Assessment of vulnerability and site adaptive capacity to the risk of climate change: the case of Tchogha Zanbil World Heritage earthen site in Iran

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this research is to evaluate the vulnerability of earthen heritage when facing climate change, by focusing on Tchogha Zanbil site as a case study – an outstanding example of an earthen site that recurrently faces extreme climatic events. Moreover, the adaptive capacity of traditional knowledge and ancient systems is also evaluated, in order to contribute for future climate change adaptation planning. Design/methodology/approach The vulnerability of cultural heritage to climate change was considered as the degree to which an identified cultural heritage value was susceptible to, or would be adversely affected by, the effects of climate change, including climate variability and extreme temperatures. In order to establish a vulnerability assessment, this paper will assess different definitions regarding vulnerability, exposure and sensitivity, crossing it with indicators of physical parameters, in order to propose an adaptive capacity for the site, based on ancient traditional knowledge. Findings Nonetheless, the entailed research helped establish a framework that contributes to outline the vulnerability and the potential for adaptive capacity of World Heritage properties, especially earthen sites located in regions exposed to rising climate change impact. Research limitations/implications The research faced some limitations regarding access to data and to site visits, due to COVID-19 restrictions that were in place. Originality/value This research presents a methodological assessment of climate change risk in Tchogha Zanbil, a World Heritage earthen site in Iran, representative of a property highly exposed to risk and vulnerability.

Conservation and In Situ Enhancement of Earthen Architecture in Archaeological Sites: Social and Anthropic Risks in the Case Studies of the Iberian Peninsula

“…While in recent times the preservation of these remains was predominantly addressed in response to natural threats, including quantitative assessments of cultural heritage in specific relation to those associated with climate change [19][20][21][22], the demand for new awareness of human actions in this field began to emerge at the end of the last century [23]. This aimed to encompass the entire process, from the survival of remains in the natural substrate despite agriculture or soil material extraction; uncovering and rescue measures; management, physical protection, and legal safeguards.…”

“…The response of each factor is assigned according to the greater or lesser impact of the factors based on the range of possibilities, graded from very low to very high, associated with a Response Value (RV) and a scale from 1 to 5, with the lower value corresponding to lower vulnerability and the higher value indicating a poorer response to the action of external agents. These scales are common in tests for heritage assessment [19] and reflect observations in the reviewed bibliography, adapted to the situation of the case studies selected during data collection. Given that a characteristic may exhibit its maximum level of impact but not influence to risks to the same extent as others, these values are then multiplied by factors between 0 and 1, referred to as Influence Value (IV), based on similar systems tested at environmental level for earthen architectural heritage [15].…”

“…This process correlates the factors and values (Table 1) mentioned above through a vulnerability assessment table, using a Leopold matrix [35] for reflecting effects and causes. In recent years, different approaches have been proposed for the quantitative assessment of vulnerability of the architectural and archaeological heritage, including through the defining parameters of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity [19], or degradation [36], as well as a reduction in risk from climate change [20,37]. Given that the current assessment is part of a larger study for the assessment of environmental and natural impact on this type of architecture [25], in this regard the proven accuracy of the Leopold Matrix [38] has been vital to the definitive and unified selection instead of the methodologies mentioned and others within the Multi Attribute Value Approach (MAVA) and extends to the social and anthropic aspects.…”

Principles and Sustainable Perspectives in the Preservation of Earthen Architecture from the Past Societies of the Iberian Peninsula

“…Qualitative and quantitative approaches in the sustainable analysis of heritage have been explored in recent years, particularly in terms of the environment and climate change based on the definitions of vulnerability and adaptive capacity [42][43][44], although the social and economic aspects are mostly addressed through qualitative analysis [24,[45][46][47]. In this context, one of the methodological tools which best sums up the environmental, sociocultural and socioeconomic dimension of architectural heritage is the 15-indicator wheel created during the VerSus project [26], which is used as a starting point for this research (Figure 2).…”

Increasing Vulnerability of Village Heritage: Evidence from 123 Villages in Aba Prefecture, Sichuan, China

“…Research has mainly focused on developing countries in Southeast Asia, South Asia, Africa [28,29], or regions such as coastal, mountainous, and island areas [30,31]. The latter mainly simulates and analyzes the vulnerability of important historical buildings in terms of structure, materials, and other performance parameters [32][33][34]. In 2016, vulnerability was introduced into the research of traditional villages [35], with studies focusing on traditional village landscapes, historical environments, and cultural landscapes gaining attention.…”