Next Article in Journal
Diversity, Distribution and Vegetation Assessment of Woody Plant Species in the Cold Desert Environment, North-Western Himalaya, India
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Planning Response to the Challenges of Climate Change Adaptation: An Analysis of Selected Instruments and Good Practices in Europe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310433
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Building Resilience in Cultural Landscapes: Exploring the Role of Transdisciplinary and Participatory Planning in the Recovery of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System

by
Ahmadreza Shirvani Dastgerdi
1,* and
Reza Kheyroddin
2
1
School of Architecture and Design, University of Camerino, 63100 Ascoli Piceno, Italy
2
Faculty of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran 1684613114, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10433; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310433
Submission received: 30 April 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 27 June 2023 / Published: 2 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Impacts of Climate Change on Cultural Landscapes and Strategies for Adaptation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultural landscapes are living landscapes shaped by human activity and imbued with cultural and historical significance. However, cultural landscapes are threatened by climate change because of the direct and indirect impacts it has on all types of cultural heritage resources. This research aims to investigate the efficacy of transdisciplinary and participatory planning approaches in augmenting the resilience of cultural landscapes in the face of climate change risks. This article presents a novel contribution by examining the recovery process of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) through the lens of international principles aimed at mitigating natural hazards and fostering resilience. The methodology adopts a comprehensive approach that combines a systematic literature review with a detailed analysis of the recovery process of the SHHS during the 2019 flooding in Khuzestan Province, Iran. The research findings highlight the significance of employing a transdisciplinary and participatory planning approach to enhance climate resilience within cultural landscapes. The active involvement of the local community throughout the process of resilience strategy development and implementation emerges as a pivotal factor. Furthermore, the success of resilience strategies in cultural landscapes relies on key elements such as accurate identification and communication, capacity building, fostering trust, and ensuring sufficient funding.

1. Introduction

Human actions, such as burning fossil fuels [1], deforestation [2], and land-use change [3], have increased global temperatures, which in turn has increased the risks associated with climate change. Sea levels have risen, and ocean acidification has increased, threatening coastal communities and marine ecosystems [4]. The 2021 IPCC report states that the global surface temperature has increased faster in the past decade than in any other decade since 1850. The report warns that the earth will likely exceed the 1.5 °C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement in the next two decades, even if countries follow their current emissions targets. More frequent and extreme heatwaves, droughts, and heavy precipitation events are only some of the significant implications of climate change highlighted in the report [5,6]. In this regard, between 2000 and 2015, the number of people living in flood-prone areas increased by up to 86 million worldwide (or by 24 percent), according to the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019 [7]. Additionally, climate-related disasters were the most common type of disaster in 2020, according to the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). They had a significant role in the 389 documented events that caused 15,080 deaths, 98.4 million people to be impacted, and economic losses of at least US$ 171.3 billion [8]. Climate change risks are expected to continue to increase in the future unless significant actions are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to climate-change impacts [9].
Cultural landscapes encompass both the physical and cultural aspects shaped by human activity [10]. They can be “designed” or “evolved” [11] and include various elements such as forests, wetlands, cities, and historic sites [12,13]. These landscapes serve as tangible representations of heritage, connecting people to their roots while supporting biodiversity and providing educational and recreational opportunities. Understanding their significance is vital for safeguarding cultural heritage and promoting sustainable development [14,15]. However, cultural landscapes are vulnerable to conflicts, pandemics, and climate-change impacts [16,17,18,19]. For instance, climate change can indirectly contribute to the spread of infectious diseases, as it disrupts ecosystems and can result in the migration of disease vectors [20]. Pandemics, in turn, can amplify vulnerabilities to climate change by diverting resources away from environmental conservation efforts [21]. The sensitivity to climate change depends on factors such as geography, topography, vegetation, land use, and management practices [22,23]. Holtorf (2018) stresses the necessity of a transdisciplinary and participatory approach to foster resilience and sustainability within cultural landscapes [24]. To ensure their ongoing resilience amidst climate change, these landscapes require attentive management and adaptive strategies [25,26].
The term “climate resilience” refers to a system, community, or society’s capacity to foresee, plan for, adapt to, and recover from the consequences of a changing climate and extreme weather. Climate resilience is a strategy that assists organizations, communities, and societies in preparing for, coping with, and recovering from climate change’s effects. Therefore, cultural landscapes need to be managed and adapted in ways that increase their resilience to climate-change impacts [27]. It can include measures such as improving the physical resilience of heritage buildings [28], diversifying the local economy to reduce dependence on climate-sensitive activities [29], and involving local communities in decision-making processes to ensure cultural heritage is managed in ways that are culturally sensitive and socially equitable [30].
Fatorić and Seekamp (2017) conducted a systematic literature review, examining 124 peer-reviewed articles published between 1990 and 2015, to assess the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage and resources. Their findings confirm that climate change poses significant threats to cultural heritage. The review identified various climate-change impacts, including physical damage to structures, erosion, loss of coastal sites, and damage to artifacts and collections, as well as impacts on cultural landscapes and intangible cultural heritage. These findings highlight the vulnerability of cultural heritage to climate change and emphasize the urgent need for proactive measures to safeguard and mitigate these impacts on our shared cultural heritage [31]. In this regard, several studies have explored different aspects of resilience in the context of various cultural landscapes and subjects. Brunetta et al. (2019) proposed a proactive approach to territorial resilience, emphasizing the integration of environmental, social, and economic factors in spatial planning. They suggest that this proactive approach can enhance resilience by addressing vulnerabilities and risks [32]. The study by Pietrapertosa et al. (2019) critically examined the state of readiness of Italian cities in terms of urban climate change mitigation and adaptation planning. The findings reveal varying levels of preparedness among the cities, with some exhibiting proactive measures while others are less advanced. The study highlights the significance of policy frameworks, governance structures, and the integration of strategies in determining cities’ readiness. It underscores the need for improved coordination, capacity-building initiatives, and policy support to enhance the overall climate resilience of Italian cities [33]. Villagra (2019) identified social capital, local knowledge, and effective governance as drivers of community resilience in Southern Chile [34]. Seekamp and Jo (2020) emphasized the importance of accommodating loss and promoting learning within heritage sites to enhance their resilience [35]. Minguez Garcia (2020) focused on the resilience of cultural heritage in Bhutan, highlighting the integration of traditional knowledge and community participation [36]. Aktürk and Dastgerdi (2021) identified barriers to resilience in cultural landscapes threatened by climate change, such as inadequate planning and limited community engagement [37]. Lastly, Sun et al. (2022) explored the resilience mechanisms of traditional rural settlements in Xinjiang, China, emphasizing traditional knowledge, community cohesion, and adaptive strategies [38]. Together, these studies provide valuable insights into different aspects of resilience and offer guidance for enhancing resilience in various contexts. However, a research gap exists in terms of integrating transdisciplinary and participatory planning approaches to effectively address climate change risks in cultural landscapes.
The phenomenon of climate change is anticipated to engender a heightened occurrence and intensity of extreme weather events, notably floods [39], subsequently amplifying societal vulnerability to flood risks [40]. Iran, in particular, is recognized as highly susceptible to the ramifications of climate change [41]. The nation confronts an array of climate-related hazards encompassing drought, heatwaves, flooding, and sea level rise, each of which bears the potential to exert substantial influences on the country’s economy [42], environment [43], and society [44].
The 2019 flooding in Khuzestan Province, Iran, was a significant event that resulted in extensive damage and displacement of people in the region. This province is prone to flooding due to its geographical location and the presence of major rivers, including the Karun River. During the 2019 floods, heavy rainfall led to rising water levels in the rivers, causing them to overflow and resulting in widespread flooding across the province. Among the affected areas was the SHHS, a UNESCO World Heritage site that exemplifies human ingenuity in water harnessing for irrigation and urban water supply. The occurrence of the 2019 flooding in Shushtar exemplifies the escalating destructiveness of floods attributable to climate change, thereby augmenting the risks posed to cultural landscapes. The adoption of resilience as a policy narrative presents an opportunity for landscape planners and communities to effectively contend with the challenges presented by climate change within urban planning endeavors [45]. Consequently, the development of strategies aimed at mitigating the adverse impact of climate change on cultural landscapes emerges as an imperative undertaking.
This paper aims to delve into the realm of the SHHS, exploring how its recovery has been shaped by a transdisciplinary and participatory planning approach. By examining the interplay between these methodologies and the site’s resilience, the study seeks to shed light on the potential benefits of such an approach in fortifying cultural landscapes against the devastating impacts of natural disasters. Through an in-depth analysis, this paper aims to uncover valuable insights that can inform future strategies for enhancing the resilience of cultural heritage sites in the face of environmental challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

This research focuses on enhancing the resilience of cultural landscapes against climate change risks. The methodology follows a systematic and integrated approach comprising two main phases (Figure 1). The findings from both phases will be integrated to develop resilient strategies for mitigating climate change risks in cultural landscapes.

2.1. International Guidelines and Recommendations for Resilient Landscape Development: A Meta-Analysis

Phase One of this research encompasses a meta-analysis of international guidelines and recommendations pertaining to disaster risk reduction, specifically focusing on the resilience of cultural landscapes. The primary objective of this phase is to offer a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge and best practices by synthesizing data from multiple studies [46]. Through a systematic research approach, relevant literature and empirical evidence were gathered, forming an ongoing investigation into the potential role of urban governance and policy in facilitating the enhancement of cultural heritage resilience amidst climate change risks. To build our theoretical framework, we conducted a comprehensive search using the “title/keywords/abstract” fields in the Web of Science Core Collection database to identify relevant papers published between 2011 and 2021. The initial search was performed in January 2022 and yielded a total of 118 results. Thoroughly assessing the abstracts of these publications, we handpicked the ones that specifically tackled resilience in cultural landscapes for further investigation. To ensure the framework database remained up-to-date, we utilized the Google Scholar alert system, which helped us stay informed about new articles related to our research topic. Additionally, we employed the snowballing strategy, a technique where the initial set of studies is expanded by including relevant papers referenced in the bibliography section of the examined studies. By employing this approach, we successfully integrated 12 additional pertinent studies that were not initially discovered in the initial database searches. In total, we examined and analyzed 62 studies, which served as the foundation for the initial draft of this publication. Furthermore, to enrich this section, we also explored the concepts of resilience and cultural landscape from the perspective of international documents. By utilizing inductive reasoning, a methodology that involves integrating observations and experiential information, we were able to identify the existing integration challenges. Additionally, we conducted an internet search specifically focused on European examples to examine the socio-economic consequences of climate change risks on landscapes. The authors have disseminated the results of Phase One by publishing a separate peer-reviewed article, which establishes a theoretical framework for examining the SHHS case study [47].

2.2. Case Study of the SHHS

Phase Two centers around a case study of the SHHS, which was affected by the 2019 flooding in Khuzestan Province, Iran. According to Baxter and Jack (2008), the qualitative case study research methodology facilitates the systematic exploration of a specific phenomenon within a defined context by drawing upon multiple data sources. It employs diverse analytical perspectives to unveil the multifaceted nature of the phenomenon under investigation [48].
The selection of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) as a case study stems from its distinct recognition as “the most vulnerable world heritage site in Iran” by the Shushtar World Heritage Site, primarily due to the compromised condition of its structures, particularly the western wall. This acknowledgment has persisted for more than a decade. Given the inherent vulnerability of the SHHS, it is reasonable to anticipate that it may sustain additional damage during episodes of intense rainfall.
For the case study analysis, we identified the causes of the 2019 flooding in Khuzestan. Then, we analyzed the recovery of the SHHS with specific attention to the roles played by the interdisciplinary and participatory planning approach in this process using a qualitative method. This qualitative approach enables a comprehensive exploration of the SHHS, facilitating a nuanced understanding of its significance and the strategies employed in its recovery [49].
The city of Shushtar is located in the Khuzestan province in the southwest of Iran, near the Karun River. The city is known for its rich history and cultural heritage, including the SHHS. It is a UNESCO world heritage site and covers an area of approximately 240 hectares (Figure 2).
The SHHS, as an evolved cultural landscape, represents an ancient irrigation system that maintains its crucial role as a primary water source for irrigation in the surrounding region. Serving the agricultural lands that envelop the city of Shushtar, this system’s enduring significance has garnered international recognition, acknowledged by UNESCO. Diligent endeavors are underway to safeguard its preservation and sustainability, ensuring the inheritance of this cultural heritage for future generations (Figure 3).
The Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) was acknowledged in 2009 by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site based on criteria (ii) and (iv). Criterion (ii) requires a site to demonstrate a significant exchange of human values in fields such as architecture, technology, arts, planning, or landscape design. Criterion (iv) necessitates the site to be an exceptional representation of a building, architectural or technological ensemble, or landscape that signifies important stages in human history [51]. The inscription on the World Heritage List acknowledges the exceptional universal value of the Shushtar system and underscores its significance as an evolved cultural landscape. The SHHS comprises two distinct zones, the Core zone, which consists of tunnels, canals, and aqueducts facilitating water transportation, and the Buffer zone, which functions as a storage and regulation system, collecting excess water during floods and regulating irrigation. Serving as a remarkable testament to ancient engineering, the Shushtar system remains a crucial water source for the region in present times (Figure 4).
Based on historical climate data, the annual average precipitation in Khuzestan province, Iran, spanning the period from 1990 to 2017, was recorded at approximately 309 mm, indicating relatively low precipitation levels. Given that Khuzestan is an agricultural region, this could pose concerns regarding water availability. Furthermore, precipitation in the area exhibits variability from year to year, potentially aggravated by the influence of climate change. In response to water scarcity, Khuzestan has implemented diverse measures encompassing water conservation, management techniques, and the exploration of alternative water sources. These initiatives aim to alleviate the impact of water scarcity on the regional economy and population. During the same timeframe, the average temperature in Khuzestan province hovered around 23.5 °C (74.3 °F). Typical for the region, summers are characterized by high temperatures, while winters experience milder conditions. Notably, a discernible upward trend in temperatures has been observed over the past few decades, aligning with broader global warming patterns (Figure 5).
In recent years, the city has witnessed the detrimental consequences of severe flooding, attributed to intense precipitation and the subsequent overflow of the nearby Karun River. These floods have engendered adverse effects such as erosion and sedimentation in the historical irrigation canals, impeding water flow and system efficiency while posing a significant threat to the preservation of the city’s invaluable historical and cultural heritage. Given the significance of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) as a prominent cultural heritage site, it becomes imperative to undertake necessary measures aimed at safeguarding it from the detrimental impacts of flooding.

3. Findings

3.1. Meta-Analysis of International Guidelines on Cultural Landscapes, Resilience, and Disaster Risk Reduction

The authors have published the findings of Phase One in a separate peer-reviewed paper, which serves as a theoretical framework for the exploration of the SHHS case study. This summary provides an overview of the aforementioned paper, setting the foundation for the subsequent analysis of the SHHS case study within the framework of the research conducted in Phase One.
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) has developed from a narrowly defined technical discipline to a broad-based worldwide movement to mitigate the risks of natural hazards in recent decades. The DRR seeks to reduce the impact of vulnerabilities and disasters through proactive planning. Figure 6 depicts how DRR frameworks have evolved over the last 30 years.
Although heritage assets are increasingly vulnerable to natural disasters, the cultural landscape has only recently been included in the larger global disaster risk reduction agenda. In 2007, the United Nations (UN) established the Strategy for Reducing Disaster Risks at World Heritage Sites. Attempts were made at the time to apply the guiding principles of the Hyogo Protocol to the protection of World Heritage sites. Following the UN Third World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015, the UN General Assembly adopted the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, charting a new course for disaster risk reduction. The Sendai framework calls for a “substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods, and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets of people, businesses, communities, and countries” [53].
The importance of incorporating resilience thinking into landscape planning is emphasized in international policy documents such as the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 [54] and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 [53]. On the other hand, as shown in Table 1, there are many obstacles to managing cultural landscapes resiliently.
The first consideration in resilience planning is defining the desired outcome, often referred to as “sustainability” in the ecological literature. However, this labeling relies on normative judgments that determine the value of historical sites. Certain characteristics are deemed favorable, while others are seen as lacking adaptability or resilience. Attaining a specific landscape form may not signify resilience if it deviates from accepted observable and intangible qualities.
The second limitation involves delineating the boundaries of the cultural landscape. Resilience studies must ask, “Resilience to what?” Experts tend to prioritize certain aspects while neglecting others, leading to fragmented approaches to cultural heritage conservation.
Thirdly, applying ecological resilience to cultural heritage preservation requires addressing questions such as “Resilience for whom?” and “What are the desired outcomes?” The ecological literature on resilience often dismisses incentives and penalties, assuming natural consequences. However, in any landscape, there are always incentives and repercussions, with some benefiting while others may be disadvantaged. Resilience assessments in a sociocultural context must consider issues of fairness, justice, and the distribution of costs and benefits [68].
Furthermore, fostering effective collaboration among the government, first responders, site managers, and the local community is crucial for cultural landscape management. Internship opportunities and a bottom-up participatory framework can facilitate knowledge sharing, capacity building, and collaboration [47]. International frameworks such as Yokohama, Hyogo, and Sendai emphasize the significance of transdisciplinary and participatory approaches in planning and management. Involving local communities, stakeholders, and experts in decision-making processes ensures the preservation of cultural heritage while effectively mitigating climate change risks.

3.2. The Causes of the 2019 Flooding in Khuzestan

A combination of factors, including heavy rainfall, dam mismanagement, and insufficient water management infrastructure, caused the 2019 flooding in Khuzestan province in Iran (Figure 7). The leading drivers of this phenomenon were (1) long-lasting droughts and soil erosion over the past five years, (2) building construction in farming and agricultural lands, revegetation basins, and other human actions along rivers, (3) reduction of the capacity of the Hourol Azim marshes of Bamdezh due to various other human interventions and excavation activities, and (4) destruction of flood guards to have more access to water during drought [69]. The rainfall was allegedly more than three times the usual for the region, which caused rivers and canals to flood. It was made worse by poor dam management since some dams were not opened in time to discharge water, while others were unable to contain the level of water. The lack of proper infrastructure for water management, such as insufficient drainage systems, also contributed to the flooding.
Several studies and reports suggest that the presence of unfunctional dams in Khuzestan province may have contributed to the severity of the 2019 flooding in the region. Some of these studies and reports include:
  • The Iranian Parliament’s Research Center report found that the uncompleted and unfunctional Karun-3 and Dez dams may have exacerbated the flooding in Khuzestan province.
  • The study by researchers at the Sharif University of Technology used computer simulations to show that the presence of unfunctional dams may have increased the flood peak in the Karun River by up to 6 m and prolonged the duration of the flood by up to 12 days.
  • The report by the International Rivers organization highlights the role of unfunctional dams and mismanagement in exacerbating the flooding in Khuzestan province.
These studies and reports collectively provide substantial evidence that suggests a link between the presence of non-functional dams and the heightened severity of the 2019 flooding in Khuzestan province.
The issue of dam construction and management in Khuzestan province is multifaceted, with various factors contributing to the problem. Some of the issues that have been identified include poor maintenance of existing dams, insufficient investment in new dam construction, and ineffective water management practices. However, there is a growing concern that the presence of unfunctional dams in the region may be exacerbating the impact of extreme weather events such as floods. When dams are not functioning correctly, they can impede the flow of water downstream, which can cause flooding in areas that would not normally be affected.
It is important to note that the flooding was also caused by heavy rainfall and the previously mentioned factors, and the exact role of the dams in exacerbating the situation is still a subject of debate and investigation. In this regard, there has been a growing movement towards dam removal in some parts of the world (Table 2), particularly in the United States, where several large dams have been removed in recent years to restore rivers and fish populations.

3.3. SHHS Recovery and Local Participation

Following the devastating flood in 2019, the recovery efforts for Iran’s Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) were guided by a comprehensive set of strategies aimed at mitigating the damage inflicted by the disaster. These strategies encompassed debris and sediment removal, structural and facility repairs, and the reinforcement of the Karun River banks. The estimated cost of the recovery operation was approximately USD 1.5 million, reflecting the significant investment required to restore the system to its pre-flood condition. The recovery process extended over several months, commencing with the initial assessment and damage mapping in April 2019, and concluding with the completion of repairs by September of the same year.
News reports indicate that multiple organizations played vital roles in the recovery of SHHS. Iran’s Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts, and Tourism Organization (ICHHTO) assumed overall management and coordination responsibilities, ensuring the effective implementation of the recovery strategies. Concurrently, the Khuzestan Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts, and Tourism Organization took charge of on-site management, overseeing day-to-day operations and ensuring the seamless execution of restoration activities at SHHS. The involvement of the Iranian Army proved invaluable to the recovery efforts, as they mobilized personnel and provided essential equipment, expediting the restoration process and alleviating the burden on other organizations involved. Additionally, the active engagement of local communities emerged as a crucial factor, with community members volunteering their time, labor, and expertise to aid in the recovery of SHHS. Their dedication and commitment displayed a strong sense of solidarity in preserving the cultural heritage of the region.
However, it is important to note that the response and recovery efforts following the 2019 floods in Khuzestan province extended beyond the restoration of SHHS. Additional measures were implemented to provide emergency relief, rebuild infrastructure, and support affected communities. These measures encompassed the provision of essential supplies, such as food, water, and medicine, for those in need. Furthermore, the safe evacuation of individuals from flood-prone areas, search and rescue operations, repair of damaged infrastructure, financial assistance to affected small businesses, and psychological support for affected individuals were all integral components of the comprehensive approach.
In recognition of the need to enhance community resilience and preparedness for future disasters, disaster preparedness initiatives were undertaken. These initiatives aimed to educate and equip community members with the necessary knowledge and resources to effectively respond to and mitigate the impacts of similar events in the future.
Throughout the recovery process, the active participation of local communities proved indispensable. Their engagement went beyond immediate cleanup efforts, as they collaborated with local authorities and cultural heritage experts to ensure the preservation of SHHS’s historical and cultural significance while undertaking essential repairs and improvements. Notably, traditional water managers known as “Mirdamad” played a vital role in monitoring and maintaining the functionality of the system after the flood. Their intimate knowledge and ongoing involvement were instrumental in the successful recovery and long-term resilience of SHHS. The collective efforts of various organizations, including ICHHTO, the Khuzestan Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts, and Tourism Organization, the Iranian Army, and the dedicated local communities, played a pivotal role in mitigating the devastating effects of the flood and facilitating the recovery of SHHS. These collaborative endeavors ensured the restoration of this invaluable cultural heritage site, reinforcing its significance and safeguarding it for future generations.

4. Discussion

The government of Iran has implemented numerous strategies in recent years to increase its citizens’ preparedness for and ability to recover from natural disasters such as floods. These plans include establishing a National Disaster Management Organization (NDMO), implementing Community-based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM), constructing the necessary infrastructure, adapting to climate change, conducting research, and implementing the appropriate insurance policies. These plans aim to make communities more resilient to the effects of natural disasters by strengthening their ability to prevent losses and respond effectively to crises. For instance, the government has been implementing CBDRM programs in various parts of the country to enhance community resilience and reduce disaster vulnerability. These programs have been implemented through various national and local organizations, such as the Red Crescent Society, the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Health. One example of a CBDRM program implemented in Iran is the Participatory Approach for Safe Shelter Awareness (PASSA) program, which the Iranian Red Crescent Society implemented in 2010. The program aimed to enhance community resilience to earthquakes and other disasters by involving communities in the design and construction of safe shelters. Later on, the program was implemented in several provinces in Iran, including Kermanshah, Fars, and Sistan and Baluchestan.
The 2019 flood in Khuzestan province was a natural disaster caused by heavy rainfall and overflowing rivers, which affected various parts of the province. The flood caused significant damage to homes, infrastructure, and agriculture, leading to the displacement of residents and loss of life. The flood had a significant impact on the SHHS, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site. The flood caused damage to the site’s infrastructure, including the diversion weir, bridges, and canals. The water flow also deposited debris and sediment in the canals, affecting the water flow and navigation. The flood also damaged the site’s cultural landscape, including agricultural land and gardens. However, the Iranian government and local community initiated efforts to restore and rehabilitate the site after the flood, including removing debris and sediment, repairing damaged infrastructure, and implementing measures to prevent future flooding. The causes of the flooding were multifaceted and included a combination of factors such as heavy rainfall, inadequate infrastructure, the presence of unfunctional dams in the region, and the changing land-use patterns in the area.
Many of the dams in Khuzestan province were built without considering the hydrological conditions of the region and the impact of climate change. Some of these dams were not properly maintained, which made them more vulnerable to failures during the flood. These dams created a false sense of security among the people living downstream, which resulted in more damage and loss of life during the flood. In addition, the land-use patterns in Shushtar have changed over time due to various reasons. Some of the main reasons include urbanization, agricultural expansion, industrialization, and infrastructural development. The construction of dams and irrigation systems for agriculture has also led to changes in land-use patterns in the region. Population growth and demographic changes have also impacted land use in Shushtar. As a result of these changes, there has been a reduction in natural vegetation cover and an increase in impermeable surfaces, which can exacerbate the impacts of flooding. It is crucial to recognize that the identification of land-use changes and the assessment of development projects throughout the territory play a significant role in determining the vulnerability levels of a cultural landscape. Consequently, adopting a transdisciplinary planning approach becomes imperative to enhance resilience in cultural landscapes. Such an approach should encompass diverse fields of knowledge and expertise to effectively address the multifaceted challenges posed by climate change and land-use change. By integrating various disciplines, stakeholders can work together to develop comprehensive strategies that consider both the natural and socio-economic dimensions of the landscape, ultimately promoting its long-term sustainability and resilience.
After the flood in 2019, the recovery process took several months, with the initial assessment and damage mapping starting in April 2019 and the completion of repairs by September 2019. It was carried out in several phases and in collaboration with local communities, experts, and organizations. Debris and sediment were cleaned out of the canals, tunnels, and waterfalls in the first phase. Infrastructure, such as sluice gates and water canals, was repaired and rebuilt in the second phase. Landscaping and plant life restoration made up phase three. The total cost of the reconstruction was estimated to be approximately 1.5 million dollars. The restoration was conducted under the supervision of the ICHHTO in collaboration with local communities and traditional water managers known as “Mirdamad.” They used their traditional knowledge and skills to help repair and maintain the historical hydraulic system. Additionally, they worked with local community members and authorities to ensure the proper functioning of the system and to prevent future flooding. The involvement of the Mirdamad and local community members highlights the importance of traditional knowledge and community participation in the management and preservation of cultural heritage sites. The restoration work aimed not only to repair the damage caused by the flood but also to enhance the resilience of the Shushtar system to future disasters. As part of the reconstruction process, the authorities also implemented measures to improve the resilience of the system to future floods and disasters, such as reinforcing the banks of the canals and channels. Overall, the recovery process took several months to complete, and the SHHS was officially reopened to the public in early 2020.
The fast recovery of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System (SHHS) can be attributed to several key factors, with the availability of funding playing a significant role. SHHS holds the prestigious status of being a UNESCO world heritage site, which has garnered attention and support in terms of financial resources, making it a priority for restoration efforts. This heightened focus on SHHS as one of the more vulnerable cultural sites in Iran over the past decade has facilitated its recovery process. However, it is essential to recognize that not all cultural landscapes in Iran enjoy the same level of privilege in terms of funding and support.
To address this disparity and promote equitable recovery and conservation of cultural landscapes, it is imperative to implement effective solutions within the realm of urban governance systems. One potential solution is to establish mechanisms that allocate funding based on the vulnerability and significance of cultural landscapes, rather than solely relying on their international recognition or designation. This would ensure that other cultural landscapes in Iran, which may not have received as much attention, are not left behind in terms of financial resources for their restoration and preservation. Furthermore, enhancing the transparency and efficiency of urban governance systems is crucial for addressing these issues. This can be achieved through the implementation of robust policies and regulations that prioritize the protection and sustainable management of cultural landscapes. Strengthening the collaboration between governmental bodies, cultural heritage organizations, and local communities can also foster a more inclusive and participatory approach in decision-making processes related to the allocation of funding and the recovery of cultural landscapes. Moreover, seeking partnerships with international organizations, academic institutions, and private entities can offer additional avenues for securing funding and resources for the conservation of cultural landscapes. Collaborative initiatives and grant programs can be established to provide financial support to cultural landscapes that are not UNESCO-designated but hold significant historical, cultural, or environmental value.
Several important insights in line with international guidelines on disaster risk reduction were gleaned through the reconstruction of the SHHS. As a first step, cultural landscapes should be recognized as an integral part of national disaster management strategies. The timely restoration of Shushtar was due in large part to the competent multi-sector coordination between numerous organizations. Many groups worked together to complete the recovery, including the Ministry of Energy and the Military, in addition to the ICHHTO. It highlights the need for coordination and collaboration among various stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities. Furthermore, considering that the local community has deep emotional and historical ties to the landscape, they were encouraged to participate in the recovery project from the beginning. Participation such as this also encourages the appropriate application of contemporary and traditional methods throughout the recovery process, such as employing cutting-edge machinery for excavating and time-tested methods for restoring damaged areas.
Community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) in Iran still faces challenges, even though recovering the SHHS has yielded some important insights for developing resilience strategies. Despite efforts to involve communities in disaster risk management, there are still some challenges in ensuring the meaningful participation of all community members, especially vulnerable groups. In other words, there is a need to empower communities through capacity building and training programs to enhance their ability to identify, assess, and manage disaster risks. However, many communities lack the financial and technical resources necessary to establish effective CBDRM programs. Furthermore, when it comes to managing the risk of natural disasters, there is a pressing need for more collaboration between government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen partnerships between government agencies, NGOs, and communities to ensure effective collaboration and coordination in disaster risk management.
There may be several reasons why cultural heritage sites in Iran are still vulnerable to disaster risks despite the existence of the Plan for the Protection of Cultural Heritage and Management of Natural Disasters of Iran (from 2017). Some possible reasons include (i) inadequate funding, (ii) a lack of coordination between different agencies, (iii) insufficient capacity building of local communities, and (iv) limited public awareness about the importance of disaster risk reduction for cultural heritage. In order to enhance the resilience of cultural heritage sites in Iran, it is necessary to address these challenges by increasing funding for disaster risk reduction, improving coordination among relevant agencies, providing capacity-building programs for local communities, and raising public awareness through education and outreach activities.
As Figure 8 shows, developing resilient strategies in cultural landscapes requires a transdisciplinary and participatory approach that involves various stakeholders, including government agencies, local communities, site managers, and experts. Some actions that can be taken to develop resilient strategies in cultural landscapes include:
  • Conducting risk assessments: These can help identify potential hazards and vulnerabilities in cultural landscapes. This information can be used to develop risk reduction and mitigation strategies.
  • Building community capacity: Engaging local communities and building their capacity to respond to and recover from disasters is critical for developing resilient strategies. It can be achieved through community-based disaster risk reduction programs, training, and awareness-raising activities.
  • Incorporating traditional knowledge: Incorporating traditional knowledge and practices into disaster risk reduction strategies can help communities better prepare for and respond to disasters.
  • Enhancing infrastructure: Including improving drainage systems and protecting against erosion can reduce the impact of disasters on these sites.
  • Developing emergency plans: These can help reduce the impact of disasters on these sites and ensure a coordinated response.
  • Integrating disaster risk reduction into planning: This can help ensure that cultural landscapes are included in overall resilience planning.
  • Collaborating with stakeholders: Including government agencies, local communities, and experts can help develop comprehensive and effective resilient strategies for cultural landscapes.
Climate change is a complex and multifaceted challenge that requires an integrated and collaborative approach. A transdisciplinary approach involves bringing together diverse stakeholders from different disciplines and sectors to co-create knowledge and develop solutions. According to our analysis of the SHHS, a transdisciplinary approach may involve collaboration between cultural heritage experts, natural resource managers, social scientists, community representatives, and policymakers. This approach can help to identify and address the diverse social, economic, and environmental impacts of climate change on cultural landscapes, as well as the different values and perspectives of stakeholders. Participation of local communities and stakeholders is also critical in developing resilient strategies for reducing the impacts of climate change on cultural landscapes. Engaging with local communities can help to ensure that their traditional knowledge and practices are considered and that their needs and perspectives are integrated into decision-making processes. This can also help to build community ownership and support for climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies [71]. Therefore, a transdisciplinary and participatory approach that considers social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainable development can help to ensure that strategies for reducing the impacts of climate change on cultural landscapes are effective and equitable.
In comparison with the literature, this paper contributes to the field of knowledge by providing practical insights derived from the reconstruction of the SHHS regarding disaster risk reduction and cultural landscape management. It highlights the importance of recognizing cultural landscapes as integral components of national disaster management strategies, emphasizing their significance in planning and response efforts. The successful restoration of Shushtar is attributed to effective multi-sector coordination involving various organizations, including governmental entities such as the Ministry of Energy and the Military, along with the ICHHTO. Our findings emphasize the need for coordination and collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local communities, in order to ensure effective recovery processes. It acknowledges the deep emotional and historical connections that local communities have with the landscape, and advocates for their active participation in recovery projects from the outset. However, our study encountered significant limitations in obtaining quantitative analysis, including data on the economic value of cultural SHHS and the costs associated with climate-change impacts on the site. Future studies could incorporate quantitative analysis, as it provides a more evidence-based approach to assessing the importance of funding and support for cultural heritage protection.

5. Conclusions

The 2019 flood in Khuzestan province in Iran was primarily caused by heavy rainfall that began on March 2019 and continued for several days, leading to the overflowing of rivers and flooding in many areas. The rainfall was also coupled with the release of water from several dams in the region, which exacerbated the flooding. The high volume of water led to extensive damage to infrastructure, including roads and bridges, and resulted in the displacement of many residents.
The active involvement of the local community in the post-flooding era is of utmost importance for the development and implementation of resilient strategies in cultural landscapes. The local community possesses valuable knowledge and experience that can significantly contribute to the identification of risks, the design of strategies, and the execution of appropriate solutions. Therefore, it is imperative to integrate the local community into all stages of resilience strategies, ranging from the initial preparation phase to the subsequent recovery phase. This integration entails their active participation in critical activities such as risk assessments, planning procedures, decision-making processes, and the execution of selected solutions. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure that the local community has access to the requisite resources, information, and training necessary for their effective engagement in these endeavors. Ultimately, this comprehensive approach serves to enhance the effectiveness, sustainability, and responsiveness of resilience strategies, effectively addressing the unique needs and requirements of the local community. By engaging in dialogue and co-designing strategies, local communities can also have a sense of ownership and responsibility, which can lead to increased participation, resilience, and sustainability in the long term. Effective communication and trust-building are also crucial to ensuring that the participation process is inclusive and that all voices are heard. Finally, developing the capacity and skills of local communities can help ensure that they are empowered to contribute effectively to resilience strategies.
Without sufficient funding, it can be challenging to implement effective risk-reduction measures and ensure that cultural heritage sites are adequately protected. Additionally, limited public awareness can lead to a lack of understanding of the value of cultural heritage and the need for disaster risk reduction measures, which can result in insufficient support and resources for these efforts.
To lessen these limitations, it is important to develop clear objectives and a shared vision, foster communication, and collaboration, provide adequate resources, recognize and value local knowledge, use innovative technologies, encourage the co-creation of knowledge, and develop effective governance mechanisms. By implementing these solutions, landscape planners can ensure that different perspectives and knowledge are integrated into the planning process and that stakeholders are engaged in decision-making, leading to effective and equitable outcomes. Therefore, the development of resilient strategies necessitates the comprehensive consideration of various social, institutional, and environmental factors. This entails the identification and effective communication of risks and vulnerabilities, the integration of local communities into decision-making processes, the cultivation of capacity and skills, the provision of adequate funding and resources, and the promotion of public awareness regarding the significance of disaster risk reduction for safeguarding cultural heritage. Moreover, it requires the careful evaluation of the environmental consequences associated with proposed strategies, as well as the resolution of governance, policy, and institutional framework-related challenges.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.D. and R.K.; methodology, A.S.D. and R.K.; formal analysis, A.S.D. and R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.D.; writing—review and editing, A.S.D. and R.K. All authors equally contributed to this paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our heartfelt appreciation to Sorena Sattari, the Vice President of Science and Technology of Iran, and AliReza Seyedabadi, Deputy Director of Scientific Relations and Human Capital Development at the Center for International Science and Technology Cooperation, for their unwavering support throughout this research project. We would also like to express our gratitude to Mahbobeh Keyhanifar, Head of the Planning, Support, and Research Group at Iran University of Science and Technology, for her invaluable assistance and support in making this project possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Johnsson, F.; Kjärstad, J.; Rootzén, J. The Threat to Climate Change Mitigation Posed by the Abundance of Fossil Fuels. Clim. Policy 2019, 19, 258–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Vargas Zeppetello, L.R.; Parsons, L.A.; Spector, J.T.; Naylor, R.L.; Battisti, D.S.; Masuda, Y.J.; Wolff, N.H. Large Scale Tropical Deforestation Drives Extreme Warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 084012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hao, B.; Ma, M.; Li, S.; Li, Q.; Hao, D.; Huang, J.; Ge, Z.; Yang, H.; Han, X. Land Use Change and Climate Variation in the Three Gorges Reservoir Catchment from 2000 to 2015 Based on the Google Earth Engine. Sensors 2019, 19, 2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Falkenberg, L.J.; Bellerby, R.G.J.; Connell, S.D.; Fleming, L.E.; Maycock, B.; Russell, B.D.; Sullivan, F.J.; Dupont, S. Ocean Acidification and Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Masson-Delmotte, V.; Zhai, P.; Pirani, A.; Connors, S.L.; Péan, C.; Berger, S.; Caud, N.; Chen, Y.; Goldfarb, L.; Gomis, M.I. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis; Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  6. Begum, R.A.; Sarkar, S.K.; Jaafar, A.H.; Pereira, J.J. Toward Conceptual Frameworks for Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 10, 362–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019; Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR); United Nations Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-92-1-004180-5. [Google Scholar]
  8. CRED 2020: The Non-COVID Year in Disasters—Global Trends and Perspectives—World. ReliefWeb. Available online: https://reliefweb.int/report/world/2020-non-covid-year-disasters-global-trends-and-perspectives (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  9. Djalante, R. Key Assessments from the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C and the Implications for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Prog. Disaster Sci. 2019, 1, 100001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Council of Europe. Council of Europe Landscape Convention (ETS No. 176)—European Treaty Series—No. 176. 20 October 2000. Available online: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/176.htm (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  11. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Cultural Landscapes. Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/ (accessed on 4 March 2023).
  12. Mitchell, N.J.; Rössler, M.; Tricaud, P.-M.; World Heritage Centre. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: A Handbook for Conservation and Management; World Heritage Papers; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2009; ISBN 978-92-3-104146-4. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kheyroddin, R.; Rahsaz, S.; Abbaspour Kalmarzi, M. Ecological Tourism Development in the Mountainous Regions and Historical Railway Network Capacities. Case Study: Tehran-Mazandaran Old Railway by Crossing the Alborz Mountain Range. LSGDC 2020, 48, 186–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sarmiento-Mateos, P.; Arnaiz-Schmitz, C.; Herrero-Jáuregui, C.; Pineda, F.D.; Schmitz, M.F. Designing Protected Areas for Social–Ecological Sustainability: Effectiveness of Management Guidelines for Preserving Cultural Landscapes. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Dastgerdi, A.S.; De Luca, G. Specifying the Significance of Historic Sites in Heritage Planning. Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 2018, 18, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dastgerdi, A.S.; De Luca, G. A Post-Pandemic Look at Short-Term Tourist Accommodations and World Heritage Site Management. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2023, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dastgerdi, A.S.; De Luca, G. Resetting Cultural Heritage Policy and Management Practice—Moderating Mass Tourism in Post-Pandemic Times. Hist. Environ. Policy Pract. 2022, 13, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; De Luca, G.; Francini, C. Reforming Housing Policies for the Sustainability of Historic Cities in the Post-COVID Time: Insights from the Atlas World Heritage. Sustainability 2020, 13, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dastgerdi, A.S.; De Luca, G. Religious Differences and Radical Spatial Transformations in Historic Urban Landscape. Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 2020, 19, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. El-Sayed, A.; Kamel, M. Climatic Changes and Their Role in Emergence and Re-Emergence of Diseases. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 22336–22352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moraci, F.; Errigo, M.F.; Fazia, C.; Campisi, T.; Castelli, F. Cities under Pressure: Strategies and Tools to Face Climate Change and Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sesana, E.; Gagnon, A.S.; Ciantelli, C.; Cassar, J.; Hughes, J.J. Climate Change Impacts on Cultural Heritage: A Literature Review. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2021, 12, e710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Melnick, R.Z. Deciphering Cultural Landscape Heritage in the Time of Climate Change. Landsc. J. 2016, 35, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Holtorf, C. Embracing Change: How Cultural Resilience Is Increased through Cultural Heritage. World Archaeol. 2018, 50, 639–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Sargolini, M.; Pierantoni, I. Climate Change Challenges to Existing Cultural Heritage Policy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Melnick, R.Z.; Kerr, N.P. Climate Change Impacts On Cultural Landscapes: A Preliminary Analysis in U.S. National Parks across the Pacific West. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2018, 6, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Shirgir, E.; Behzadfar, M.; Kheyroddin, R. Defining a Method for Measuring and Enhancing Urban Resilience to Climate Change Based on Landscape Ecology Theories (Case Study: Yousef Abad Neighborhood, Tehran). Hoviatshahr 2021, 15, 69–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hao, L.; Herrera-Avellanosa, D.; Del Pero, C.; Troi, A. What Are the Implications of Climate Change for Retrofitted Historic Buildings? A Literature Review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Santoro, A.; Venturi, M.; Agnoletti, M. Agricultural Heritage Systems and Landscape Perception among Tourists. The Case of Lamole, Chianti (Italy). Sustainability 2020, 12, 3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sargolini, M.; Pierantoni, I. Protected Areas and Local Communities. A Challenge for Inland Development; List-Laboratorio Editoriale: Trento, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-88-320-8041-4. [Google Scholar]
  31. Fatorić, S.; Seekamp, E. Are Cultural Heritage and Resources Threatened by Climate Change? A Systematic Literature Review. Clim. Chang. 2017, 142, 227–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brunetta, G.; Ceravolo, R.; Barbieri, C.A.; Borghini, A.; De Carlo, F.; Mela, A.; Beltramo, S.; Longhi, A.; De Lucia, G.; Ferraris, S.; et al. Territorial Resilience: Toward a Proactive Meaning for Spatial Planning. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Pietrapertosa, F.; Salvia, M.; De Gregorio Hurtado, S.; D’Alonzo, V.; Church, J.M.; Geneletti, D.; Musco, F.; Reckien, D. Urban Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Planning: Are Italian Cities Ready? Cities 2019, 91, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Villagra, P. Drivers of Community Resilience to Natural Hazards: The Experience in Southern Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2019, 61, 4–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Seekamp, E.; Jo, E. Resilience and Transformation of Heritage Sites to Accommodate for Loss and Learning in a Changing Climate. Clim. Chang. 2020, 162, 41–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Minguez Garcia, B. Resilient Cultural Heritage: From Global to National Levels—The Case of Bhutan. DPM 2019, 29, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Aktürk, G.; Dastgerdi, A.S. Cultural Landscapes under the Threat of Climate Change: A Systematic Study of Barriers to Resilience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sun, Y.; Zhai, B.; Saierjiang, H.; Chang, H. Disaster Adaptation Evolution and Resilience Mechanisms of Traditional Rural Settlement Landscape in Xinjiang, China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 73, 102869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Oubennaceur, K.; Chokmani, K.; Lessard, F.; Gauthier, Y.; Baltazar, C.; Toussaint, J.-P. Understanding Flood Risk Perception: A Case Study from Canada. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tellman, B.; Schank, C.; Schwarz, B.; Howe, P.D.; de Sherbinin, A. Using Disaster Outcomes to Validate Components of Social Vulnerability to Floods: Flood Deaths and Property Damage across the USA. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Noorisameleh, Z.; Khaledi, S.; Shakiba, A.; Firouzabadi, P.Z.; Gough, W.A.; Qader Mirza, M.M. Comparative Evaluation of Impacts of Climate Change and Droughts on River Flow Vulnerability in Iran. Water Sci. Eng. 2020, 13, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aghapour Sabbaghi, M.; Nazari, M.; Araghinejad, S.; Soufizadeh, S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources and Agriculture in Zayandehroud River Basin in Iran. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 241, 106323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jamshidi, O.; Asadi, A.; Kalantari, K.; Azadi, H.; Scheffran, J. Vulnerability to Climate Change of Smallholder Farmers in the Hamadan Province, Iran. Clim. Risk Manag. 2019, 23, 146–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mousavi, A.; Ardalan, A.; Takian, A.; Ostadtaghizadeh, A.; Naddafi, K.; Bavani, A.M. Climate Change and Health in Iran: A Narrative Review. J. Environ. Health Sci. Eng. 2020, 18, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Béné, C.; Mehta, L.; McGranahan, G.; Cannon, T.; Gupte, J.; Tanner, T. Resilience as a Policy Narrative: Potentials and Limits in the Context of Urban Planning. Clim. Dev. 2018, 10, 116–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Crowther, M.; Lim, W.; Crowther, M.A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Methodology. Blood 2010, 116, 3140–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Kheyroddin, R. Policy Recommendations for Integrating Resilience into the Management of Cultural Landscapes. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baxter, P.; Jack, S. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. Qual. Rep. 2008, 13, 544–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cousin, G. Case Study Research. J. Geogr. High. Educ. 2005, 29, 421–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System. Available online: https://www.unesco.org/archives/multimedia/document-1041 (accessed on 11 March 2023).
  51. UNESCO. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; WHC/2/Revised; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1988; Available online: https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide88.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2022).
  52. Khuzestan Applied Meteorology Research Group Geographical and Climatic Characteristics of Khuzestan Province. Available online: http://khzmet.ir/image/climakh.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2022).
  53. UNDRR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. In Proceedings of the UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Sendai, Japan, 14–18 March 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. UNDRR. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters; Extract from the Final Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (A/CONF.206/6); The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR): Cairo, Egypt, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  55. Davoudi, S.; Shaw, K.; Haider, L.J.; Quinlan, A.E.; Peterson, G.D.; Wilkinson, C.; Fünfgeld, H.; McEvoy, D.; Porter, L.; Davoudi, S. Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead End? “Reframing” Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice Interacting Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan Urban Resilience: What Does It Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary Note: Edited by Simin Davoudi and Libby Porter. Plan. Theory Pract. 2012, 13, 299–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Béné, C.; Wood, R.G.; Newsham, A.; Davies, M. Resilience: New Utopia or New Tyranny? Reflection about the Potentials and Limits of the Concept of Resilience in Relation to Vulnerability Reduction Programmes. IDS Work. Pap. 2012, 2012, 1–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Allred, S.; DuBois, B.; Bunting-Howarth, K.; Tidball, K.; Solecki, W.D. Social-Ecological System Transformation in Jamaica Bay. In Prospects for Resilience: Insights from New York City’s Jamaica Bay; Sanderson, E.W., Solecki, W.D., Waldman, J.R., Parris, A.S., Eds.; Island Presss; Center for Resource Economics: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; pp. 43–62. ISBN 978-1-61091-734-6. [Google Scholar]
  58. Meerow, S.; Newell, J.P. Urban Resilience for Whom, What, When, Where, and Why? Urban Geogr. 2019, 40, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dornelles, A.Z.; Boyd, E.; Nunes, R.J.; Asquith, M.; Boonstra, W.J.; Delabre, I.; Denney, J.M.; Grimm, V.; Jentsch, A.; Nicholas, K.A.; et al. Towards a Bridging Concept for Undesirable Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Glob. Sustain. 2020, 3, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lin, Y.; Kelemen, M.; Tresidder, R. Post-Disaster Tourism: Building Resilience through Community-Led Approaches in the Aftermath of the 2011 Disasters in Japan. J. Sustain. Tour. 2018, 26, 1766–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Johannessen, Å.; Rosemarin, A.; Thomalla, F.; Gerger Swartling, Å.; Axel Stenström, T.; Vulturius, G. Strategies for Building Resilience to Hazards in Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) Systems: The Role of Public Private Partnerships. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2014, 10, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Cretney, R. Resilience for Whom? Emerging Critical Geographies of Socio-Ecological Resilience: Resilience of What, for Whom? Geogr. Compass 2014, 8, 627–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cote, M.; Nightingale, A.J. Resilience Thinking Meets Social Theory: Situating Social Change in Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2012, 36, 475–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zeng, X.; Yu, Y.; Yang, S.; Lv, Y.; Sarker, M.N.I. Urban Resilience for Urban Sustainability: Concepts, Dimensions, and Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vieira, J.; Poças Martins, J.; Marques de Almeida, N.; Patrício, H.; Gomes Morgado, J. Towards Resilient and Sustainable Rail and Road Networks: A Systematic Literature Review on Digital Twins. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xiong, Y.; Li, C.; Zou, M.; Xu, Q. Investigating into the Coupling and Coordination Relationship between Urban Resilience and Urbanization: A Case Study of Hunan Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tuan Hai, D.; Kim Hoang, N. Evaluating the Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with Design and Construction of Resilient Houses in Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Xu, H.; Peng, M.; Pittock, J.; Xu, J. Managing Rather Than Avoiding “Difficulties” in Building Landscape Resilience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Peyravi, M.; Peyvandi, A.A.; Khodadadi, A.; Ahmadi Marzaleh, M. Flood in the South-West of Iran in 2019; Causes, Problems, Actions and Lesson Learned. BEAT 2019, 7, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sedayeh Miras. The Flood Drowned Half of Shushtar’s Ancient Sites. 2019. Available online: https://www.sedayemiras.ir/fa_ir/8924/ (accessed on 16 March 2023).
  71. Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Sargolini, M.; Broussard Allred, S.; Chatrchyan, A.M.; Drescher, M.; DeGeer, C. Climate Change Risk Reduction in Cultural Landscapes: Insights from Cinque Terre and Waterloo. Land Use Policy 2022, 123, 106359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10433 g001 550
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Figure 1. Research methodology.
Sustainability 15 10433 g001
Sustainability 15 10433 g002 550
Figure 2. Left: The location of Shushtar city in the Khuzestan province in the southwest of Iran. Right: the map of SHHS.
Figure 2. Left: The location of Shushtar city in the Khuzestan province in the southwest of Iran. Right: the map of SHHS.
Sustainability 15 10433 g002
Sustainability 15 10433 g003 550
Figure 3. Left: The landscape design of Shushtar near the Karun River. Right: The SHHS includes a complex network of canals, dams, and watermills. Reprinted with permission from [50]. 2009, UNESCO.
Figure 3. Left: The landscape design of Shushtar near the Karun River. Right: The SHHS includes a complex network of canals, dams, and watermills. Reprinted with permission from [50]. 2009, UNESCO.
Sustainability 15 10433 g003
Sustainability 15 10433 g004 550
Figure 4. Core zone and buffer zone of the SHHS [50].
Figure 4. Core zone and buffer zone of the SHHS [50].
Sustainability 15 10433 g004
Sustainability 15 10433 g005 550
Figure 5. (a) Urban divisions of Khuzestan province. (b) The annual precipitation average of Khuzestan province, 1990–2017. (c) The average temperature of Khuzestan province, 1990–2017. Derived from [52].
Figure 5. (a) Urban divisions of Khuzestan province. (b) The annual precipitation average of Khuzestan province, 1990–2017. (c) The average temperature of Khuzestan province, 1990–2017. Derived from [52].
Sustainability 15 10433 g005
Sustainability 15 10433 g006 550
Figure 6. Evolution of DRR frameworks and progress toward the Sendai Framework.
Figure 6. Evolution of DRR frameworks and progress toward the Sendai Framework.
Sustainability 15 10433 g006
Sustainability 15 10433 g007 550
Figure 7. The 2019 flooding in the world heritage site of Shushtar. Adapted with permission from [70], 2019, Sedayeh Miras.
Figure 7. The 2019 flooding in the world heritage site of Shushtar. Adapted with permission from [70], 2019, Sedayeh Miras.
Sustainability 15 10433 g007
Sustainability 15 10433 g008 550
Figure 8. The procedure and necessary steps for developing resilient strategies in cultural landscapes.
Figure 8. The procedure and necessary steps for developing resilient strategies in cultural landscapes.
Sustainability 15 10433 g008
Table
Table 1. Common challenges for incorporating cultural landscape management within the Sendai framework.
Table 1. Common challenges for incorporating cultural landscape management within the Sendai framework.
ChallengeCritiqueLiterature
What? Resilience—from what and to what?Problems in defining resilience are common, such as when the three components of resilience (resistance, adaptability, and transformability) are seen as incompatible.[55,56]
Whom? various players place varying values on various types of resilienceWho decides what is deemed desirable? Who is included, and who is not?[57,58,59]
Why? Providing a clear reason for doing somethingWhy is it important to develop resilience, and what drives this pursuit?[60,61]
How? A strategy that is both explicit and straightforward must be developed.Due to a lack of direction, it is not easy to increase resilience.[16,62]
When? Timeliness in building resilienceTo be resilient from when exactly? A thousand years ago, ten years ago, or right now? Taking precautions today to ensure stability may impair the team’s ability to respond to emerging challenges.[63,64]
Where? Limits for resiliency settingIndeterminate scaling up or down. For instance, in what geographical context are we speaking? The local area, the city, the state, the nation, or the globe?[65,66,67]
Table
Table 2. Several ways in which dams might exacerbate flood damage.
Table 2. Several ways in which dams might exacerbate flood damage.
The Adverse Effects of a DamDescription
Overwhelming the damIn the event of an extreme flood, the amount of water flowing into a reservoir may exceed the dam’s storage capacity, leading to overflow or even dam failure. This can result in severe flooding downstream.
Altering the river ecosystemDams can disrupt the natural flow of rivers, leading to changes in water temperature, sediment transport, and fish migration patterns. It can negatively affect aquatic ecosystems and the species that depend on them.
Risk of upstream floodingThe construction of a dam can lead to the creation of a large reservoir upstream. In the event of heavy rainfall or other factors that increase water levels, the risk of flooding upstream of the dam can increase.
Reducing sediment flowDams can trap sediment behind them, leading to erosion and other adverse effects downstream. It can impact riverbanks, wildlife habitats, and even agricultural lands.
Displacement of communitiesBuilding a dam can require the displacement of communities living in the area that will be flooded. It can lead to the loss of homes, livelihoods, and cultural heritage.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Kheyroddin, R. Building Resilience in Cultural Landscapes: Exploring the Role of Transdisciplinary and Participatory Planning in the Recovery of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310433

AMA Style

Shirvani Dastgerdi A, Kheyroddin R. Building Resilience in Cultural Landscapes: Exploring the Role of Transdisciplinary and Participatory Planning in the Recovery of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310433

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shirvani Dastgerdi, Ahmadreza, and Reza Kheyroddin. 2023. "Building Resilience in Cultural Landscapes: Exploring the Role of Transdisciplinary and Participatory Planning in the Recovery of the Shushtar Historical Hydraulic System" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10433. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310433

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop