Developing a model for building resilience to climate ...

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Developing a model for building resilience to climate risks for cultural heritage Geoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Janaka Jayawickrama Rohit Jigyasu

Downloaded by Northumbria University, Doctor Geoff Geoff At 03:01 12 August 2015 (PT)

Article information: To cite this document: Geoff O'Brien Phil O'Keefe Janaka Jayawickrama Rohit Jigyasu , (2015),"Developing a model for building resilience to climate risks for cultural heritage", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 99 - 114 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2013-0021 Downloaded on: 12 August 2015, At: 03:01 (PT) References: this document contains references to 41 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14 times since 2015*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: Judith Herrmann, Christina Cameron, (2015),"Associative dimension in World Heritage: an analysis of criterion (vi)", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 115-129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-02-2014-0005 Masanori Nagaoka, (2015),"Buffering Borobudur for socio-economic development: An approach away from European values-based heritage management", Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 Iss 2 pp. 130-150 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-11-2013-0049

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Token:JournalAuthor:78A04A5A-089C-4BD3-A6A1-7A0E15A9BEF1:

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-1266.htm

Developing a model for building resilience to climate risks for cultural heritage Geoff O’Brien, Phil O’Keefe and Janaka Jayawickrama Downloaded by Northumbria University, Doctor Geoff Geoff At 03:01 12 August 2015 (PT)

Department of Geography, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and

Rohit Jigyasu

Climate risks for cultural heritage 99 Received 6 June 2013 Revised 2 May 2014 Accepted 3 May 2014

Research Center for Disaster Mitigation of Urban Cultural Heritage, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a model for developing climate adaptation strategies to reduce climate risk for cultural heritage. Cultural heritage has an important role in human well-being. This paper posits that cultural heritage requires an approach that recognises the uniqueness of cultural heritage. The paper draws from the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Making My City Resilient campaign and the Heart of the City Partnership in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and proposes a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum. The role of the forum is to develop adaptation strategies in a sustainable development context. This is an original attempt to link cultural heritage to climate risk. Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws from two initiatives and uses good practice established from the disaster management and climate communities and proposes a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum that can be used to formulate adaptation interventions for cultural heritage. The approach builds on active participation in a global overview of cultural heritage and climate risk led by UNISDR together with personal experience of implementing such strategies in Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Findings – The paper finds that a model can be developed that incorporates good practice from the climate and disaster management communities. Practical implications – The paper presents a model that can be used by those stakeholders that have an interest in protecting cultural heritage form climate driven hazards. Social implications – Cultural heritage has a value for all and protecting it from climate driven hazards can impact human well-being Originality/value – The paper brings together concepts from different academic and practitioner communities. The concept outlined in the paper will be of interest to all those interested in protecting cultural heritage for climate driven hazards. Keywords Cultural heritage, Cities, Resilience, Disaster management, Adaptation, Disaster risk reduction, Climate change Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction This paper brings together two bodies of established literature. The first is climate change science with its peer reviewed conclusion that more extreme weather events will take place. The second body of knowledge concerns cultural heritage. This covers a wide range of literature around tangible and intangible heritage that recognises the importance and value of cultural heritage in enhancing human well-being. Article 1 of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (1972) Convention has three broad categories of cultural heritage; monuments, groups of buildings and sites. The term cultural heritage includes movable tangible heritage

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Vol. 5 No. 2, 2015 pp. 99-114 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2044-1266 DOI 10.1108/JCHMSD-06-2013-0021

JCHMSD 5,2


100

items such as paintings, sculptures, coins and manuscripts, immovable heritage such as monuments and archaeological sites and underwater cultural heritage such as shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities. It also includes intangible items such as oral traditions, performing arts and rituals (UNESCO, 1972). Heritage is important both to the people who live in cities but also to visitors to cities. While there is considerable certainty in both bodies of knowledge, there is also no single technical solution to the problem of cultural conservation in the face of increasing climate risk. The range of technical adaptations that can address these problems is quite vast. What is needed is an approach that involves participation by all in the challenges that the cultural heritage sector faces from climate risk. To do so requires less emphasis on professionals providing single solutions but more emphasis in building a forum where the climate risks facing cultural heritage can be addressed. We term this a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum. We outline, with examples, the challenge of climate risk to the cultural heritage sector and then, using examples from within and beyond the sector we explore how a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum can be developed with examples from the North East of England and the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) Making Cities Resilient campaign. Though climate change and disaster risk reduction (DRR) are dealt by two different UN organisations – United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change and UNISDR – they do have an overlapping agenda; that is the reduction of the risks associated with accelerated climate change (O’Brien et al., 2006). The recent special report “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” points out the links between DRR and Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and argues for greater integration (IPCC, 2012). Djalante and Thomalla (2012) argue that we have past the question of why they should be integrated and are considering the how of integration. As the Fifth Assessment Report points out the climate will continue to change (IPCC, 2013). It makes sense to use the resources of both the climate and disaster communities to address the issue of responding to climate risk. Despite DRR and CCA being in the purview of different organisations, we continue to see collaboration between the communities, for example, the Fire and Rescue Service in the UK is involved in flood episodes. Heritage is at risk due to disasters, conflict, climate change and a host of other factors. At the same time, cultural heritage is increasingly recognised as a driver of resilience that can support efforts to reduce disaster risks more broadly. Cultural heritage, however, also makes a direct and significant contribution to sustainable development across its economic, social and environmental dimensions. Both tangible and intangible heritage are an essential part of human existence. Cultural heritage contributes to local economic development through locally based employment related to activities such as tourism, conservation and construction. Conservation of ecosystems is vital as they provide essential services and landscapes also play an important role in promoting human well-being (UNISDR, 2013). However, cultural heritage is at risk from disasters, such as earthquakes, conflicts and meteorological events driven by climate change. This paper proposes a framework or model for developing an approach to protecting cultural heritage from climate risks. This paper is organised in the following way. The introduction outlines the case for the special treatment of cultural heritage and briefly discusses the continuing overlap of DRR and CCA. The second section looks at the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage. The third section discusses the importance of cultural heritage and the types


of climate that may be faced and draws on an example for the North East of England for establishing a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum for developing adaptation strategies that will reduce. The example shows how a broad-based approach is needed when dealing with uncertainty. The fourth section proposes to capture both the existing literature and the experience of Newcastle upon Tyne and develop a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum. Climate change It is becoming increasingly clear that the climate is changing as a result of anthropogenic activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report unequivocally links climate change to anthropogenic activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use (IPCC, 2007). The Fifth Assessment Report confirms that anthropogenic activities are clearly linked to climate change (IPCC, 2013). At present there is no international agreement to limit the emission of greenhouse gases, the primary driver of climate change. It is hoped that an agreement will be in place by 2020. However, in the interim it appears that greenhouse gases emissions will continue to rise. Since 2000, an estimated total of 420 billion tonnes CO2 was cumulatively emitted due to human activities (including deforestation). To limit the average global temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels (the target internationally adopted in United Nations climate negotiations) can be achieved if cumulative emissions in the period 2000-2050 do not exceed 1,000-1,500 billion tonnes CO2. If the current global increase in CO2 emissions continues, cumulative emissions will surpass this total within the next two decades (Oliver et al., 2012). However, both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration forecast that energy use will continue to rise, and, as a consequence, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise (EIA, 2011, 2012). For those new to climate and risk, the essential global texts are noted in this paragraph. For a more detailed argument see O’Brien and O’Keefe (2013). Climate change threatens every aspect of human life, from the degradation of the environment and the consequent threat to food security, through to increased mortality and morbidity and the destruction of settlements. The results of research conducted on behalf of the World Bank on the impacts of a warmer world highlights extreme events are summarised in Table I. The research also attributes a level of confidence of the link with human interference with the climate system. Of the 13 events shown in Table I, three have high confidence and seven have medium confidence. Today more than half of the global population live in cities. The type of threats that cities are to face can broadly be characterised as follows; in the short to medium term, events such as storms, storm surges, floods, landslides and wildfires are likely to increase in frequency and severity in the future. In the medium to longer term, rising sea levels will contribute to coastal inundation. In the longer term, changes in weather patterns will impact agriculture and biodiversity. Cities will need to consider how such changes will impact urban development. Cities that will experience warmer weather may have to consider how to increase shade in urban areas. Cities that are likely to experience more intense precipitation events will need to consider their drainage systems and flood defences. Coastal cities will need to consider the long term impact of seal-level rise and whether additional coastal defences will be needed. A changing climate will also impact tourism patterns as visitor numbers are likely to change throughout the year as people respond to changed climate conditions. City leaders, particularly of those cities that rely heavily on tourism, will need to consider the impact

Climate risks for cultural heritage 101

JCHMSD 5,2 Region (year)


102

Table I. The impacts of a warming world

Event

England and Wales Wettest autumn on record since (2000) 1766. Several short-term rainfall records Europe (2003) Hottest summer in at least 500 years England and Wales May to July wettest since (2007) records began in 1766 Southern Europe Hottest summer on record in (2007) Greece since 1891 Driest winter since 1902 Eastern Mediterranean, Middle-East (2008) Victoria (Australia) Heat wave, many station (2009) temperature records (32-154 years of data) Western Russia Hottest summer since 1500 (2010)

Confidence in attribution to climate change

Impact, Cost

Medium

~£1.3 billion

High

Death toll exceeding 70,000

Medium

Major flooding causing ~£3 billion damage Devastating wildfires

Medium High

Substantial damage to cereal production

Medium

Worst bushfires on record, 173 deaths, 3,500 houses destroyed 500 wildfires around Moscow, crop failure of ~25%, death toll ~55,000, ~US$15B economic losses Worst flooding in its history, nearly 3,000 deaths, affected 20 million people 47 deaths, 80 missing

Medium

Pakistan (2010)

Rainfall records

Colombia (2010) Western Amazon (2010)

Heaviest rains since records Low to medium started in 1969 Drought, record low-water level Low in Rio Negro

Western Europe (2011) 4 US states (TX, OK, NM, LA) (2011)

Hottest and driest spring on record in France since 1880 Record-breaking summer heat and drought since 1880

Low to medium

Medium High

July warmest month on record Medium since 1895 and severe drought conditions Source: World Bank (2012) Continental USA (2012)

Area with significantly increased tree mortality spanning 3.2 million km French grain harvest down by 12% Wildfires burning 3 million acres (preliminary impact of $6-$8 billion) Abrupt global food price increase due to crop losses

on their economies. More importantly, cultural heritage is likely to be severely damaged or destroyed. The 2002 floods in Prague caused some US$ 30 m worth of damage to museum pieces, art collections and archives. In Prague, the municipal library was flooded with water and sewage and the rare book collection, including the first Czech Bible, printed in 1,488, was submerged. Prague’s medieval quarter Mala Strana, a valuable architectural treasure was inundated with several feet of mud, sewage and river water. Many historic buildings, including the Waldstejn Palace, seat of the Czech Senate, the National Theatre and the sanctuary of the thirteenth-century Old-New Synagogue were inundated (Farnam, 2002). Many other places in Europe suffered during and the floods of May and June, 2013, caused considerable human suffering and it is likely that that much cultural heritage will be damage or


destroyed. Research by Marzeion and Levermann (2014) finds that one-fifth of the 720 UNESCO world heritage sites will be lost to sea-level rise over the next 2 millennia. The authors point out that the first effects will be felt sooner without action on flood defences. Cities and cultural heritage From their beginning cities were places of commerce and manufacture, often developing in locations suited to an economic activity, such as on trade routes or near useful resources. With their concentrated population, diversity of skills and demands cities stimulated growth in the amount and diversity of economic activity and knowledge. This was often reinforced by the consumption patterns of the privileged layers (Taylor, 2013). As well as dense population and networks of criss-crossing activities, cities have public buildings and spaces for government, organised religion, education, commerce, social interaction, cultural events and public services. These buildings and spaces play an important role in providing a focus for citizens and communities. They provide emotional attraction for both citizens and visitors, embodying political and cultural activities and significance, and landmarks in time and space. They link the past, present and future, become reassuringly familiar to local people and stimulating for visitors. Lozano (1990) argues that the city is a realm with a high level of culture linked with the most civilised expression of social behaviour. Lewis Mumford (1970) in Culture of Cities described the city as humanity’s “greatest work of art” while Levi Strauss (1992) stated, “it is the human invention, par excellence”. Despite the many problems that cities face such as urban sprawl, inappropriate development and the scarring of major road networks, many city residents identify strongly with their place of residence and the cultural landmarks it contains (Giddings et al., 2005). The United Nations World Tourism Organisation, forecasts that international tourist arrivals are set to increase by an average of 43 million a year between 2010 and 2030. In 2012 tourism generated $1.2 trillion in export earnings. By 2030, the number is anticipated to reach 1.8 billion meaning that in two decades’ time, 5 million people will cross-international borders for leisure, business or other purposes such as visiting friends and family every day. This does not include the four times as many tourists that travel domestically. Tourism contributes directly to 5 per cent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product, one in 12 jobs globally and is a major export sector for many countries, both in the developing and developed world (UNWTO, 2011). Though there are many forms of tourism such as sports, religious, culinary and wildlife that are not explicitly focused on cultural heritage, it is clear that heritage is a major attraction. In Europe, tourism is valued at some 335 billion Euros per annum and employs some 8 million people. Some 50 per cent of tourism is driven by cultural heritage. In addition the cost of conservation, estimated at some 5 billion Euros per year, benefits those companies involved in conservation and restoration work (Ljubljana Declaration, 2008). Climate change threatens both cultural heritage and the tourism industry. Effective action is needed to protect cultural heritage both for the well-being of citizens of cities and those visitors that wish to enjoy the array of cultural experiences that many cities offer. Cultural heritage and resilience Cultural heritage is very diverse and this means that a variety of strategies will be needed. Table II shows the range of threats faced by cultural heritage from climate change are varied.


JCHMSD 5,2


104

Table II. Impacts of climate change on cultural heritage

Climate impacts on heritage

1. Precipitation: many rainwater goods are not capable of handling heavy water and are often difficult to access, maintain and adjust 2. Fluvial flooding: can damage heritage as can ground heave and subsidence as water recedes 3. Coastal flooding and storm surge: could lead to loss of coastal sites 4. Extreme weather: problem areas include windows, roofs, awnings, verandas and large trees close to buildings. Ruined buildings and excavated archaeology would be in danger of wind throw 5. Temperature: important for visitor comfort, although winter heating would decrease; could lead to a drive to install air-conditioning and cooling systems in summer. Deterioration of materials and contents because higher temperature would increase rate of chemical reactions 6. Relative humidity: changes to relative humidity could result in new sorts of insects attacking collections 7. Water table chemistry: change can result for a fall in water table height or from seawater incursion. Certain areas may see a change in the pattern of damage from rising damp Note: Adapted from Cassar (2005)

It should also be noted that much cultural heritage, particularly monuments, would have been developed under different prevailing environmental conditions. This makes the task of building the resilience of cultural heritage more problematic. Resilience is the capacity to cope with, and recover from, disruptive events. A key element in building resilience is learning. Learning takes place in many ways and forms and in many contexts. Learning is a dynamic and on-going process. Social learning theory focuses on the learning that occurs within a social context. It considers that people learn from each other, including such concepts as observational learning, imitation and modelling. Social learning is seen as a cognitive process (Bandura, 1989; Ormrod, 1999; Rotter, 1982). Organisational learning has been part of the management literature for many years and explores how learning takes place in response to changing conditions (Senge 1990; Easterby-Smith et al., 1999). The conceptual origins of the learning organisation are closely associated with knowledge management and the increased importance of knowledge as a source of value for companies, institutions and societies and the advancements in cognitive theory. Organisational learning has its focus on the management of change rather than strategy. Two types of learning are distinguished: single-loop learning on how to do things better and double-loop learning on testing assumptions and re-thinking strategies or learning how to learn. Other scholars have developed the concept of triple-loop learning that questions the role of the organisation (Flood and Romm, 1996). Learning organisations are able to adapt and respond to change and are seen as being in a state of permanent revolution (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Bowonder et al. (1993) see social learning as a process by which a society or nation perceives, assesses and acts on harmful experiences or past mistakes in purposeful ways. This gives a clear sense that learning seeks a purposeful path and implies a willingness to learn from disruptive events. The following, from Newcastle upon Tyne, UK shows how one body, The Heart of the City Partnership, had learned the value of multi-stakeholder partnerships from a previous initiative, Grainger Town.


The Castle Keep The Castle Keep and the Black Gate are iconic structures of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne. In fact the Castle Keep site is where the Romans established a small fort or Gabrosentium to protect a bridge, Pons Aelius, they had built over the River Tyne. After the departure of the Romans the area became known as Monkchester. Robert Cuthrose, eldest son of William the Conqueror, as part of his campaign against the Scots built, in 1080, a Motte and Baillie Castle in Monkchester on the site of the Gabrosentium. The area was re-named “New Castle upon Tyne”. This is the origin of the city’s name. The Castle Keep, the Black Gate and the adjacent St Nicholas Cathedral became significant city landmarks and have played a key role in the history of the city. Though much of the structures associated with the Castle Keep have been lost, the Castle Keep, the Black Gate and the Cathedral are still significant structures. However, as development of the city increased, this area became more isolated. Visitor numbers to the area declined and in 2005 the City Council decided to develop a new approach to the area. The City Council established a broad-based partnership to lead on developing a strategy for the area and to seek funding to make it more accessible and inviting. The partnership, known as the Heart of the City Partnership, involved the City Council and representatives of the Cathedral, the Society of Antiquities, local businesses, local residents and English Heritage. This broad-based approach had proved successful in other developments, for example the Grainger Town project in Newcastle upon Tyne, and there was a general belief that a more inclusive approach was likely to be more fruitful. The lead author is a member of the Heart of the City partnership. One of the interesting features of the Castle Keep is that it was built with a roof over the main body of the building and on the four turrets. Visitors are allowed onto one of the turret roofs to enjoy the cityscape. The roofs are cambered so that rainwater is directed to the drains which spill the water to the ground below. In 2007 an extreme precipitation event saw the water pool extensively on the roof. Very quickly the water pooled to such an extent that it flooded down the stairway and into the body of the Castle Keep. The Castle Keep, shown in Plate 1, is a Scheduled Ancient Monument making the development of a solution problematic. One of the partners in the Heart of the City Partnership, English Heritage, pointed that solutions that involved interference with the fabric of the monument, such as increasing the size of the drainage holes, would not be acceptable. After extensive dialogue within the Heart of the City Partnership a solution was agreed. This is shown in Plate 2. This was deemed to be the least intrusive solution for such an important piece of cultural heritage and could be removed at a future date. The height of the barrier was calculated from meteorological records of the intensity and length of extreme precipitation events being experienced in the region. The update will be monitored and re-assessed over time to ensure that it is fit for purpose as an adaptation measure. From this we can conclude that a broader partnership can be a more effective way of arriving at DRR/CCA solutions. As O’Brien and O’Keefe (2013) argue there are huge uncertainties in climate change. This makes decision making very problematic. Physical sciences, or in this case climate science, deal in facts or truth to provide an evidence base for policy making, whereas social sciences are value laden. Neither field of science can deal effectively with uncertainty. This issue was addressed by Funtowicz and Ravetz (1991) with the introduction of Post-Normal Science. The authors argued that where there is great uncertainty and the risks are high then the range of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process must be


JCHMSD 5,2


106

Plate 1. The Castle Keep, Newcastle upon Tyne, Courtesy Newcastle City Council

broadened. Those that are likely to be impacted by an intervention should have a voice in the decision-making process. In short, when dealing with uncertainty, a range of stakeholders, including scientists, politicians, businesses, the public sector and communities, should be part of the decision-making process. A Post Normal Science perspective has strong implications for adaptation governance. Evaluating evidence and new knowledge in a democratic forum implies some sort of risk sharing in the decision-making process itself. Provided that decisions are made within a “low-regrets” context and deal with real problems, as opposed to thinking about large solutions that are only likely to deal with longer term problems, then neither of these concerns mean that we should avoid a fuller, more inclusive and transparent dialogue on the actual uncertainties of climate risk. Epistemological limits to climate prediction should not be interpreted as a limit to adaptation, despite the widespread belief that it is. Without the science we cannot make rational decisions. By avoiding placing climate prediction and consequent risk assessment at

Climate risks for cultural heritage


107

Plate 2. Flood Barrier, Courtesy of Fiona Cullen, Newcastle City Council

therefore it should be possible to develop successful adaptation strategies despite the deep uncertainties of climate change (Dessai et al., 2009; Sheppard et al., 2011; Tebes, 2005). Normal climate prediction and risk assessment are not suitable vectors for adaptation, but this is no reason for slowing down or stopping research effort in these fields. To build the resilience of cultural heritage is a multi-stage process. First it is necessary to identify the vulnerability of cultural heritage and the next is to identify hazards. The IPPC Special Report definition expands existing concepts of the disaster risk community by emphasising how climate change and development can affect both the climatic hazards that a system or community is exposed to, as well as its vulnerability. The key word for this is situation. A change in situation, that is a change in development, however small, can influence the ability to respond and cope with adverse effects. The Special Report defines vulnerability as: Vulnerability is defined generically […] as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Such predisposition constitutes an internal characteristic of the affected element. In the field of disaster risk, this includes the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influences their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the adverse effects of physical events (IPCC, 2012).

JCHMSD 5,2


108

Using this definition of vulnerability it is possible to adjust the definition specifically for cultural heritage, for example: Vulnerability is defined as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Such predisposition constitutes an internal characteristic of the affected element. In the field of disaster risk, this includes the characteristics of cultural heritage and its situation that influences capacity to withstand the adverse effects of climate change and the capacity of stakeholders to respond in adverse circumstances.

Again the key word is situation. This can refer to maldevelopment or lack of maintenance that can influence the capacity of cultural heritage to withstand adverse events, for example, maldevelopment could increase flood risk or the introduction of cooling for visitor comfort can adversely impact cultural artefacts. The unintended consequences of interventions must be considered, prior to their introduction. The next area to consider is hazard. Typically in disaster management discrete hazards are considered. But climate risks present a continuous flow of events. In other words, hazard will need to be considered in a dynamic sense and a risk model will need to reflect this. Vulnerability and climate hazard data will need to be gathered. Though this will be challenging, the “Making Cities Resilient – My City is Getting Ready!”, established by UNISDR, provides a template for data collection. This campaign was launched in 2010 and is designed to address issues of local governance and urban risk. Based on the five priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action, a ten-point checklist, The Ten Essentials, has been developed for use by local governments. Many cities throughout the world have signed up to the campaign; some 1,285 cities having already done so. By doing so, local governments commit to implement DRR activities based on the Ten Essentials (UNISDR, 2012a). The Ten Essentials are the basis of the questioning approach set out in the UNISDR Local Government Self-Assessment Tool (LG-SAT) (UNISDR, n.d.). The LG-SAT questioning approach is made up of 41 questions, the answers to which will build a database on the status of preparedness. It will show what is in place and what needs to be done. For example, the first question is: How well are local organizations (including local government) equipped with capacities (knowledge, experience, official mandate) for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation?

This question seeks to establish what expertise is available. All cities will have an emergency response capacity, but the question is designed to establish what capacity is available. Analysis of the response will help to establish if extra capacity is needed. Though there is no specific reference to cultural heritage in the UNISDR “Making Cities Resilient – My City is Getting Ready!” campaign, the Handbook for Local Government Leaders makes specific reference to the importance of protecting cultural heritage as part of the campaign. The handbook gives an example of the work being carried out by the City of Venice to protect the city from flood inundation. A flood defence system is being developed that comprises a system of barriers that can be raised from the bottom of the lagoon to protect the city during storm surges (UNISDR, 2012b). Cultural heritage is of great significance and an integral part of our lives. It defines our civilisation and is a testament to those who helped develop and shape our cities and landscapes. Cities are the embodiment of our development and define our communities. In Europe there is a strong tradition of conserving and enhancing cultural heritage and action within the European Union to promote effective protection of cultural heritage.


What has emerged from collaboration between disaster managers and cultural heritage bodies is a need to develop specific DRR and CCA measures for cultural heritage. This was highlighted in 2012 at event organised by UNISDR and the City of Venice. The event brought together Mayors and Local Government Representatives together with National Government Officials and representatives of the Council of Europe, the European Commission, the Private Sector, UNESCO, United Nations Human Settlements Program and UNISDR. Workshops explored ways of fostering collaboration between cities and cultural heritage experts and incorporating cultural heritage within the “Making Cities Resilient – My City is Getting Ready!” campaign. The event ended with the signing of the Venice Declaration on Building Resilience at the Local level towards Protected Cultural Heritage and CCA Strategies (UNISDR, 2012c).


Developing a cultural heritage adaptation forum Having a clear understanding of the existing baseline for cultural heritage is an important start to thinking about future adaptation measures for cultural heritage. It is likely that much will already be known about cultural heritage. However, this paper posits that for planning DRR and CCA measures it is important to have an up-to-date database of cultural heritage as part of the knowledge base shown in Figure 1. However, as Figure 1 suggests, there are many other data types that should be included, and, over time, a comprehensive knowledge base will evolve. The approach to developing the knowledge base draws from the UN/ISDR LG-SAT. The use of a questioning approach will enable the development of a knowledge base and will allow a more informed and cohesive decision-making process for the protection of cultural heritage. The inputs as shown in Figure 1 will constantly update what we know about the vulnerabilities and likely impacts on cultural heritage of climate change events. Inputs:Climate Narratives Climate Science (significant risks) Vulnerability Assessments stakeholder Perceptions Local Knowledge Expert Views Community Perceptions Political Dimensions

Debating space framed by shared values, norms and ethical framework

Process of constant renewal and refreshment of knowledge Base

Knowledge Base

Risks:High Medium Low

Input into Adaptation Strategies

Figure 1. Development of a cultural heritage adaptation forum

JCHMSD 5,2


110

At the city level there is likely a considerable pool of knowledge of cultural heritage. However, it is important to build of baseline of knowledge and expertise over a range of areas. These can then be used as inputs into the knowledge base, for example, climate narratives from other cities of how they have responded to climate risks. Climate science is constantly developing new knowledge and this can help to reduce uncertainty. Vulnerability assessments, before and after interventions, will increase understanding. Stakeholder perceptions, from the range of groups with an interest in cultural heritage, will give valuable insights into how they regard interventions. Expert views will inform both vulnerability assessments and interventions. Community perceptions will be important, as much cultural heritage will have particular meaning to local people. The political dimension is important as access to resources and permissions for interventions will need political support. It should be noted that the knowledge base will evolve as new information is added. Assessing this information and determining priorities should be conducted within accepted values and norms. Experience shows that parachuting an idea in without consultation can often lead to problems of acceptance and does not always offer the most optimal solutions. By ensuring that the debating space is as broad based as possible means that it is possible to reduce the risks associated with uncertainty. The final part of the process is selecting the appropriate adaptation interventions. Wilby and Dessai (2010) posit that interventions should be thoroughly assessed. There should be a preference towards accepting minimal and robust interventions. This can be thought of in the following way. In areas where wetter conditions are likely, then a questioning approach, in a similar manner as that advocated by the Local Government Assessment Tool, could be used. For example, are buildings wind and water tight; are all drainage systems functioning correctly and is there a flood plan in place? In short, there needs to be assessment of all existing measures to ensure they function correctly before introducing new measures. The final part of the process is shown in Figure 2. This uses an iterative approach that has been advocated by the climate and disaster communities in the IPCC Special Report “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” (IPCC, 2012). An iterative approach that builds on lessons learned about earlier interventions and their effectiveness. It shows that new understanding of risks and vulnerabilities should inform future interventions. Concluding thoughts Adapting to climate threats in both the short and long term is problematic. There is little doubt that difficult decisions will have to made about what can be protected and what should not. Some may argue that certain buildings need not be saved as they can be reproduced in other areas. However, there are examples of iconic cultural heritage that cannot be reproduced and considerable thought will needed on how we can best preserve such heritage. What is clear is that we need to think about different ways of approaching this problem and that will mean doing things differently. As evidenced in this paper new ways of tackling problems are beginning to emerge. As the case of the Castle Keep shows having a broad-based partnership involved in developing a solution is more likely to produce solutions that all can agree on. It avoids those confrontational situations when the solution can be shown as being based on a consensus based on the evidence available. This is the key to adaptation thinking where there is great uncertainty. The notion of establishing a Cultural Heritage Adaptation Forum recognises the unique nature of cultural heritage and that it is necessary to establish a process where learning takes place and that learning will be able to inform the adaptation process.


Risk

2

111

3


Intervention Point

1 4

Learning and Knowledge Base Development

Monitor and Reassess

Time (decades)

Notes: 1: Acceptable risk – as risk is a social construct it will vary over time; 2: status quo – essentially without interventions risk will increase; 3: this path represents an inflexible approach to DRR and CCA; 4: this is a flexible approach to DRR and CCA which recognises to continually monitor and reassess Source: Adapted from Yohe and Leichenko (2010)

Resilience building is an on-going process. As CCA falls within the post-normal arena, effective governance of decision making is needed. By post-normal is meant a situation where there is great uncertainty and where decision making can be very problematic as there is little sound evidence on which to base the decision. Folke et al. (2005) suggest that one strategy for governing dynamic complex systems in situations of inherent and unavoidable uncertainty is to create governance structures that have capacity for continuous learning and adaptation as new knowledge and new challenges emerge. This fits well with the idea of iteration in both risk management and the development of adaptation strategies, where normal scientific methods continue to research the climate problems we face, while post-normal practice can provide a basis for policymakers. The role of learning is of vital importance for climate adaptation. There is a real need to manage the conflicting viewpoints between the actors involved in developing CCA strategies for cultural heritage. The key element to successful governance of CCA is learning. The debating space suggested in the Cultural Heritage Adaption Forum will be crucial. There are bound to be conflicts and uncertainties, but an iterative process of learning can help to develop effective adaptation strategies that are crucial for the protection of cultural heritage. References Bandura, A. (1989), “Social cognitive theory”, in Vasta, R. (Ed.), Annals of Child Development, Vol. 6, Six Theories of Child Development, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-60. Bowonder, B., Kasperson, J.X. and Kasperson, R.E. (1993), “Industrial risk management in India after Bhopal”, in Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), Learning from Disaster: Risk Management after Bhopal, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 66-90.

Figure 2. An iterative approach to DRR and CCA

JCHMSD 5,2


112

Cassar, M. (2005), Climate Change and the Historic Environment, Centre for Sustainable Heritage, University College London, London, available at: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2082/1/2082.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). Dessai, S., Hulme, M., Lempert, R. and Pielke, R. (2009), “Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation”, in Adger, N., Lorenzoni, I. and O’Brien, K. (Eds), Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 64-78. Djalante, R. and Thomalla, F. (2012), “Disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in Indonesia – institutional challenges and opportunities for integration”, International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 169-180. Easterby-Smith, M., Burgoyne, J. and Araujo, L. (Eds) (1999), Organizational Learning and the Learning Organization, Sage, London. EIA (2011), “International energy outlook”, Report No. DOE/EIA-0484(2011), US Energy Information Administration, Washington, DC, available at: www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/ 0484(2011).pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). Farnam, A. (2002), “Czechs salvage soggy treasures: flooding this month caused at least $30 million in damage to cultural treasures and historic sites”, The Christian Science Monitor, 30 August, Boston, MA, available at: www.csmonitor.com/2002/0830/p06s01-woeu.html (accessed 30 March 2015). Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (1996), Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, ISBN: 978-0471-96449-0, Wiley, New York, NY. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J. (2005), “Adaptive governance as social-ecological systems”, Annual Review of Environmental Resources, Vol. 30, pp. 441-473. Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1991), “A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues”, in Costanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 137-152. Giddings, R., Hopwood, W., Mellor, M. and O’Brien, G. (2005), “Back to the city: a route to urban sustainability”, in Jenks, M. and Dempsey, N. (Eds), Future Forms and Design for Sustainable Cities, Architectural Press, Elsevier, Oxford, p. 2005. IEA (2012), World Energy Outlook, International Energy Agency, IEA/OECD, Paris. IPCC (2007), “Climate change 2007: synthesis report”, in Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Geneva, 104p. IPCC (2012), “Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation”, in Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M. and Midgley, P.M. (Eds), A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, NY, p. 582. IPCC (2013), Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, IPCC, Geneva, 281p. Levi Strauss, C. (1992), Tristes Tropiques (Translation), Penguin, London. Ljubljana Declaration (2008), “Ljubljana declaration: conference on cultural heritage meets”, research practice, 10-12 November, Ljubljana, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/ pdf/ljubljana_declaration.pdf#view¼fit&pagemode¼none (accessed 30 March 2015). Lozano, E. (1990), Community Design and the Culture of Cities, University Press, Cambridge. Marzeion, B. and Levermann, A. (2014), “Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea level rise”, Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 1-7, available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034001/pdf/1748-9326_9_3_034001.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015).

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the Wilds of Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Harlow. Mumford, L. (1970), Culture of Cities, Harvest Book, New York, NY.


O’Brien, G. and O’Keefe, P. (2013), Managing Adaptation to Climate Risk: Beyond Fragmented Responses, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York, NY.


O’Brien, G., O’Keefe, P., Rose, J. and Wisner, B. (2006), “Climate change and disaster management”, Disasters, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 64-80. Oliver, J.G.J., Janssens-Maenhout, G. and Peters, J.A.H.W. (2012), “Trends in global CO2 emissions”, report, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, available at: www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/ PBL_2012_Trends_in_global_CO2_emissions_500114022.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). Ormrod, J.E. (1999), Human Learning, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Rotter, J.B. (1982), The Development and Application of Social Learning Theory, Praeger, New York, NY. Senge, P. (1990), “Building learning organizations”, in Pugh, D.S. (Ed.), Organization Theory, 4th ed., Penguin, New York, NY, pp. 29-36. Sheppard, S.R.J., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S., Wiek, A., Carmichael, J., Robinson, J. and Cohen, S. (2011), “Future visioning of local climate change: a framework for community engagement and planning with scenarios and visualisation”, Futures, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 400-412. Taylor, P.J. (2013), Extraordinary Cities, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Tebes, J.K. (2005), “Community science, philosophy of science, and the practise of research”, American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 34, pp. 213-230. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) (1972), “Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation”, Adopted by the General Conference at its Seventeenth Session, Paris, 16 November, available at: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ convention-en.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). UNISDR (2012a), Making Cities Resilient; My City is Getting Ready the 10 Essentials for Making Cities Resilient, UNISDR, Geneva, available at: www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/ toolkit/essentials (accessed 30 March 2015). UNISDR (2012b), How to Make Cities More Resilient: A Handbook For Local Government Leaders – A Contribution to the Global Campaign 2010-2015 Making Cities Resilient – My City is Getting Ready!, UNISDR, Geneva, avaialble at: www.unisdr.org/files/26462_ handbookfinalonlineversion.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). UNISDR (2012c), “Building cities resilience to disasters: protecting cultural heritage and adapting to climate change”, Doge’s Palace St Mark’s Square, Venice, 19-20 March, available at: www.unisdr.org/files/25027_finalvenicereport1920march.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). UNISDR (2013), “Heritage and resilience: issues and opportunities for reducing disaster risk”, background paper has Been Prepared for the 4th Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, 19-23 May, available at: http://icorp.icomos.org/images/documents/ Heritage%20and%20Resilience%20Book%20for%20GP2013%20Disaster%20Management. pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). UNISDR (n.d.), A Practical Guide to LOCAL HFA: Local Self-Assessment of Progress in Disaster Risk Reduction First Cycle (2011-2013), UNISDR, Geneva, available at: www.unisdr.org/ applications/hfa/assets/lgsat/documents/GuidanceNote.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015). UNWTO (2011), Tourism Towards 2030 Global Overview, UNWTO, Madrid.

113

JCHMSD 5,2


114

Wilby, R.L. and Dessai, S. (2010), “Robust adaptation to climate change”, Weather, Vol 62 No. 7, pp. 180-185. World Bank (2012), “Turn down the heat: why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided?”, A report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, Washington, DC, available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/ 2012/11/17097815/turn-down-heat-4%C2%B0c-warmer-world-must-avoided (accessed 30 March 2015). Yohe, G. and Leichenko, R. (2010), “Chapter 2: adopting a risk-based approach”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, available at: http://ugec2010.ugecproject. org/images/9/9a/CCAdaptationNYC_6_Chapter2.pdf (accessed 30 March 2015).

Corresponding author Dr Geoff O’Brien can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]