The relationship between intangible cultural heritage and community development: A case study of kite playing in Vietnam’s Red River Delta

Dang Thi Phuong Anh


Intangible cultural heritage plays an important role for people and local communities to develop a sense of identity. It is an expression of cultural diversity that can promote intellectual, emotional, and behavioral involvement on many levels, thus conveying a sense of heritage to the next generation. However, the growing influence of industrialization and personal autonomy in modern society may jeopardize some traditional practices. Local communities determine if intangible cultural heritage is worthwhile, typically basing their decisions on the benefits derived from participation (i.e., economic, environmental, social, and cultural). Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage is a two stage process: 1) intangible cultural heritage produces benefits for communities; and 2) communities develop a sense of identity from intangible cultural heritage. This case study on kite playing helps to prove the relationship between intangible cultural heritage and community development in Vietnam.

Received: 13th­ March 2016; Revised:19th April 2017; Accepted 25th April 2017  


Intangible cultural heritage; safeguarding; community development; relationship; kite playing.

Full Text:

 Subscribers Only


Alan W. Barton, Theresa Selfa. 2010. Community development and Natural Landscapes. USA

Augusto Matuer. 2010. A sector cultural and creation. Portugal, Lisbon

Bodo S, Gibbs K, Sani M. 2009. Museums as places for intercultural dialogue: selected practices from Europe. Project MAP for ID

Bouchard D .2009. Heritage and beyond. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Canziani A, Moioli R. 2010. Integrating aims – Built heritage in social and economic development. Centre for Urban and regional studies publications.

Chadwick Nora. 1936. The Kite: A study in Polynesian Tradition, Ireland.

Countryside and community research unit (CCRU) and ADAS. 2007. A study of the social and economic impacts and benefits of traditional farm building and drystone wall repairs in the Yorkshire Sales National Park. London.

DC research. 2010. The economic value of independent museum sector. London.

Dos Santos. 2008. Can we make a difference? Museums, society and development in North and South. Amsterdam.

Dukheim. 1968. E, Les forms élémentaires de la vie religieuse. Paris

Doan Van Chuc. 1997. “Tro choi va doi song”, Van hoa hoc, Nxb Van hoa thong tin, tr. 242 - 277

Eliade. 1959. The sacred and the Profane. New York, Harcourt, Brace.

Gebauer G, Wulf Ch. 1995. Culture-Art-Society, trans. Don Reneau, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.

Henri Oger. 1909. Mechanics and Crafts of the Annamites. Hanoi.

Kamper. 1998. Das Heilige. Seine Spuren in der Modern. Frankfurt.

Le Thanh Binh. 2013. “Dieu sao Viet Nam-truyen thong va hien dai”, Journal of The gioi di san.

Le Quy Don. 1773. Van Dai Loai Ngu, Informatic Culture Republish. Vietnam.

Midgley. 1986. Community participation – Social development and the state. Methuen, London.

Nguyen Van Thang. 2010. “Kham pha gia tri van hoa dac sac cua le hoi tha dieu lang Ba Duong bang Phuong phap lien nganh”, Journal of Van hoa dan gian.

Quan Hang Cao. 2013. “Luoc su Dieu the gioi”, Journal of The gioi di san

Strathcona County. 2009. Community heritage legacy framework.

Uli Wahl & Paul Chapman. 2011. Dieu Sao-some preliminary notes on the flute kites of Vietnam. UK Publications

UNESCO. 2003. Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage.

Wulf. 2002. Anthropology of Education. Hamburg, London.

Wulf. 2010. Ritual and Identity. The Staging and performing of rituals in the lives of young people. London

Wulf. 2011. The performativity and dynamics of intangible cultural heritage. Lifelong Learning Programme.

Wulf. 2013. Anthropology. A continental Perspective. Chicago.



  • There are currently no refbacks.



Trường Đại học Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn

Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội

ISSN 2354-1172