Building Community Resilience Through Historic Preservation

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

“…For instance, in the Netherlands, 23% of all nationally significant cultural heritage located in the province of North Holland generates about half billion euros of the country's two billion euro revenue in the cultural and recreation industry (Statistics Netherlands 2019). Cultural heritage can foster cultural identity, sense of belonging, and community inclusion, which in turn can provide psycho-social support and enhance community resilience in the face of environmental and socio-economic stresses (Appler and Rumbach 2016;Ghahramani et al 2020;Holtorf 2018). Furthermore, heritage offers evidence of past societal and environmental changes and provides capacity for learning and transferring traditional knowledge and skills to current socioeconomic or environmental contexts and challenges (Jackson et al 2018;RCE 2018;Van Alphen 2020).…”

Preservation without Representation: Making CLG Programs Vehicles for Inclusive Leadership, Historic Preservation, and Engagement

“…Ryberg-Webster (2017) addresses power dynamics and exclusion arising when engaging these communities during cultural resource surveys. Among factors inhibiting meaningful engagement with African Americans in preservation projects are "perceptions that the practice is elitist, that high-style architecture is valued more than everyday landscapes, and that material integrity trumps social or cultural significance" [14] (p. [7][8]. She adds that stringent regulations and varying interpretations of places make organizing sustained projects challenging [14].…”

“…Some urban planning scholars have suggested that there are untapped opportunities for furthering sustainability and enhancing local planning capacity through Certified Local Government programs. Appler and Rumbach (2016) argue that CLGs enable local governments to develop a historic preservation infrastructure because the program requires establishing or working with the local historical commission [8] (p. 99). They add that CLGs also help communities develop historic preservation ordinances leading to the surveying of potentially significant properties and that these local groups could aid in coordinating flood and other disaster planning to protect historic properties Others have encouraged the program to enhance its funding availability and to enforce compliance with requirements [9] (p. 58).…”

Knowledge co-production in climate adaptation planning of archaeological sites

“…Several scholars (e.g., Appler and Rumbach 2016;Cassar and Pender 2005;Hambrecht and Rockman 2017;Hollesen et al 2018;Sabbioni et al 2010) highlighted that, in cultural heritage and climate change disciplines, knowledge production and improved knowledge sharing among diverse stakeholders, decision-makers and researchers are of utmost importance to respond efficiently to climate change challenges and to support evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, co-producing and sharing knowledge and best practices, including the failures, can enhance adaptive capacity of decision-makers and increase resilience of archaeological sites to better adapt under changing climate (Pelling et al 2008;Phillips 2014;Rockman et al 2016).…”

“…Archaeological sites are a static and non-renewable type of cultural heritage, which provide valuable social, cultural and economic benefits for the communities. For example, archaeological sites can foster social cohesion and identity among communities, increase community resilience, enhance education and advance scientific knowledge (Appler and Rumbach 2016;Flatman 2009;Hollesen et al 2018). Archeological sites can also enhance capacity for learning and transferring archaeological knowledge into current social contexts and experiences, such as mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Lafrenz Samuels 2016;McVey Erlandson 2012).…”