Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

==== 6.3.3.6 Cultural heritage/institutions ====

<div id="h3-20-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

The integration of culture into urban policy and planning is increasingly recognised as critical to developing sustainable and resilient cities, and features in international agreements such as the SDGs ( ''limited evidence'' ; ''high agreement'' ) ( [[#Sitas--2020|Sitas, 2020]] ). However, urban cultural policies are still limited, for example, Cape Town is the only African city to have developed a city-level cultural policy ( [[#Sitas--2020|Sitas, 2020]] ). Cultural heritage refers to both tangible (e.g., historic buildings and sites) and intangible (e.g., oral traditions and social practices) resources inherited from the past ( [[#Fatorić--2020|Fatorić and Egberts, 2020]] ; Jackson, Dugmore and Riede, 2018). Learning about past societal and environment changes through heritage offers opportunity for reflection and transfer of knowledge and skills. This takes place in multiple contexts such as museums and cultural landscapes, and in everyday life ( [[#Fatorić--2020|Fatorić and Egberts, 2020]] ; Jackson, Dugmore and Riede, 2018). Cultural heritage is primarily associated with identity and is closely intertwined with the complexities of history, politics, economics and memory. Climate change adds another layer of complexity to cultural heritage and resource management ( [[#Fatorić--2017b|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017b]] ). Changing climatic conditions are already negatively impacting World Heritage Sites such as the Cordilleras’ Rice Terraces of the Philippines and earthen architecture sites, for example the Djenné mosque in Mali, are particularly vulnerable to changes in temperature and water interactions ( [[#UNESCO--2021|UNESCO, 2021]] ). Climate change impacts intangible cultural heritage across diverse settings such as in the Caribbean and Pacific Small Island Developing States (SIDS) where traditional ways of life and related aspects such as oral traditions and performing arts are under threat from extreme weather events ( [[#UNESCO--2021|UNESCO, 2021]] ).

The climate change adaptation options for built cultural heritage fall into seven categories (Rockman et al., 2016; [[#Fatorić--2017b|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017b]] ). Financial constraints are the primary barriers that underpin the first four adaptation options: no action at all, merely monitoring and/or documenting, or annual maintenance (Xiao et al., 2019; Sesana et al., 2019; [[#Fatorić--2017a|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017a]] ; [[#Fatorić--2017b|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017b]] ; [[#Fatorić--2018|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2018]] ). Core and shell preservation, the fifth and sixth categories, are cost effective when they improve the condition of built cultural heritage (BCH) ( [[#Bertolin--2018|Bertolin and Loli, 2018]] ; [[#Loli--2018a|Loli and Bertolin, 2018a]] ; [[#Loli--2018b|Loli and Bertolin, 2018b]] ), while elevation and/or relocation, the final adaptation options, are extremely costly and might jeopardise the historic value (Xiao et al., 2019). To date, however, evidence indicates that adaptation actions prioritise archaeological sites (Carmichael et al., 2017; [[#Fatorić--2018|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2018]] ; Pollard et al., 2014; [[#Dawson--2013|Dawson, 2013]] ). The efficacy of adaptation of historic buildings can be increased through increased and stable funding, incentives, stakeholder engagement, and legal and political frameworks (Dutra et al., 2017; [[#Fatorić--2018|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2018]] ; [[#Fatorić--2017b|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017b]] ; [[#Fatorić--2017a|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017a]] ; [[#Leijonhufvud--2016|Leijonhufvud, 2016]] ; [[#Phillips--2015|Phillips, 2015]] ; Sesana et al., 2019; Sesana et al., 2018; [[#Sitas--2020|Sitas, 2020]] ).

Other barriers to implementation include harnessing expert and local knowledge (of individuals and organisations) to identify both quantitative and qualitative methods and indicators that connect cultural significance and local values vis-à-vis climatic change over time and that move beyond the prevalent high-risk or high-vulnerability centred approaches (Carmichael et al., 2017; [[#Fatorić--2018|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2018]] ; Haugen et al., 2018; [[#Leijonhufvud--2016|Leijonhufvud, 2016]] ; Pollard et al., 2014; Puente-Rodríguez et al., 2016; Richards et al., 2018; [[#Dawson--2013|Dawson, 2013]] ; Filipe, Renedo and Marston, 2017; Kotova et al., 2019). This is particularly important given that the significance of cultural heritage is often intangible, and its value cannot be determined solely through quantitative indicators. Accessing local resources (craftsmanship and materials compatible with the originals) can also improve built cultural heritage’s adaptation capacity ( [[#Phillips--2015|Phillips, 2015]] ).

Effective decision-making and practice for adapting built and intangible cultural heritage requires open dialogue and exchange of cultural, historical and technical information between diverse stakeholders and decision makers ( [[#Fatorić--2017b|Fatorić and Seekamp, 2017b]] ; Benson, Lorenzoni and Cook, 2016). As noted in [[#6.2.6|Section 6.2.6]] , human behaviour can be a driving force for adaptation impacts on BCH at risk. Despite challenges associated with intangibility, socio-cultural heritage such as Indigenous knowledge (e.g., food security and water management practices) presents important opportunities for climate adaptation and resilience building. More research is needed across diverse contexts to understand feasible climate adaptation measures, and barriers and opportunities for building the resilience of both built and intangible cultural heritage, as well as to increase awareness of cultural heritage benefits among climate change policymakers ( [[#Fatorić--2020|Fatorić and Egberts, 2020]] ).

<div id="6.3.4" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="adaptation-through-nature-based-solutions"></span>