used to fulfil the need for a large number of entries. However, the entries are primarily superficial. Therefore, a series of qualitative activities were used to collect data on the heritage sounds recalled by locals. Despite the limited resources, data were collected using cross-investigations. Pardoen and Guesney (2024) mention that heritage soundscape studies require several cross-investigations (both in terms of discipline and time, including archival consultation and fieldwork). Three stages of the qualitative approach (two focus group discussions (FGDs) and an in-depth interview) involving ten influential inhabitants and three government officers (urban village heads) were employed.

The varied demographic composition of the participants and the authors’ expertise satisfied the cross-investigation with regard to disciplines and time. The FGD and the in-depth interviews involved archival consultations and fieldwork. A trusted source person recommended several vital persons for the FGD, leading to recommendations for more influential persons to be interviewed. Fieldwork was also conducted prior to the study to provide information about the current soundscape and to trigger discussions in the FGDs. Ethical approval for the participants' involvement in this study was granted by the ethics commission of Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta, number 2371/Kep-Unisa/IV/2023. The first stage examined past soundmarks using an FGD (the initial FGD), followed by in-depth interviews with important locals. It concluded with another FGD (the final FGD). The final FGD was also part of in-depth interview data processing using Colaizzi's approach, which is meant for qualitative data (Morrow et al. 2015; Praveena and Sasikumar 2021), as discussed later in the paper. The three stages of data collection and Colaizzi’s protocol for data analysis were designed to ensure careful data collection to regain heritage sounds (Pardoen and Guesney 2024) before they were preserved in any format: on-site, virtual, or otherwise.

2.1 The initial focus group discussion

As recommended by a trusted source person, for the initial FGD, three local cultural figures who managed tourism activities while preserving local culture were invited. The FGD participants included two men (aged 60 and 65) and one woman from different generations (aged 47). The source person, who was also part of the research team, had authored several books about Kotagede and maintained consistent communication with locals. Empirical quantitative data from an earlier study were presented during the introductory phase of the FGD. Later, the data were referred to for data enrichment, comparison and completion of the qualitative data reported here. These data included sound pressure level (SPL) measurements and soundscaping activities to outline current sound sources and types in Kotagede (Mediastika et al. 2023). After the introductory phase, a question about what sounds coloured the past soundscape in Kotagede was presented. This question resulted in a casual two-and-a-half-hour FGD. In addition to collecting data on the past acoustic environment, in the initial FGD, a snowball approach was recommended for the next stage.

2.2 In-depth interviews

In the initial FGD, seven influential locals from various occupations were recommended for the in-depth interview stage. In addition to these seven, the three initial FGD participants were also asked to be interviewees. They claimed that more past sounds could be recalled by showing several domestic tools they had at home. The interviews were guided by several questions to keep the responses on topic. The questions were not asked rigidly as in a questionnaire but rather in a relaxed way. The interviewees could convey their opinions freely, add examples, and provide detailed descriptions or additional information that might be slightly off the topic to comprehensively describe their opinions. The questions for the in-depth interviews included (a) past sounds they experienced, (b) past sounds they had not experienced but that were depicted by predecessors, (c) activities and locations of unique past sounds, (d) activities with unique sounds they preserved individually or communally, and (e) opinions about the current sound environment. Furthermore, (f) when the interviewees did not mention the two most iconic premises in Kotagede, the market and the mosque, an additional question was asked about these two objects. This stage was intended to collect data on the daily sound environment experienced by the participants. Thus, the interviews were conducted at their houses or the places where they spent most of their time.

Figure 2 shows the locations associated with the sounds mentioned in the interviews. This figure consists of two legends: red dots (the interview locations) and yellow dots (the FGD participants’ houses). As the initial FGD participants were also the interviewees, some dots overlap. The number of dots does not fully match the number of participants because some reside in the same place, such as a husband and wife or a mother and son. However, each individual had a different role in developing Kotagede’s tourism. Additionally, one participant stayed in another house during childhood and after marriage, resulting in nonoverlapping yellow and red dots. Figure 2 shows that participants’ living areas were mainly in Purbayan rather than Prenggan. This indicates that Purbayan has more cultural and tourism stakeholders and is supported by more tangible heritage sites than Prenggan does. Because Jagalan urban village belongs to the Bantul Regency, which was not officially covered in this study, no important persons from this area were invited as participants. Nonetheless, the FGD participants and interviewees identified their childhood activities in this area, and the historical site within Bantul's urban village (i.e., Soka Alley) was covered in earlier fieldwork to investigate current sounds and measure the SPL.

Fig. 2

Initial FGD participants and in-depth interviewees’ locations from which they recalled and shared opinions about the past and current sounds of Kotagede (Source: Google Earth)

2.3 Final focus group discussion

A final FGD was held to validate the findings from the initial FGD and the interview, to link previous quantitative and current qualitative data, and to confirm the initial findings on the basis of the Colaizzi protocol. The final FGD was attended by the authors, enumerators, the trusted source person from Kotagede, Kotagede urban village heads, and the initial FGD participants. The final composition of the FGD was meticulously organised to ensure thorough data finalisation following the recommendations of Pardoen and Guesney (2024) and in accordance with the Colaizzi protocol. Enumerators were involved to confirm that the findings were rooted in the collected data. The initial FGD participants, who were also interviewees, were invited to represent the interviewees to verify that the findings were derived from their responses to the enumerators without any bias, deductions, or additions, as stated in Colaizzi. Urban village leaders were invited to learn about the findings and provide input on implementing sound preservation in accordance with local policies.

Unlike the initial FGD, the final FGD did not involve asking the participants questions. Instead, it began with the presentation of the quantitative data from the previous study in the series and the qualitative data gathered from the initial FGD and in-depth interviews. This comprehensive presentation aimed to collect feedback, opinions, agreement, and disagreement on the preliminary findings resulting from data processing. This is part of the data confirmation process outlined in the Colaizzi protocol used in this study, which will be explained further. The final FGD lasted one and a half hours and was shorter than the initial FGD as it was more of a confirmation session than a discussion.

3 Results and discussion

Kotagede is a residential area. Over time, as modernity has reshaped numerous traditional facets, Kotagede has transformed into a captivating destination for tourists, beckoning them with its vast array of heritage treasures and engaging domestic and cultural activities. With the modernisation and development of Kotagede, narrow alleys among houses utilised for pedestrians have recently been seized by motorised vehicles. This resonates with similar findings by Supriyadi et al. (2012) over a decade ago. This study utilised qualitative methods and built upon a previous quantitative study that incorporated SPL measurements and sound recordings at 10 locations in Kotagede (Mediastika et al. 2023). Fieldwork conducted prior to the study revealed that Kotagede’s sound environment is above the stipulated noise standard of residential areas in Indonesia by the Regulation of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Indonesia from 1996 (Mediastika et al. 2023). On the basis of this rule and because it is now a residential area as well as a tourist and economic area, two noise levels are applied. The maximum sound pressure level is 55 dBA for residential areas and 65 dBA for public spaces. Approximately 80% of the surveyed spots exceeded both levels of the stipulated standard (Mediastika et al. 2023). These data align with the participants’ opinions about the current sound, as discussed later in this paper. The word cloud visualisation of the sound recordings revealed the prevalence of nonheritage sounds, which contrasted with the heritage sounds recalled in the FGDs and in-depth interviews (Fig. 3). The participants conveyed their opinions in Bahasa Indonesia, and the authors translated them into English as closely as possible. Untranslatable terms are written in single quotation marks and are defined in Table 1.

Fig. 3

a Current sound environment b Past sound environment memorised by the initial FGD participants. (Source: reproduced from Mediastika et al. 2023)

Table 1 Glossary

3.1 The initial focus group discussion

The initial FGD, to which only the most well-known influential cultural figures were invited, was conducted as an initial data collection that was expected to lead to the possibility of snowball sampling for the later stage. This objective was achieved. The discussion was restricted to the participants’ recollection of Kotagede's past sounds following the presentation of quantitative data indicating Kotagede’s current acoustic environment. No specific methods were used to process the minimal data other than extracting significant statements verbatim. The important statements provided by the participants are as follows:

‘When I was little, the environment was relatively quiet, and I could hear elephants from the zoo. It was the sound outside of Kotagede that enriched our soundscape. From inside Kotagede, on certain evenings, we heard arts and religious performances such as ‘keroncong’ music, ‘sholawat’ readings and the local opera: ‘ketoprak’. During the day, we heard local people weaving with traditional tools and gold, copper, brass and silver artisans working on making various items ranging from accessories to tableware and kitchenware. The sound of the blacksmith’s tools was enriched with traditional songs sung by the blacksmiths while working, as they were mostly also artists for the evening arts and cultural performances. The sound made by the blacksmiths’ tools consisted of smelting metal, then forging, combing, carving, etc., until the product was finished. The goods were then loaded onto traditional horse-drawn carts for sale at the market. The metal wheels rolling on the cobblestones combined with the horseshoes and horse outfits created a beautiful yet unique soundmark along the way. But now it is quieter as blacksmiths use modern tools and vehicles to bring their products to the market. At the beginning and end of the month of Ramadan, a large drum called ‘bedug’ in the great mosque was beaten by many players in a relay for about two hours, which in recent years has been replaced by a sound system’.

‘I agree about the elephant sound; Kotagede’s soundscape was indeed unique, but I think it was not just by the external sound but mainly because of traditional tools for weaving, sewing, making batik, making kitchen utensils and making crackers from ‘gnetum gnemon’ or ‘melinjo’ seeds. There was also the morning call to prayer from a mosque every day, namely, ‘adhan’, which overlaps with the ‘adhan’ of nearby mosques I used to miss when I was away from home’.

‘I am the youngest participant of all, so I only remember a little of the soundmark in Kotagede. The two unique sounds I remember were the enormous sound of birds owned by bird enthusiasts and the narrow alleys full of high walls on either side that give off an echo. So, when I was a kid, my friends and I would happily scream in the alleys to make an echo. But any sound in the alley is now less resonant as some of the alley’s walls were renovated to create new facades of the houses. I also remember that in the past, the activity of reciting the Koran was carried out every day in many places, not only during Ramadan as it is today’.

The discussion was finalised with statements given by the trusted person, an expert of Kotagede:

‘The soundmark of Kotagede fades because community activities have changed significantly so that both moving and steady sounds are almost inaudible. Moving sounds were from traditional modes of transportation and mobile food vendors, while steady sounds were from arts, culture, work and household activities and natural sounds as well as religious activities (except for the community parade, which was held along Mondorakan Street at the end of the month of Ramadhan and the first day of Eid al-Fitr). The Kotagede area was quiet in the past because no vehicles were allowed to enter it. The area around the ‘Intro Living’ museum on Tegal Gendu St. was the final point for vehicles. That was why narrow alleys were enough because they only served pedestrians. In addition, the soundscape of Kotagede was heavily influenced by Legi Market activity on the Legi day when people and modes of transportation were on the move’.

In short, the discussion concluded that Kotagede’s sound environment was indeed unique. Many unique sounds have been naturally composed in the soundscape of Kotagede, including external and internal sounds. Internal sounds consist of domestic, occupational, cultural and religious activities and can be grouped into daily and occasional sounds. The everyday sounds can be grouped according to specific time slots, such as early morning, morning, midday, afternoon, evening, and late evening. However, all these sounds are in harmony to compose the Kotagede natural orchestra without masking each other, so each one is heard perfectly (Mediastika et al. 2023). We learned that different generations living in the same area have different opinions about heritage sounds, a crucial consideration for the following data collection stage. The younger generation lives in a modern yet noisier environment, making them unable to experience the external sounds that played a role in composing Kotagede’s past sounds. It was surprising that elephant sounds from the zoo, approximately 3 km away, could be heard in Kotagede (Fig. 4); according to Poole et al. (1988) and Ben-Ari (1999), elephant sounds as loud as 117 dB are usually audible within 2 km. This implies that far sound can create a high-fidelity soundscape to colour the sound signature of a particular area when the environment is extraordinarily calm. In the FGD, several formulated meanings were noted: (i) the past sounds of Kotagede were unique; (ii) they were composed of external and internal sounds; (iii) internal sounds were based on the time of occurrence; and (iv) they consisted of domestic, economic, cultural and religious activities (presented in a word cloud; Fig. 3b).

Fig. 4

An area around the zoo where the deafening sounds of elephants can be heard within a radius of 2 km (the yellow circle) and the area of Kotagede, approximately 3 km away from the zoo. This shows that with quiet surroundings, elephant sounds might travel more than they do naturally, but within noisy surroundings, this may now be even less than the 2 km radius (Source: Google Earth)

3.2 In-depth interviews

The in-depth interviews included nine participants instead of ten as planned. One participant (female, aged nearly 85 years) consistently battled health issues related to seniority and faced considerable severity during the interview timeline. Consequently, we decided to exclude her from the list. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted using a prepared interview guide. The nine participants were (1) female, aged 62, a dressmaker and religious activist; (2) female, 57, a housewife, tour host, and homestay owner; (3) female, 58, a florist; (4) male, 65, a tour guide and tour host, event organiser, and writer; (5) male, 62, a silversmith; (6) male, 60, a tour host and homestay owner; (7) male, 54, a garment entrepreneur; (8) female, 83, a religious activist; and (9) female, 47, an event organiser and tour guide. The participants’ ages spanned 36 years (from 47 to 83). One generation in the Indonesian community spans approximately 20 years (Indonesians are married and have children when they are aged 18 to 20 (Najib et al. 2021)), which means that the interviews covered three generations (people around the ages of 47, 65, and 83). Participant (7) was the son of Participant (8), and Participant (9) mentioned that Participants (4) and (6) were of the same generation as her father. The age range spread over three generations was deemed perfect for the study. The 83-year-old participants covered the sound environment around the founding of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, after Dutch colonialism. The data spanned approximately 80 years before 2007–2012, when motorcycles began to occupy streets in Yogyakarta (Herwangi et al. 2015), until 2023, the year of the study. It would be ideal to have participants aged 100 to cover one older generation, but even if they were still alive, factors related to dementia would hinder the interview process. In the interviews, the participants were encouraged to talk freely and tell stories in their own words. Each interview lasted from 45 min to one hour. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The descriptive phenomenology approach (Husserl 2013) was used instead of interpretive-hermeneutic phenomenology because the data were based on direct factual experiences described by the participants, mostly without hidden meaning, which may create biases and different interpretations. The data processing of descriptive phenomenology involves four steps: bracketing, intuiting, analysing and describing. Instead of using only these four steps to analyse the data, this study used the Colaizzi protocol to process the verbatim transcripts. Colaizzi’s approach is similar to that of descriptive phenomenology but uses seven stages instead of four, making it more detailed and facilitating the construction of descriptions at the end of the analysis (Morrow et al. 2015; Praveena and Sasikumar 2021). Figure 5 shows the seven stages of Colaizzi’s method compared with the four stages of the descriptive phenomenology approach. We note that there is a slight difference in the use of the term ‘intuiting’, which is not found in Colaizzi’s protocol. Intuiting is the stage in which researchers remain open to the meanings attributed to phenomena by those who have experienced them. Although it is not explicitly included in the Colaizzi approach, it is still within the seven steps because when a qualitative method is used, the researcher’s background knowledge and intuition play vital roles in describing and interpreting the data (Ratner 2002; Mruck and Breuer 2003). Colaizzi’s protocol neutralises the subjective intuition of the researcher by returning the findings to the source in the final stage of step seven. This study used the final FGD instead of returning the findings to the interviewees one by one given the author's intention to gain objectivity and validity in a more general manner. In fact, the use of six steps was considered sufficient for two reasons: (1) the last step is still debatable and controversial (Giorgi 2006), and (2) this research collected data through several methods, including in-depth interviews as well as FGDs and a pre-study using a quantitative approach.

Fig. 5

The seven steps of the Colaizzi approach (Source: Zhang et al. 2022)

Tables 2 and 3 show the extraction of significant statements comprising the opinions of nine interviewees and the formulated meanings and themes, respectively.

Table 2 Extraction of significant statements into sound types, timeframes, and sound groups

Table 3 Formulated meanings and themes

The source persons spanned three generations. The youngest was 47 and had not experienced the external and mystical sound. Their opinions added more colour to how and which past sounds can be reconstructed. Generations younger than the age of 47 were not invited as participants because they were not recommended by the trusted source person or by the snowball sampling of the initial FGD, which is appropriate for this study considering the subtle past sounds the participants experienced. Therefore, this generation did not participate in the data collection process. In this study, different genders did not construct different sound perceptions, as seen from the initial FGD and data extraction presented in Table 2. However, the participants’ age and occupation accounted for significant data variations. This allowed for the collection of comprehensive data that were validated by the participants. As shown in Table 2, each participant memorised and conveyed sounds similar to the others. The only differences in perception were due to variations in verbal forms, such as ‘tek…tek…tek’ and ‘teng…teng…teng’ for silversmith activities.

The stage of formulating meanings enables researchers to group the themes identified by the participants. As shown in Tables 2 and 3, the first theme was time frame. There were two dominant time frames: past and present. Between the two subthemes, there was also a bridging time frame of the past and present, which means that sound existed in the past and continues today. The second theme developed by the formulated meanings was the type of sound grouped into religious, mystical, traditional, occupation, daily activity, transportation and natural sounds, including animals. Here, more variants and different terms of sound groups emerged compared with the initial FGD. These were domestic, economic, cultural and religious sounds, implying that cross-investigations work more comprehensively with more source persons. Among the seven subthemes of sound types, religious, mystical, traditional and occupational sounds dominated the soundmark of Kotagede. Above all, we can see significant strong bonds between religious, cultural, and traditional sounds. Moreover, the three activities seem inseparable, which suggests that cultural and traditional activities affect the spiritual life of the Kotagede community. This aligns with the findings of Nakamura (2012). The data also show that mystical and occupational sounds mostly dominated the past sounds of Kotagede, whereas sacred sounds exist continuously in Kotagede but with different intensities and variants. All of these factors reflect the influence of animism in the area in ancient times.

On the basis of the initial FGD and the interviews presented in Tables 2 and 3, exhaustive descriptions are developed as follows:

‘Kotagede, as a heritage area in the southeastern part of the current Yogyakarta City, was rich in unique sounds linked to its locally rooted activities combined with faraway sounds heard in the vicinity, which became the soundmarks of the area. The locally rooted activities combined mainly religious–cultural–traditional–mystical sounds in addition to daily activity, occupational, transportation and nature sounds. Daily activity sounds were grouped into domestic and venture or economic activities. Faraway sounds, such as animal sounds from the zoo and train, were audible when noise was minimal in the past (Fig. 6). The sound environment of Kotagede has drastically changed along with the changing lifestyle, leading to changes in the occupation of the locals, the existence of more buildings, and the use of modern transportation modes. Some of the past sounds still exist today, although not as rich as in the past, such as religious sounds that now mostly use loudspeakers to call for prayers instead of traditional sound instruments, animal sounds limited to birds, transportation sounds limited to modern transport modes instead of traditional carriages, the sound of silversmiths, although less than in the past, and everyday activities, mostly dominated by interaction between neighbours. A sound that is very rarely heard today is the mystical sound. Locals believe the entry of modernity in Kotagede also diminished the mystical sound, which was believed to be present only within the tranquil environment of the past. The current modernity in Kotagede has created a noisier neighbourhood that masks and dissipates the mystical sound. The diminished mystical sound in line with the presence of the noisy modern sound is logical. The mystical sounds heard by the people of Kotagede might come from natural sounds such as the sounds of soil (Rillig et al. 2019), the sound of earth or moving ground (Kahn 2013), or the sound of clouds and cloud droplets (Colgate and McKee 1969; Qiu et al. 2021), which would be audible in a quiet environment’.

Fig. 6

Sound taxonomy in Kotagede based on the findings

People's perception of mystical sounds is not unusual considering the strong animism that characterised their daily lives before the existence of modern religions. It is respected and noted as a part of their tangible heritage, though it may sound illogical within modern and scientific paradigms. Aligning with the sound of elephants from a distance, the ‘mystical sound’ (scientifically, the sound of nature) might still exist in the vicinity but is masked by the noisy environment to make it less audible. The specific sound environment in which distant and subtle sounds are audible must be considered when Kotagede's past sounds are presented to visitors in the future.

‘Within the modern environment, a new type of sound, entirely new to the sound environment, is the crowd sound during Eid Al Fitr from fireworks, firecrackers and real marching bands (to differentiate between the mystical drum band sound), and the sound of local coffee shops. In the past five years, coffee shops have been trending in Indonesia (Agusetyaningrum and Kistanto 2021; Purnomo et al. 2021; Nurhasanah and Dewi 2019), especially the Instragramable ones that turned old or ancient or heritage buildings from their past functions into coffee shops (Oktafarel et al. 2021) or in new buildings with unique interiors. Some premises in Kotagede also want to take advantage of the opportunity to be transformed into coffee shops by owners or tenants. This trending economic activity also creates new sound in Kotagede’.

Through this exhaustive description, a fundamental structure of the phenomenon is thus developed as follows:

‘Kotagede was enriched with locally rooted and outside sounds that mark the area. It comprised religious, cultural, traditional, mystical, daily activity, occupational, transportation and nature sounds. Modern lifestyles that accompany the changing of local lifestyles have diminished most past sounds, even though some are still slightly audible. The remaining past sounds, added with new sounds, are now colouring the sound environment. Sadly, the new sound is also a trend elsewhere in Yogyakarta and Indonesia, leaving the Kotagede sound environment less unique and quite similar to other areas in Yogyakarta and Indonesia’.

3.3 Final focus group discussion

The final FGD, as part of the confirmation session related to the findings of the earlier stage, was intended to be brief and effective. The time slots were mostly used by the researcher to convey the research findings. However, important statements arose as aspects of validation:

‘It is true that past sounds of Kotagede are now disappearing, including the animal sounds from the zoo that I also heard. The sounds of birds were also many, splashing water and pinwheel sounds, which are not audible now. The sound from the silversmith and the religious sounds are still here, but the details are different. The findings presented by the researchers aligned with the information I shared earlier. I expect that maybe the realisation of the development on the aural aspect would be provided in the barcode. Maybe? So tourists may select the type of sound they will hear and connect to the visual heritage’.

‘Kotagede, indeed, is now a prima donna in Yogyakarta tourism as the municipality intends to put on a new tourist destination in addition to Malioboro (the main tourist attraction in Yogyakarta) by presenting an alternate site that may attract tourists with special intentions, such as to learn about a particular historical site. So Kotagede is not for general tourists but more for tourists with specific intentions’.

‘It is now time to bring Kotagede back to look like it was in the past, especially in the intangible aspect. The current sound characteristic delivered by respondents is our reference to construct an immersive environment so tourists can experience the past environment of Kotagede. But one thing to remember is that, sometimes, planned activities were not fully worked; instead, things that came up unintentionally were perfectly worked’.

‘Purbayan Urban Village received the second award for tourist village development in Indonesia and an award from the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy based on the well-preserved heritage. But it is limited to the visual heritage; the sound aspect of Kotagede has never been looked at. I agree with the comments by the interviewees that specific locations have specific sounds in Kotagede. I think those are the places where we need to develop the acoustical aspects. I also agree with the attention paid to ‘keroncong’. I believe this will enrich the intangible tourism aspect in the future as long as it does not drastically change current physical conditions since there might be rejection from locals’.

‘I agree with what has been said; it perfectly represents what I have conveyed. The sound of the past is indeed important in developing an immersive experience for tourists in this heritage tourist destination. The past sound was just as mentioned, and the current sound was just as measured. If I can suggest, for the application, we may need audio kits for tourists to hear the past sound of Kotagede’.

The FGD closed with a statement from one of the researchers:

‘Our intention to bring the past audio alive in Kotagede was intended not to interfere too much with the physical and visual aspects of Kotagede. Instead, what we have in mind based on all data collected is to add features to the existing premises, maybe at some appropriate spots only to provide sounds of the past. It may be with some real activities on site if possible and acceptable by locals. We intend to collaborate with locals to develop the aural experience for tourists.’

On the basis of the statements collected from the final FGD, the data from the initial FGD, the in-depth interviews, and the earlier quantitative survey were linked and validated. The participants confirmed the initial findings presented by the authors. They agreed with the quantitative data from the earlier study, which suggested that Kotagede is a noisy environment. This noise has made many past sounds less audible or completely inaudible. Through the interviews, it was found that the past sounds in Kotagede were diverse. The participants also emphasised the importance of restoring these past sounds. Many aspirations for how the aural element could be implemented also arose. Concerns about physical changes are understandable because it is difficult for people to comfortably accept changes (Berger 2022) to their daily experience. This aspiration was a crucial reference for researchers when moving to the next stage of this study. A cross-investigation covering as many generations as possible would enable the study to gain archival characteristics (Pardoen and Guesney 2024).

4 Conclusions

The brief observation that Kotagede is a living heritage museum that has gradually lost its sound signature is in line with the findings of this study. This study concludes that many types of sounds have coloured the Kotagede sound environment in the past. These can be grouped into locally rooted sounds and external sounds heard in the vicinity. The locally rooted sounds are categorised as religious, cultural, traditional, mystical, daily activity, occupational, transportation or nature sounds. Kotagede’s welfare has changed drastically along with lifestyle changes, including changes in locals’ livelihoods, an increasing number of buildings and modern transportation modes. These phenomena have caused the sounds of Kotagede to be categorised further as past sounds only, present sounds only and past sounds that are slightly audible at present. Religious, occupational, and transportation sounds are the sound types that are still in the vicinity but with different details. All of these sounds are time sensitive, meaning that the sounds emerge only at certain times (Fig. 6). The study also indicates that the local sound heritage might also be coloured by sounds from outside the area, and their restoration requires specific consideration due to environmental changes and differing policies in these sound source areas.

This study gathered a large amount of data using limited resources, indicating that accurate informants were able to thoroughly provide the intended data. Conducting a preliminary study to identify the most appropriate informants was essential. This study involved individuals from different age groups spanning several generations and various occupations, as a previous study indicated that local soundmarks were associated mainly with occupational activities. Efforts to preserve the gradually fading soundmarks within an evolving heritage site should begin by collecting data on sound classification (Parker and Spennemann 2022), as was done in this study by collecting data as comprehensively as possible. Sound classification is a practical starting point for the restoration of sound heritage, which involves evolving local activities, spans different municipalities, and has two objectives for preservation and tourism purposes. By carefully categorising sounds, researchers can gain a strong foothold to decide which sounds to restore onsite (and at which sites) and which ones are not feasible for onsite restoration, instead opting for virtual alternatives. They can also identify which sounds are unique soundmarks or just background sounds that should be preserved to enhance the tourist experience and which are suitable for both purposes. These are critical recommendations for subsequent studies without excluding local leaders' concerns about making careful and minimal physical changes while restoring intangible aspects.

Changes in the lifestyles and occupations of local people imply that future studies will face a massive challenge in reconstructing and applying the aural aspect of Kotagede since most of the fading heritage sounds were produced from lifestyle and occupational activities. Kotagede’s circumstances are also experienced by heritage sites whose lifestyles created their sound signatures, suggesting that reconstructing aural elements in similar heritage sites will face similar challenges. Kotagede, with its few remaining heritage sounds, is even worse because of the predominance of traffic noise over current sounds. Once traffic noise becomes a regular part of daily life, such as motorcycles passing through narrow alleys, it can be challenging to minimise. As local leaders noted, making drastic changes to restore conventional sounds may not be readily accepted by locals.

For the later stage of aural element implementation in this type of heritage site, similar to several world soundscape projects (Volz et al. 2008; Schulte-Fortkamp et al. 2008; Schulte-Fortkamp 2010; Kang et al. 2016), the goal is not to remove the unavoidable modern transportation noise but to create a high-fidelity sound environment by lowering unwanted sounds and boosting wanted sounds. The informants implicitly conveyed their dissatisfaction with the dominant traffic noise and longed for the quieter and more conventional sounds of the past. However, again, some of the traffic noise sources were also created by locals. Therefore, policies that address the needs of both groups are crucial. When it is difficult to reconstruct past sounds on the ground, an alternative is to create a virtual aural museum in the area (Bijsterveld 2015; Cliffe et al. 2019). This should be achievable because only certain components of an experience need to be authentic as long as the combination of elements evokes the desired nostalgic feelings (Chhabra et al. 2003). Finally, the authors concur with Pardoen and Guesney (2024) that this kind of study needs extensive cross-checks to validate the information and continuously examine the data to accurately regain heritage sounds from the past. This should be done with minimal physical changes while balancing evolving needs, preservation, and tourism functions.