Assessing the potential impacts of climate change on traditional landscapes and their heritage values on the local level: Case studies in the Dender basin in Flanders, Belgium

Abstract

GIS, based on the results of impact-and model studies. The vulnerability maps indicate that both case studies are sensitive to climate change. In particular, forest desiccation, wind throw, crop deterioration, soil erosion and flooding might affect the landscape quality and threaten the natural-scientific, historical and aesthetic heritage values of the landscapes. In order to preserve these heritage values, the adaptation maps present possible adaptation measures, which are sustainable and non-destructive with respect to the landscape quality. Although adaptation will cause change as well, it offers more chances to preserve the heritage values of the landscapes. To be effective, detailed climate change vulnerability and adaptation maps should be included in the binding landscape management plans.

Adapting cultural heritage to climate change impacts in the Netherlands: barriers, interdependencies, and strategies for overcoming them

“…To date, most research has focused on developing frameworks, tools, or methods to assess climate risks and vulnerabilities of diverse cultural heritage types (Fatorić and Seekamp 2017a). While these studies make a crucial step in recognising climate change risks and raising awareness, there have been limited efforts to understand the design of feasible adaptation measures, and the governance challenges encountered in implementation to increase cultural heritage resilience (Dupont and Van Eetvelde 2013;Fatorić and Seekamp 2019;Xiao et al 2019). Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify the different types of barriers that arise in the adaptation process in order to bridge the gap between climate change science and climate change adaptation planning and implementation for cultural heritage.…”

Optimizing historic preservation under climate change: Decision support for cultural resource adaptation planning in national parks

“…Scholars have recently recognized the dearth of literature on cultural resources and climate adaptation planning (Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017a) with most studies focused on the forecasting impacts to cultural resources from climate change threats. For example, previous studies have assessed the impact of sea-level rise on archaeological sites (Anderson et al, 2017), climate influences on relic landscapes (Dupont and Van Eetvelde, 2013), and severe weather impacts on historic buildings (Huijbregts et al, 2012). Others have used climate simulation models to assess the risks of climate changes on artifacts, structures, and architectural details of historic buildings (Leissner et al, 2015), but these studies generally focused on the indoor climate (i.e., how the changes of indoor climate might affect the indoor collections).…”

Local and Indigenous management of climate change risks to archaeological sites

“…A limited number of archaeological studies have explored systematic climate change risk analysis for cultural sites. The most common approach prioritises sites on the basis of likelihood of impact alone (Table 1), in regard either to the site's proximity to the coast (Reeder-Myers 2015) or to hazard zones mapped on the basis of a climate change projection model (Westley et al 2011;Dupont and Van Eetvelde 2013). These approaches are particularly useful for broad regional scale landscape assessment but can equally be performed at a local scale (Johnson et al 2015).…”

“…Models partly or entirely using remote mapping techniques and computer applications such as ArcGIS (e.g. English Heritage 2007;Westley et al 2011;Bickler et al 2013;Dupont and Van Eetvelde 2013;Dawson 2015;Johnson et al 2015;Reeder-Myers 2015) do not readily avail themselves to independent use by non-professionals. A standardised field survey approach is, however, amenable to non-professional use (Daire et al 2012;Mazel et al 2014).…”

“…The general strategy has been to dedicate limited conservation resources to those determined to be most at risk of loss or damage. Approaches have been independently developed in England (English Heritage 2007), mainland and island states of the USA (Westley et al 2011;Johnson et al 2015;Reeder-Myers 2015), Scotland (Dawson 2015), France (Daire et al 2012), Belgium (Dupont and Van Eetvelde 2013), Ireland (Daly 2014) and New Zealand (Bickler et al 2013). The various approaches tend to be top-down, that is, designed primarily for implementation by government heritage managers and academic researchers.…”