ANNUAL CONGRESS 2025

Immanent Vulnerabilities of Coastal Urban Heritage to Climate Change

Not scheduled

20m

Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul

Oral Track 06 | URBAN CULTURES AND LIVED HERITAGE

Speaker

Mrs Özge ILIK SALTIK (Eindhoven University of Technology)

Description

It is known that cultural heritage sites are affected by the impacts of climate change (CC) in physical (e.g. sea-level rise, coastal erosion, or increase in temperature (Simpson et al., 2022)), social (e.g. migration or demographic shifts (UNESCO, 2007)), cultural (e.g. cultural erosion (UNESCO, 2007)), environmental (i.e. biodiversity loss (Lafrenz Samuels, 2017) or deforestation (IPCC, 2023)), and economic (e.g. poverty (Gasper, Blohm and Ruth, 2011)) dimensions (Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017; Brewer and Riede, 2018; Casey and Becker, 2019; Fatorić and Biesbroek, 2020; Aktürk and Dastgerdi, 2021; ICOMOS, UNESCO and IPCC, 2021; Orr, Richards and Fatorić, 2021; Sesana et al., 2021; Axon, Chapman and Light, 2024). Even though there are various studies on monumental heritage buildings or archeological heritage sites in the context of CC, urban heritage, which refers to all tangible (features of built and urban environments), intangible (events, traditions, skills, knowledge, etc.), and natural (landscape, etc.) aspects of urban zones is less studied (Dai, Zheng and Yang, 2022). Yet, since urban zones have a significant part in greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere (IPCC, 2023)UH is severely affected by CC. Moreover, urban heritage sites located in the coastal zones are affected more due to being “hot spots” in terms of the frequency and severity of CC-related events (IPCC, 2023).

Since vulnerability is defined as the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected (IPCC, 2019) there are some immanent vulnerabilities, due to common values of coastal urban heritage (CUH; is the sum of the tangible and intangible values of urban life that are formed over time due to social, economic, cultural, physical, and environmental features unique to coastal areas), that derive from the nexus of the coastal and urban context. However, there are also some unique vulnerabilities to each zone since each heritage site is in an inimitable dialogue with its actors, location, and natural features.

Nevertheless, all of these vulnerabilities derive from the complex structures of the CUH sites which include not only the tangible elements of urban and coastal contexts but also various stakeholders involved in the coastal-urban processes (living-managing-utilizing-etc.) and their multi-layered networks. Hence, addressing these vulnerabilities in the management process requires an integrated approach to well-defined problems. However, there are no studies that focus on both immanent or unique vulnerabilities of this specific type of heritage site (CUH) to promote their management processes in the context of CC.

Therefore this study aims to determine the immanent and unique vulnerabilities of CUH sites in terms of CC to contribute to the management approaches. To achieve this, a content analysis was conducted in the State of Conservation (SoC) Reports of UNESCO on World Heritage Sites (WHS). SoC reports are aimed at identifying the negative effects on the World Heritage properties which are under threat. With the cumulation of these reports and analyses, generic threats, trends, and potential dangers can be identified (Veillon, 2014), including the ones that are related to CC. Moreover, the SoC reporting system can be seen as the most standardized global monitoring system that provides data for qualitative and quantitative interpretations so far (Veillon, 2014; Young, 2016; Guzman, Pereira Roders and Colenbrander, 2018). Hence, mapping and selecting the coastal urban heritage sites among WHSs, analyzing the threats they are dealing with, and combining these results with the urban heritage literature would give us a framework for their vulnerabilities.

Consequently, by identifying the vulnerabilities of CUH, this study aims to contribute to the theoretical literature as well as the management practices. Obtained results are expected to provide a well-defined framework of immanent and unique vulnerabilities, and therefore, help policymakers adopt more on-target actions.

References

Aktürk, G. and Dastgerdi, A.S. (2021) ‘Cultural Landscapes under the Threat of Climate Change: A Systematic Study of Barriers to Resilience’, Sustainability, 13(17), p. 9974. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179974.
Axon, S., Chapman, A. and Light, D. (2024) ‘Climate Impacts on Tangible Coastal Cultural Heritage in the United States: Towards Sustainable and Adaptive Coastal Heritage Management’, Sustainability, 16(16), p. 6800. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16166800.
Brewer, J. and Riede, F. (2018) ‘Cultural heritage and climate adaptation: a cultural evolutionary perspective for the Anthropocene’, World Archaeology, 50(4), pp. 554–569. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2018.1527246.
Casey, A. and Becker, A. (2019) ‘Institutional and Conceptual Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation for Coastal Cultural Heritage’, Coastal Management, 47(2), pp. 169–188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1564952.
Dai, T., Zheng, X. and Yang, J. (2022) ‘A systematic review of studies at the intersection of urban climate and historical urban landscape’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, p. 106894. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106894.
Fatorić, S. and Biesbroek, R. (2020) ‘Adapting cultural heritage to climate change impacts in the Netherlands: barriers, interdependencies, and strategies for overcoming them’, Climatic Change, 162(2), pp. 301–320. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02831-1.