Preserving the Past: Analyzing Structural Damage, Policy Implementation, and Conservation Efforts for 19th-Century Heritage Buildings in Peunayong, Aceh

Abstract

The conservation of 19th-century heritage shophouses in Peunayong, Banda Aceh, illustrates a global challenge where material deterioration, structural decline, and weak governance intersect. Previous studies often examined these dimensions separately—focusing on architectural authenticity, structural safety, or heritage policy—but rarely in an integrated manner. This study addresses that gap by combining facade condition surveys, non-destructive structural testing, and policy analysis to evaluate the state and future of Peunayong’s historic shophouses. Fieldwork on 45 buildings employed visual documentation, interviews, questionnaires, and Schmidt Hammer and Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) tests. The visual observation was measured using a Likert scale. Results show that 62.3% of shophouses experienced severe facade damage, primarily due to unregulated renovations erasing historical features. Windows, ornaments, and fascia boards were among the most degraded. Structural tests revealed that while some shophouses retained safe load-bearing capacity, others showed critical weaknesses below safety thresholds. Policy analysis highlighted an implementation deficit: despite recognition of Peunayong in urban spatial plans, the buildings remain unregistered as cultural heritage, leaving them unprotected and subject to uncontrolled alterations. Currently, 55.6% retain original facade features, while 44.4% have been modified. By framing conservation as a triple crisis of authenticity loss, structural vulnerability, and policy failure, this study contributes methodological and empirical insights to heritage debates, advocating for enforceable regulations, technical monitoring, and community-supported conservation.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage buildings are not only physical remnants of the past, but they also serve as vessels for shaping the future, preserving a region’s sense of nationalism, economic identity, and history [1]. However, rapid urbanization frequently contributes to the degradation of historic districts, particularly in developing regions where economic growth often competes with conservation priorities (UNESCO, 2016) [2]. Studies across Southeast Asia have shown that poorly supervised development and weak management practices accelerate the loss of cultural heritage. For example, historic areas in Bangkok face similar pressures to those in Peunayong, where traditional wooden houses have been replaced by multi-story commercial buildings [3]. In Aceh, environmental factors such as high humidity, recurrent flooding, and post-tsunami instability have further exacerbated the deterioration of heritage sites. In addition, inadequate conservation policies and poorly regulated urban development have left many heritage structures vulnerable to extinction under the pressures of globalization, modernization [4], and rapid development [5]. For decades, urban renewal projects have led to the demolition of historic buildings in the name of modernization [6], with uncontrolled redevelopment eroding the sense of place [7] and gradually erasing cultural landmarks [8]. The coexistence of new and old facades within the same urban fabric often reflects and illustrates such poor management and a lack of proper maintenance [9,10]. Indeed, as noted by [11], cultural heritage is threatened by a range of physical, chemical, natural, and human-induced (anthropogenic) factors; still, these challenges are further exacerbated by weak coordination among stakeholders and insufficient government attention to heritage preservation [12].

Heritage management has gone from being a solely building-related endeavor to a practice involving multiple aspects, including social, economic, and cultural elements. In modern times, heritage conservation has been known since the period of the Enlightenment [13]. The conservation models that emerged at the beginning, which originated in the European tradition in the 19th -century, focused on the protection of historic sites and structures as immovable objects [14,15]. However, contemporary perspectives recognize that heritage sites are dynamic spaces that hold deep significance for the identity and socio-economic structure of local communities [16]. The Venice Charter (1964) [17] and the Burra Charter (1979) [18] reshaped global conservation practices by promoting adaptive reuse and authenticity, prioritizing a balance between preservation and contemporary use. Buildings from the 19th -century in Peunayong reflect this tension, as cultural landmarks that are under the pressure of urban modernization. Understanding this global shift is critical to contextualizing the challenges of Aceh’s local heritage.

The historic area of Peunayong in Aceh is a striking example of a cultural heritage site facing increasing physical decline. Known for its collection of 19th-century buildings, Peunayong showcases a unique blend of the colonial Dutch, traditional Acehnese, and Chinese architectural styles. Chinese–Acehnese relations date to the 13th century, with the Hikayat Raja-Raja Pasai noting a “Chinese Village” [19]. In the early 15th century, Admiral Cheng Ho visited Aceh during Ming diplomatic voyages [20,21]. By the late 17th century, Chinese traders had formed settlements along the coast, referred to as Kampung Cina [22]. Following the Dutch conquest of Kuta Raja in 1874, the colonial government rebuilt the city and established markets, including one in the northern quarter, later designated as Chinezen Kamp (Chinese quarter) with shophouses (ruko), a colonial-era building type combining residence and commerce [19,23,24] under the influence of European, Chinese, and local vernacular styles [25]. Early shophouses were single-story timber buildings [26], which later evolved into multi-level forms. By the 19th-century, brick was widely used for lower floors, while timber remained for upper parts, resembling Penang shophouses built between 1800 and 1850 [27]. However, despite its significance as tangible evidence of the region’s rich cultural and architectural legacy, this invaluable cultural asset is increasingly at risk due to environmental degradation, natural disasters, uncontrolled urban development, and inadequate conservation policies.

Several studies have been conducted to document and advocate for the conservation of Peunayong and its historic buildings [28,29], and the commodification of this district through tourism development has often emerged as one of the key debatable strategies. A qualitative analysis of the cultural significance of these buildings was also carried out through interviews with remaining shophouse residents [30]. In fact, the extent to which architectural heritage preservation is inclusive of the Chinese–Acehnese minority in multicultural Banda Aceh has also been examined [31]. However, no study to date has offered an integrated assessment that combines architectural features, structural strength, and an evaluation of government policies related to the conservation of Peunayong. Such an assessment is crucial to identifying the causes of physical, architectural, and structural deterioration, as well as evaluating existing policies—to properly propose future conservation strategies.

Hence, this paper aims to fill the gap by conducting damage assessment of the shophouses (especially the structural) and policy analysis, which is very important to understanding the complex interaction between physical degradation and governance challenges. This paper asks the overarching question of (1) which architectural and structural features of the 19th-century shophouses have the greatest decline in function and (2) how the conservation policy of these shophouses plays out amid increasing urban pressure—specifically, it asks what kinds of policy adjustments are needed to ensure sustainable and community-supported conservation. By investigating the structural condition and evaluating the performance of regional conservation policies in Peunayong, this study aims to further bridge the gap between theory and practice.

2. Materials and Methods

Research Location

This study was carried out in the A. Yani and the R.A. Kartini Road corridors in Peunayong, Kuta Alam sub-district, Banda Aceh (see Figure 1). We chose the two corridors in Peunayong because they are the only ones that still retain remnants of original 19th-century shophouses, despite their damaged condition. The other corridors have already undergone significant changes.

The variables observed in this study were based on several studies, listed in

Table 1. Research variables on facade/architecture and structure.

Study	Architectural/Facade Components
[32]	Gates and entrances	Ground floor zone	Windows	Entrance	Guardrail	Roof and building finishes	Signs
[33]	Enclosure	Openings	Fenestration	Ornamentation
[34]	Enclosure	Openings	Fenestration	Ornamentation
[35]	Enclosure	Openings	Fenestration	Ornamentation
[36]	Enclosure	Openings	Fenestration	Ornamentation
[37]	Ceiling	Floor	Roof	Windows	Door	Wall	Ornamentation
	Internal wall	External wall	Arch/lintel /hood
				Apron
	Component Structure
	Foundation	Column	Beam	Truss	Staircase

.

Those variables were then adjusted to the conditions in the field; the parameters identified and analyzed were windows, doors, roofs, cornices, roof ornaments, columns, fascia boards, and paintwork (not originally listed but added later since the findings indicate that it changes as well). These variables from 45 units of buildings in the study area were identified and analyzed for the level and cause of damage, which were later categorized as minor, moderate, or severe. This study categorized three levels of damage based on their missing building components:

• Minor or light damage (e.g., chipped paint, faded paint color, missing keys);
• Moderate or medium damage (e.g., broken window glass, loose or detached hinges, malfunctioning doors and windows, slight shrinkage, or outer-layer damage to columns);
• Severe or heavy damage: Components are no longer intact or incomplete, facade component materials have been replaced, component type models have been changed, and component dimensions have been changed. Wood components have been eaten by termites, and column structure has been damaged or altered by renovation.

It is important to note that this study is limited to (only) observing damage on the components of front facades, focusing solely on the identification and analysis of deterioration and its causes. This limitation is based on the premise that the front facade represents the most architecturally and historically significant element of the building. In contrast to interior spaces, which are more adaptable and may be modified in form and use through adaptive reuse strategies, facade design serves as a visual marker of the era in which the building was constructed and reflects its original function.

To analyze this facade transformation, this study used the five facade styles identified by [38] as a baseline, illustrated by Figure 2.

The five facade forms shown in Figure 2 are the visual forms of the original facade of the 19th-Century Shophouse building based on the observation results. These five facade styles are differentiated based on differences in the shape and size of the facade components such as the shape and size of windows, doors, roofs, roof ornaments, hip ornaments, facia board, wall, columns and paint work. The differences were then grouped and matched so that five different forms of facades of 19th-Century Shophouses in Peunayong Area were obtained.

These five facade styles differ in terms of their architectural components, with each style displaying a distinct configuration of elements. These components align with the variables used in this study, detailed in Figure 3: architectural components comprising Style Facade 1.

This study was conducted through the following steps, and a flowchart (Figure 4) is provided to illustrate these steps.

1.

Examining the architectural damage and its cause through observations

This study involves observing 45 buildings and documenting facade components, followed by categorizing the level of damage using a checklist table. As previously noted, damage levels were classified into three categories: light, moderate, and heavy. Such categorizations were based on specific parameters that assess each facade component according to its on-site physical condition.

Before data collection, the buildings were grouped into original and non-original to ensure targeted and accurate samples. The original group includes buildings that retain their original structure, although some components may have undergone minor alterations. The non-original group comprises buildings that have experienced major renovations or reconstructions to the extent that their 19th-century visual characteristics are no longer detectable—often due to extensive modifications or the construction of entirely new buildings that no longer follow the original facade design. A mapping process was then carried out to visualize the spatial distribution of these building categories. Finally, the data were converted into a graphical representation to clearly illustrate the extent and patterns of facade deterioration across the study area.

To classify the level of damage, this research employed a Likert scale. The formulation is as follows.

Facade Damage Level	Score
Light-Damage Facade	1
Medium-Damage Facade	2
Heavy-Damage Facade	3

So, $\mathrm{P}={\displaystyle \frac{3-1}{3}}=0.67$, rounded to 6,70.

Then, the interval of the assessment criteria is as follows.

1000	+(670)	1670	=Light-Damage Facade
(1.670 + 1) = 1671	+(670)	2340	=Medium-Damage Facade
(2340 + 1) = 2341	+(670)	3000	=Heavy-Damage Facade

2.

Structural assessment

This was conducted with a specific focus on the walls and the front terrace structural columns, employing non-destructive testing methods: (1) the Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test, using the N/NR type hammer with a capacity of 10–70 MPa following ASTM C805/C805M-18 standard [39], and (2) the Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test to examine the concrete integrity and quality following the guidelines established in ASTM C597-22 [40].

According to the number and percentage of original and renovated 19th-century shophouses, 45 building units were identified, of which 25 (55.6%) retain their original facades, while 20 (44.4%) have been inappropriately renovated, altering their historical character. The Schmidt Hammer and UPV tests were conducted only on the 25 original units, which were classified into five facade styles [38]. One representative from each style was initially selected; however, as styles 4 and 5 were found to be physically identical to style 2, only three representative units were ultimately tested.

3.

Policy analysis

It involved document review, in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, and community surveys with questionnaires. The details of the interview and questionnaire are as follows:

• Questionnaire: A total of 45 respondents, each representing one building unit, were involved. The questionnaire asked whether they were aware of government activities related to conservation, such as counseling, regulations, the preparation of SOPs for renovation, registration of heritage buildings for official recognition, funding support, and the existence of local conservation regulations. The majority of respondents indicated that they were not aware of these matters and stated that the government had never officially communicated with them regarding conservation.
• Interviews: Interviews were conducted with six local government agencies in Banda Aceh that hold responsibilities related to heritage buildings. The aim was to obtain detailed information on why conservation efforts have not been implemented for the 19 shophouse buildings in Peunayong, despite the area being designated as a cultural heritage zone in the Banda Aceh Regional Spatial Plan (RTRW 2009/2017) and the Detailed Spatial Plan (RDTR 2021–2041). These interviews also served to provide comparative data between the community questionnaire responses and the perspectives of government officials.

It drew on several key regulatory documents, including Law No. 11/2010 on Cultural Property; the Banda Aceh Spatial Plan (RTRW) established through Acehnese Islamic Law (henceforth Qanun) No. 4/2009 for the 2009–2029 period and its 2017 revision; Mayor Regulation No. 13/2021 on the Detailed Spatial Planning (henceforth RDTR) for 2021–2041; and Qanun No. 2/2022 on the Preservation and Management of Cultural Property.

To assess the presence and implementation of relevant policies, this study employed interviews and questionnaires. Interviews were guided by a structured interview guide, conducted with officials from the Banda Aceh Mayor’s Office, the Regional Development Planning Agency (BAPPEDA), the Ministry of Public Works (PUPR), the Aceh Provincial Office of Tourism and Culture, the Office of Education and Culture, and the Institute for Preservation of Cultural Values (BPK Wil. I). The interview data were then thematically coded based on recurring patterns. The questionnaire was adapted from [41] and administered to 45 respondents, all users of 19th-century shophouses. A Likert scale [42] with a 3-point response range was used, and final scores were calculated using the interval length formula.

The intervals for the assessment criteria are as follows:

1000	+(670)	1670	Aware
(1.670 + 1) = 1671	+(670)	2340	Neutral
2341	+(670)	3000	Not Aware

To classify the damage level, the first stage involved identifying damage to individual facade components, followed by a second-stage analysis that combined this data to assess the overall level of facade deterioration per building unit. Details of the steps to determine the damage level are as shown in the following Figure 5.

The specific colors are used throughout the paper as explained in the colour description below:

Color Description:

	A pristine 19th-century shophouse building unit
	Nonconforming renovated 19th-century shop building unit
	Light degree of damage
	Medium level of damage
	Heavy damage level
	Self-ownership
	Rental

3. Results

The findings of this study begin with an assessment of facade originality, followed by a classification of structural and architectural damage, and conclude with an analysis of the factors contributing to that damage.

3.1. Architectural (Visual) Condition Survey

The study conducted an observational survey on 45 buildings, identifying the preservation state of their facades—specifically focusing on components such as roofs, windows, doors, ornaments, walls, and columns [33]. Out of 45 buildings,

• 25 units (55.6%) retained original facade elements;
• 20 units (44.4%) underwent nonconforming renovations that altered their historical character (see Figure 6).

As shown, the A. Yani corridor holds the highest concentration of renovated buildings. Meanwhile, a visual comparison of the 25 original and 20 renovated 19th-century buildings is presented in Figure 7 below.

Figure 8 illustrates remnants of an original building, such as column ornaments on the main terrace, partially embedded within the new renovated structure [C]. The original facade and column ornamentation of the 19th-century shophouse are shown in Figure 8, points (A), (B), and (C).

The renovated buildings lack historical authenticity and architectural coherence with the surrounding heritage area. Their inconsistent and remarkable designs disrupt the visual harmony of the corridor (see Figure 9).

3.2. Damage Classification

Based on Likert scale damage classifications mentioned in the Methods Section (see

Table 2. Likert-scale statistics of data on the degree of damage to the facade.

Number of building Units	Total Damage Level of Facade Components			Number of Facade Components	Total Score	Average (Number of Facade Components Multiplied by Total Score)	Damage to Facade
	Light Damage	Medium Damage	Heavy Damage
	SCORE
	1	2	3
	Number of Building Units Multiplied by the Score
1	7 × 1 = 7	0	2 × 3 = 6	9	7 + 0 + 6 = 13	1444	Light Damage
2	8 × 1 = 8	1 × 2 = 2	1 × 3 = 3	9	8 + 2 + 3 = 13	1444	Light Damage
3	8 × 1 = 8	0	1 × 3 = 3	9	8 + 0 + 3 = 11	1222	Light Damage
4	7 × 1 = 7	0	2 × 2 = 6	9	7 + 0 + 2 = 13	1444	Light Damage
5	7 × 1 = 7	0	2 × 3 = 6	9	7 + 0 + 2 = 13	1444	Light Damage
6	7 × 1 = 7	0	2 × 3 = 6	9	7 + 0 + 2 = 13	1444	Light Damage
7	7 × 1 = 7	0	2 × 3 = 6	9	7 + 0 + 2 = 13	1444	Light Damage
8	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
9	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
10	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
11	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
12	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
13	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
14	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
15	1 × 1 = 1	3 × 2 = 6	5 × 3 = 15	9	1 + 6 + 5 = 22	2444	Heavy Damage
16	3 × 1 = 3	2 × 2 = 4	3 × 3 = 9	9	3 + 4 + 9 = 16	1778	Light Damage
17	1 × 1 = 1	3 × 2 = 6	6 × 3 = 18	9	1 + 6 + 18 = 25	2778	Heavy Damage
18	0	1 × 2 = 2	8 × 3 = 24	9	0 + 2 + 24 = 26	2889	Heavy Damage
19	2 × 1 = 2	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	2 + 0 + 27 = 29	3222	Heavy Damage
20	2 × 1 = 2	1 × 2 = 2	6 × 3 = 18	9	2 + 2 + 18 = 22	2444	Heavy Damage
21	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
22	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
23	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
24	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
25	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
26	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
27	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
28	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
29	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
30	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
31	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
32	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
33	1 × 1 = 2	2 × 2 = 4	6 × 3 = 18	9	2 + 4 + 18 = 24	2667	Heavy Damage
34	4 × 1 = 4	1 × 2 = 1	4 × 3 = 12	9	4 + 1 + 12 = 17	1.889	Light Damage
35	5 × 1 = 5	0	4 × 3 = 12	9	5 + 0 + 12 = 17	1889	Light Damage
36	4 × 1 = 4	1 × 2 = 2	4 × 3 = 12	9	4 + 2 + 12 = 18	2111	Medium Damage
37	2 × 1 = 2	3 × 2 = 6	4 × 3 = 12	9	2 + 6 + 12 = 20	2222	Medium Damage
38	5 × 1 = 5	0	4 × 3 = 12	9	5 + 0 + 12 = 17	1889	Light Damage
39	6 × 1 = 6	1 × 2 = 2	1 × 3 = 3	9	6 + 2 + 3 = 11	1222	Light Damage
40	6 × 1 = 6	1 × 2 = 2	2 × 3 = 6	9	6 + 2 + 6 = 14	1556	Light Damage
41	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
42	0	0	9 × 3 = 27	9	27	3000	Heavy Damage
43	5 × 1 = 5	1 × 2 = 2	3 × 3 = 9	9	5 + 2 + 9 = 16	1778	Light Damage
44	5 × 1 = 5	1 × 2 = 2	3 × 3 = 9	9	5 + 2 + 9 = 16	1778	Light Damage
45	5 × 1 = 5	1 × 2 = 2	3 × 3 = 9	9	5 + 2 + 9 = 16	1778	Light Damage

), this study found that regarding levels of damage in the 19th-century shophouses in Peunayong, of the 45 building units, 25 (55.6%) still retain their original facade elements, while 20 (44.4%) have undergone inappropriate renovations that altered their historical character (no longer 100% original). Therefore, these 20 units (44.4%) are categorized as severely damaged. The remaining 25 units fall into the categories of lightly damaged, moderately damaged, or severely damaged. Details of the damage to each facade element can be found in

Table 3. A summary of damage level to the shophouses’ facade elements.

Building Units	(A) The Degree of Deterioration of Each Facade Component of the 19th-Century Shophouse										(B) Facade Damage Levels in 19th-Century Shophouses					(C) Building Ownership Status
	Windows	Doors	Roof	Roof Ornament	Cornices	Wall	Column	Fascia Boards	Paintwork		Total Damage Level of Facade Components			Total Damage to Facade		Self- Ownership	Rental
1											7	0	2
2											7	1	1
3											8	0	1
4											7	0	2
5											7	0	2
6											7	0	2
7											7	0	2
8											0	0	9
9											0	0	9
10											0	0	9
11											0	0	9
12											0	0	9
13											0	0	9
14											0	0	9
15											1	3	5
16											3	2	3
17											1	3	6
18											0	1	8
19											2	0	9
20											2	1	6
21											0	0	9
22											0	0	9
23											0	0	9
24											0	0	9
25											0	0	9
26											0	0	9
27											0	0	9
28											0	0	9
29											0	0	9
30											0	0	9
31											0	0	9
32											0	0	9
33											1	2	6
34											4	1	4
35											5	0	4
36											4	1	4
37											2	3	4
38											5	0	4
39											6	1	2
40											6	1	2
41											0	0	9
42											0	0	9
43											5	1	3
44											5	1	3
45											5	1	3
	9	0	21	16	15	23	16	8	0		Total Component			Total façade (units)		Total Units
											108	46	264
	1	0	24	2	3	1	6	9	0							17	28
											Light Damage			15
	35	45	0	27	27	34	23	28	45		Medium Damage			2		Percentage
											Heavy Damage			28		37.8%	62.4%
Total Units	45	45	45	45	45	45	45	45	45		Total Units			45

below.

The data of Table 3, (A) The Degree of Deterioration of the Components of each 19th-Century Shophouse building is displayed in the form of a bar graph in Figure 10.

The colour groups below represent the descriptions in Table 2 and Table 3.

Color Description:

	A pristine 19th-century shophouse building unit
	Nonconforming renovated 19th-century shop building unit
	Light degree of damage
	Medium level of damage
	Heavy damage level
	Self-ownership
	Rental

Table 3 presents a summary of the nine assessed facade elements of 19th-century heritage shophouses, whose categorization was based on parameters adapted from established facade evaluation frameworks [33,43] and ownership status. Among these, windows are the most damaged element, with 35 units severely damaged. Roof ornament and fascia boards followed, with damage observed in 27 and 28 buildings, respectively. A bar chart to illustrate the data better is provided in Figure 10.

A total of 20 buildings are classified as severely damaged due to extensive renovations that replaced the original 19th-century shophouse facades, thereby erasing their architectural authenticity and historical character. These interventions were primarily undertaken in response to facade degradation that accelerated in the period following the 2004 tsunami up to 2015.

The remaining 25 buildings are predominantly in the category of minor damage, though some exhibit a combination of minor and severe deterioration. These units are largely under rental tenure. In most cases, tenants did not undertake routine maintenance during the lease period, allowing initial minor defects to progress into more serious structural and material degradation. A further risk arises when property owners, responding to accumulated neglect, decide to intervene. Without conservation-oriented guidelines, such interventions often favor full-scale renovations rather than sensitive repair, leading to further loss of authenticity and the eventual reclassification of these shophouses as severely damaged.

Figure 10 illustrates the extent and severity of damage to each facade element. The data shows high levels of severe damage to several components, including doors and paint (both 100%), windows (35 units or 35%), roof ornaments and column ornaments (27 units or 60% each), walls (34 units or 53.3%), columns (23 units or 23%), and fascia boards (28 units or 62.2%). Meanwhile, the roof structure did not show significant damage. The severe condition of these elements is mainly due to renovations that alter or replace the original features with designs that no longer reflect the architectural character of 19th-century heritage buildings. The facade component damage data from Table 3 was grouped to determine the overall facade condition per building unit, as shown in Table 3 as well.

Based on Table 3, the results showed that 15 units (33.3%) of the 19th-century shophouses had minor damage, 2 units (4.4%) had moderate damage, and 28 units (62.3%) had severe damage. This finding is a clustering result of the data on the level of damage to the facade components in Table 3. Severe facade damage is mainly caused by renovations that alter or replace original elements with non-original designs.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version), the results show that 33.3% of 19th-century shophouses suffered minor damage, 4.4% moderate damage, and 62.3% severe damage. The severe façade damage was mainly caused by renovations that altered or replaced original elements with non-original designs.

3.3. Classification of Structural Component Damage

The structural components of a cultural property building that must be analyzed follow the parameters set by [44]. However, this study focused only on the walls and columns on the front porch. These buildings have load-bearing brick walls with a thickness of 35 cm (equivalent to 1.5 brick widths) and brick columns on the front terrace measuring 40 × 40 cm. Results of the (1) Schmidt Hammer test measuring surface strength and the (2) UPV test evaluating internal integrity through wave velocity are represented by the following Figure 11.

For the Hammer and UPV tests, the current perfectly functioning Faculty of Engineering building acted as the control variable, of which the average compressive strength was 40.41 MPa, with cracked walls at 27.34 MPa. Shophouse 1 showed strengths of 47.46 MPa (wall) and 60.91 MPa (column), exceeding those of the control walls. Shophouse 2 recorded 32.72 MPa (wall) and 43.42 MPa (column), comparable to the control, while Shophouse 3 had the lowest values, at 24.15 MPa (wall) and 19.69 MPa (column), aligning with the cracked wall benchmarks. In conclusion, the structural elements of Shophouses 1 and 2 remain sound, while Shophouse 3 exhibits significant structural deterioration.

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) tests showed that the structural elements of Shophouse 1 and Shophouse 2 were in a normal condition with elastic moduli of 10.88 GPa and 9.06 GPa, respectively (see Figure 12). These numbers were above the crack control tested in the engineering faculty building (6.18 GPa). In contrast, the structural elements of Shophouse 3 showed a significant decrease, with an elastic modulus of 3.62 GPa, even lower than the crack control. This shows that the structural condition of Shophouse 3 suffered more severe damage than other stores.

4. Discussion

4.1. Facades’ Visual Condition and Structural Assessments

As illustrated by Figure 6, 44.4% of buildings that have been renovated do not follow the shape of the existing building facade of a 19th-century building, changing the entire front facade, while 55.6% that maintain their originality experienced varying degrees of damage (see Table 2 and Table 3). The most damaged elements of the facade are the windows of 35 shophouses, followed by the roof ornamentation and fascia boards of 27 units and 28 units, respectively. The heavily damaged facade components were due to renovation efforts that have changed the original shape of each facade component or replaced it with shapes that do not follow the original. As seen in Figure 7, most of the renovated buildings were found in the A. Yani corridor.

Overall, in terms of structural strength, structural damage to the load-bearing walls remains within safe limits. Based on the results of the Schmidt Hammer test, Shophouses 1 and 2 were found to be in good condition, while Shophouse 3 showed a decline in structural performance. The UPV test also supported these findings, where it found that Shophouse 1 and 2 had normal conditions (above control elastic modulus), while Shophouse 3 had a lower elastic modulus than the crack control. One of the factors causing the damage is that the facade was modified not according to conservation principles.

4.2. Causes of Damage

Generally, causes of damage can be divided into two categories: technical and non-technical. Technical damage is caused by material weathering, as shophouses’ architectural components are dominated by wood and brick, while non-technical damage is mainly driven by building age, natural disaster, ownership status, rental period, and the absence of (implementation of) policies of local governments. The following is a detailed discussion of each type of damage, followed by an examination of the existing local architectural conservation policy. For easy reference in the following detailed discussion, the damaging factors were divided into (1) environmental and (2) human-induced factors, which include the lack of policy implementations.

1.

Environmental Factors

• Building Age: Constructed around 1874, many structures in Peunayong suffer from material degradation due to their old age.

Similarities with the Erlistyle architectural style in the range of 1873-1900 were found, suggesting that the cultural heritage buildings in the area have existed since that period, so they are hundreds of years old. It indeed meets the criteria as a cultural property defined in Chapter III of the Cultural Heritage Criteria, Article 5 of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia, number 11, on Cultural Property of 2010.

• Natural Disasters: The 2004 tsunami significantly affected the area.

The Aceh province, especially the city of Banda Aceh (including Peunayong), experienced a very severe tsunami in 2004; many 19th-century heritage buildings in the area were heavily damaged.

• Weathering: High humidity and pollution have led to decay of wooden and masonry components.

As cited several times, a 19th-century shophouse is hundreds of years old, so some of its facade elements made of wood and red brick may deteriorate due to air temperature and tropical weather conditions. This study identified both the causes and extent of technical damage to wooden components as well as to brick elements.

At first glance, wood material still looked intact and good. However, after closer observation, it turns out that there was some component shrinkage—windows and fascia boards—due to physio-chemical processes due to temperature and humidity variations and biological weathering due to soft rot fungi. Temperature instability can affect the structural properties and chemical properties of wood, while soft rot fungi—found in softwood and hardwood—produces various rates of decline in wood strength.

Theoretically, damage to brick facade components can be categorized into four types: mechanical damage, physical weathering, chemical weathering, and biological weathering (Figure 12). However, field observations indicate that our samples only showed signs of damage caused by physical weathering—out of 45 building facades, only 12 did so, specifically on the plaster of the front terrace columns. Physical weathering refers to material deterioration due to physical factors such as temperature fluctuations, humidity, wind, rainwater, and evaporation, with visible symptoms including peeling, cracking, and wear (shown in Figure 13). Overall, however, the walls and columns remain in good and structurally sound condition, and the observed damage can be repaired by reapplying mortar plaster to the affected surfaces.

2.

Human-Induced Factors

• Unregulated Renovation: Absence of official renovation guidelines or enforcement mechanisms led to inconsistent restorations.

Figure 14 presents visual documentation from 2015 to 2025, illustrating long-standing community interventions that have altered 19th-century shophouses’ facades through unsympathetic renovations. Our questionnaire data from 45 residents revealed that the absence of specific regulations or renovation guidelines is one of the contributing factors to such interventions. This finding is in line with [45,46], which reported a similar trend where there has been a growing number of interventions on building facades that disregard architectural character [6,47], and the trend is largely attributed to failure to follow proper renovation guidelines too [6,46,48].

Other possible factors include a lack of technical knowledge and insufficient inventory and documentation of heritage buildings [49]. In addition, from the results of the questionnaire of 45 respondents, a lack of intensive socialization was found, and from the results of the data checklist with building users, it was found that the unclear ownership status of cultural heritage buildings also contributed to unregulated renovation practices. As a result, residents freely modified their buildings without regulatory constraints, leading to inconsistencies in facade elements. This has caused visual disruption and negatively affected the historical character and sense of place [49].

• Ownership Patterns: As shown in Figure 15, out of 45 units, only 17 (37.8%) are privately owned, while the remaining 28 units (62.2%) are rental properties. This rental status contributes to a lack of maintenance, as tenants of the 19th-century shophouses are generally not responsible for or interested in renovating—resulting in continued deterioration due to human neglect.
• Long Lease Durations: Leases ranging from 1 to 30 years often lead to neglect and unauthorized alterations. Given the fact that 62.2% of all units are rentals, the situation was further exacerbated by long rental durations, which range from a minimum of 1–4 years to a maximum of 21–30 years.

3.

Stakeholder and Policy Analysis

The combined results of this study demonstrate that the deterioration of Peunayong’s 19th-century shophouses cannot be explained by technical factors alone. The facade survey revealed that 62.3% of the units suffered severe damage, with doors, windows, ornaments, and fascia boards most affected. While environmental conditions such as age, humidity, and tsunami impacts contributed to this deterioration, the dominant driver was unsympathetic renovations carried out without regulatory oversight. This indicates that one of the important factors for the architectural destruction is a direct outcome of a policy vacuum: despite Banda Aceh’s spatial plans recognizing Peunayong’s cultural significance, no enforceable technical guidelines or renovation standards exist.

The structural tests further highlight the urgency of policy intervention. While some buildings retained acceptable strength levels, others, such as Shophouse 3, showed compressive strength and elastic modulus values below the crack control threshold, signaling hidden vulnerabilities that threatened building stability. These findings underscore the need for conservation policies that extend beyond facade preservation to include routine technical monitoring, mandatory structural inspections, and preventive maintenance programs.

The ownership and governance analysis reinforces these concerns. With 62.2% of properties under rental arrangements and many with long-term leases, tenants lack incentives to maintain or conserve original features. In the absence of heritage registration or incentives, owners and tenants alike prioritize functional or commercial modifications over preservation. Policy analysis thus translates these findings into clear governance needs: formal heritage registration, incentive structures for owners, standardized conservation SOPs, and enforcement mechanisms. Without integrated governance that combines legal protection, technical regulation, and community engagement, Peunayong’s shophouses will continue to deteriorate despite their cultural and historical value.

In addition, the survey of 45 respondents shows that the average public knowledge level regarding conservation policies and regulations for Peunayong Old Town is very low (90.6% classified as “Do not know”). Across all ten questions—including awareness of spatial planning designations, regulations, government outreach, building permits, supervision, SOPs, and incentives—the majority of respondents consistently indicated that they were unaware of existing policies or actions. This highlights a significant gap in communication and socialization between the government and the local community regarding heritage conservation in Peunayong. The details of responses to the questionnaire are listed below (see

Table 4. Average final percentage values for each question.

Number.	Question	Percentage %	Knowledge Classification
1	Did you know that the old shophouses include in the old city center area?	80	Do not know
2	Are you aware that Peunayong Old Town is designated as a heritage tourism area in the Banda Aceh Spatial Plan (2009–2029)?	94	Do not know
3	Do you know that Peunayong has been designated as a strategic area for rehabilitation and revitalization in the Banda Aceh City Spatial Plan (2009–2029)?	96.5	Do not know
4	Are you aware of any specific regulations governing the construction or renovation of buildings in the Peunayong heritage area?	88	Do not know
5	Are you aware of any government campaigns or outreach encouraging the preservation of the original form of old shophouses in Peunayong Old Town?	86	Do not know
6	Are you aware that when applying for a building permit (IMB) to construct or renovate, you are directed to follow the original façade design?	89	Do not know
7	Are you aware of local government officers prohibiting or warning those who construct or renovate buildings without following the original design?	100	Do not know
8	Do you know the purpose of painting heritage buildings in pink and blue?	87	Do not know
9	Are you aware of any SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) for renovating buildings in this area?	92.5	Do not know
10	Are you aware if the government has ever offered or provided incentives for the maintenance of old shophouses in Peunayong Old Town?	93	Do not know
Average public knowledge level (total percentage 906/10 questions) = 90.6% (final percentage)			Do not know

).

At the institutional level, governance gaps are clear. As expressed by one official:

“Conservation and revitalization efforts have not been implemented because no instruction from above…, this have not been prioritized in the city policy. Furthermore, the Peunayong building is still owned by the community/private. They believe that cultural heritage issues are not within their purview, but rather the purview of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing (PUPR). Currently, they are unaware of the existence of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for implementation, regulations, and cooperation.” (Interview with Spatial Planning official).

These findings underscore that conservation policy must extend beyond facade aesthetics to include routine technical monitoring, mandatory structural inspections, and preventive maintenance programs. While environmental factors such as humidity and the 2004 tsunami contributed, the dominant driver was unsympathetic renovations carried out without regulatory oversight. The role of local authorities, as Law No. 11 of 2010 on Cultural Property in Chapter VIII, Article 95(1), clearly states, is that the central and/or regional government is responsible for the protection, development, and utilization of cultural property. Furthermore, Article 99(1) of the same chapter assigns local governments the responsibility of overseeing heritage conservation within their jurisdiction. Despite these mandates, unregulated renovations of the 19th-century shophouses continue to occur. In short, questionnaire and interview data identified several contributing factors, including the following:

• Non-Registration: The buildings are not officially listed as cultural heritage, limiting government intervention.
• No Local Guidelines: Despite recognition in Banda Aceh’s RTRW (2009/2017) and RDTR (2021–2041), no technical regulations (SOPs) exist to enforce conservation provided by PUPR (local government) in coordination with Badan Pelestarian Kebudayaan (BPK)/Heritage Conservation Board.
• Lack of Enforcement: A total of 100% of respondents claimed no awareness of specific heritage-related building regulations.

This illustrates how a lack of policy prioritization and unclear division of responsibilities create institutional paralysis. Heritage management policies often falter at the implementation stage, particularly within decentralized governance [49]. In Aceh, frameworks such as the RTRW 2009–2029 and RDTR 2021–2041 acknowledge Peunayong’s historical significance yet lack enforcement mechanisms [33,42]. These factors highlight that Banda Aceh’s policy deficit is not merely legislative but one of implementation and participation.

Below is a diagram to show the interrelationship between deterioration, building ownership status, and policy towards maintenance efforts in order to save Peunayong’s 19th-century shophouses.

One potential strategy is adaptive reuse, defined as a preservation approach that transforms function while retaining historical value. Plevoets and Van Cleempoel [50] emphasize that adaptive reuse requires balancing authentic values with new functions, while other studies highlight its contribution to sustainability by reducing waste and revitalizing historic districts [51,52,53]. However, as noted in recent Southeast Asian research, adaptive reuse initiatives succeed only when legal frameworks, technical capacity, and public perception are aligned [54]. In Peunayong, the absence of formal heritage registration and enforceable conservation policy risks turning adaptive reuse into yet another form of unregulated renovation.

In conclusion, the destruction of Peunayong’s shophouses cannot be fully explained by material or environmental factors; it is the product of weak policy frameworks, uncoordinated stakeholders, and perverse ownership incentives. Without enforceable policies, incentive structures, and cooperative governance, owners and tenants will continue to make ad hoc interventions that erode authenticity. Effective preservation requires heritage registration, routine structural monitoring, legal enforcement, and community-based participation. Only through such integrated governance can Peunayong’s shophouses be safeguarded as both cultural heritage and sustainable urban resources. Below is the policy gap analysis and the key factors needed for implementation (see

Table 5. Policy gap analysis of Peunayong’s 19th-century shophouses and key factors required for implementation.

Stakeholder	Current Role/ Position	Problem/Gap	Needed Action
Local Government (Municipality/Spatial Planning Office)	Recognizes Peunayong’s cultural significance in RTRW (2009–2029) and RDTR (2021–2041).	No enforceable SOPs or conservation guidelines; conservation “not prioritized in city policy” (interview with Spatial Planning official). Lack of coordination and clear job descriptions.	Formally register shophouses as heritage assets; develop SOPs for renovation/maintenance; prioritize heritage in urban policy agendas; coordinate across departments.
Badan Pelestarian Kebudayaan (BPK) and PUPR	Considered by local officials as responsible for cultural heritage conservation.	Disconnected from local-level implementation; absence of financial or technical support mechanisms for Peunayong.	Provide technical assistance, funding mechanisms, and regulatory models for local adoption; establish shared responsibility frameworks.
Private Owners	Hold legal ownership of ~37.8% of buildings.	Lack incentives to preserve; prioritize profit-driven renovations; no legal obligation to follow conservation standards.	Provide tax reliefs, subsidies, or grants for conservation; require adherence to conservation SOPs; promote adaptive reuse with incentives.
Tenants/Renters	Long-term leaseholders (62.2% of units) responsible for day-to-day use.	Lack of incentives for conservation; tend to neglect routine maintenance; engage in unsympathetic alterations.	Introduce contractual conservation clauses in rental agreements; provide awareness programs on heritage value.
Community/Civil Society	Currently marginal role in conservation.	Lack of awareness and engagement; perceive heritage as government responsibility.	Foster community participation through awareness campaigns, heritage tourism initiatives, and participatory planning.
Academics and NGOs	Provide studies, surveys, and advocacy.	Limited influence in policy enforcement; recommendations not institutionalized.	Strengthen partnerships with government; integrate research findings into planning and public awareness.

).

5. Conclusions

This study reveals that 19th-century shophouses in Peunayong are facing significant challenges of authenticity loss, physical deterioration, and inconsistent conservation practice. More than half (55.6%) of the surveyed shophouses still retain their original facades, yet they exhibit various degrees of damage, with 62.3% categorized as severely deteriorated due to unsympathetic renovations. Structural assessments indicate that while some buildings remain sound, others show alarming weakness, underscoring the urgent need for intervention. The most critical issue identified is not merely material degradation but rather human-induced transformations—driven by unregulated renovations, rental ownership patterns, and the absence of effective policy enforcement. In short, this research concluded the following:

1.

Policy Implementation Gap: The case of Peunayong highlights a profound disconnect between Indonesia’s Cultural Heritage Law No. 11/2010 and its actual implementation. Despite clear legal mandates, the shophouses remain unregistered and unprotected, reflecting an “implementation deficit” in heritage governance.

2.

Weak Institutional Capacity: Heritage conservation is undermined by fragmented ownership, unclear responsibilities, and lack of technical guidelines or enforcement mechanisms—issues emblematic of broader governance challenges in Southeast Asia.

3.

Beyond Material Preservation: Post-disaster realities reveal the limits of purely material-based conservation. Community needs, tenure insecurity, and economic pressures frequently take precedence over preservation principles.

4.

Social Dimensions of Heritage: Ownership patterns, leasing practices, and the absence of community participation significantly shape conservation outcomes. Heritage policy must therefore integrate social and economic realities, not just architectural concerns.

5.

From Reactive to Proactive Management: The findings call for a paradigm shift from ad hoc, reactive renovations toward proactive, integrated frameworks that combine legal protection, technical guidelines, and community engagement.

Thus, by linking visual, structural, and policy-related deterioration, this study advances scholarly and policy discussions globally, considering that effective heritage conservation requires institutional accountability, enforceable policy, and community-based governance. It needs a call to action. Safeguarding 19th-century shophouses in Aceh—and similar urban heritage elsewhere—demands moving beyond symbolic rhetoric to actionable strategies that ensure the continuity of historical urban landscapes within sustainable development.