Effects of Climate-Related Adaptation and Mitigation Measures on Nordic Cultural Heritage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I enjoyed very much the issues raised in this manuscript concerning the complexities of adaptation/mitigation solutions regarding CC impacts on CH.  They describe the way forward by addressing how interdisclinary work can be carried out to address the CH needs.  The examples provided concerning the energy solutions in the Nordic countries is very timely for the current world situation.  I consider this manuscript to provide a very important contribution to the field and should be published. It is very well written, and well thought out.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind assessment of our manuscript

Reviewer 2 Report

1.     Summary

This article provides a broad and clear picture of the damage that solutions against climate change can cause to the cultural and natural heritage in four Northern European countries. It also suggests and discusses possible ways for preventing heritage from being jeopardized by these solutions.

To do so, the authors applied a multidisciplinary approach and a methodology including different types of activities, from bibliographic research to interviews and workshops at the national and international levels.

The actors considered range from the academic world to (and above all) local communities, land owners and companies, passing for policymakers and local authorities.

The results have been declined according to themes/problems which are illustrated through specific examples. These results were then discussed by identifying three main problems, namely lack of interdisciplinary environment, limited use of culture-nature based solutions and the inefficient application of new energy supply systems.

2.     Major issues and suggestions

- General comment: Few parallels with extra Nordic countries. The authors consider in some cases the Netherlands and France and in only one case Switzerland, Spain and Italy. Are we sure that possible solutions for mitigating the issue that the cultural heritage of Nordic countries is facing can be mostly found in those same countries?

This issue is also connected to the bibliography. Indeed, references from case studies in the four Nordic countries and outside them as somewhat limited.

 - Lines 142-167: To my knowledge, in articles using interviews and semi-qualitative/qualitative assessments as methodology, more details are provided (either in the text or as supplementary materials) on the type of questions asked.

 - Line 251: “We also believe that it is more important in this context to focus on the measured and experienced effects that climate change and climate change adaptation and mitigation have on heritage sites and landscapes rather than the reasons for these changes. Changes occur and need to be remedied now.”

This sounds a bit risky concept. While I acknowledge that it is important to focus on the remedies, without understanding the reasons that caused these effects we will keep on facing them through time, while by also understanding the deep reasons behind them we will be able to address the issues/reason from their inception. Moreover, by supporting this concept, the ultimate risk is to suggest that the entire field of cultural heritage risk assessment would seem useless. I suggest the authors to better explain their arguments.

-  Conclusion: These must absolutely be expanded. At the moment they are mainly summarizing the results and the points touched on in the discussion. For example, it would be very useful to understand more in detail the possible following steps and future long-term perspectives.

3.     Minor issues and suggestions

- Lines 32-35: “ The global average temperature is rising, and according to results from recent research, climate change is already affecting weather and climate systems in all regions of the globe, which will have enormous additional consequences for ecosystems around the world.”

Which research? Please quote.

 - Lines 36-40: While the introduction thoroughly explains the recent developments and practical actions undertaken by international institutions, it lacks of providing a complete picture of the theories that led to the current situation and for which institutions like the UN or ICOMOS are seeking solutions. In fact, the authors only briefly mention that: (lines 36-40) “… a clear acceleration of processes, including increase of air and sea temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise and loss of inland ice and glacier mass, shows that the climate is changing faster over the last 30-40 years than what natural causes alone can explain.” There is much more to say than this. For example, some shared theories state that the period indicated could be longer. For example, according to a growing number of publications (see below) these processes started at least as early as the 1950s as a result of the Great Acceleration which may ultimately be the onset of the Anthropocene. The author should take this important debate into account.

Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney and C. Ludwig 2015 The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Review 2: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Steffen, W., & Lambin, E. (2004). Earth system functioning in the Anthropocene: Human impacts on the global environment. Interactions Between Global Change and Human Health. Scripta Varia, 106, 112-144.

- Fig. 1 is nice but a bit vague. As any figure should be stand-alone, I suggest for example, to explicit the initial topics and the resulting themes

- Line 350-353: “Proposed measures are therefore a Nordic knowledge bank, collection of examples and a Nordic network of professionals. The focus should be on assessing the use of traditional materials and implementing environmentally friendly quality materials.” This is an important and interesting idea. It reminds me of the Traditional Knowledge World Bank http://www.tkwb.org/w/index.php/Main_Page. Could the authors provide more details about this?

- Lines 476-477: “Good solution for safeguarding cultural heritage when rebuilding or expanding existing facilities is to enable a more frequent and closer collaboration between the cultural environment authorities and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) and similar authorities in the other countries…” In the case of dams, the 2000 report of the World Commission on Dams emphasized the necessity for creating ad-hoc protocols (or a specific ISO) for protecting archaeological heritage in the case of dams’ construction. This could be a powerful tool in the hands of heritage management authorities to protect historical places, especially considering that the authors recognize how the construction of new hydroplants in Norway was done “with decreased regulatory rules as an attempt to increase local power production. However, this has resulted in reduced protection of both cultural and natural heritage.” Very little research has been conducted in this regard:

Brandt, S.; Hassan, F. (Eds.) Dams and Cultural Heritage Management; World Commission on Dams: Cape Town, South Africa, 2000.

Zaina, F., & Tapete, D. (2022). Satellite-Based Methodology for Purposes of Rescue Archaeology of Cultural Heritage Threatened by Dam Construction Remote Sensing, 14(4), 1009.

Lines 674-688 I believe it is important for the authors to specify that this paper focuses on the mitigation of the possible damage caused to cultural heritage by solutions for climate change and not on the potential role of cultural heritage in mitigating climate change. This concept is briefly in lines 674-688 in connection with the UNESCO report on CBS in the Netherlands as well as in the conclusion. I suggest better clarifying this point from the very beginning because here and there this distinction and the specific focus of this paper are not fully clear. In the case of lines 674-688, I would suggest mentioning the fact that the importance of traditional crafts for fighting climate change has been recognized by some recent Horizon Europe calls and by the ICOMOS-IFLA convention:

ICOMOS-IFLA (2017) Principles Concerning Rural Landscape as Heritage.                     Paris, ICOMOS.

5. Final opinion

So, in general, I think this is a valuable work worthy of being published after these minor corrections. I also believe that once published it will be a useful tool for reflecting on a subject that has not yet been studied, guiding the future decision-makers.

Author Response

- General comment: Few parallels with extra Nordic countries. The authors consider in some cases the Netherlands and France and in only one case Switzerland, Spain and Italy. Are we sure that possible solutions for mitigating the issue that the cultural heritage of Nordic countries is facing can be mostly found in those same countries?

Yes, we believe that to be the case. On a global scale, there are likely more parallels, but none of which we feel confident as of now

This issue is also connected to the bibliography. Indeed, references from case studies in the four Nordic countries and outside them as somewhat limited.

We have stated from the title onwards that this is a Nordic study, and as the topic is new, there is not a lot of literature on any of the themes or topics. It is a deliberate decision on our part to limit our statements and opinions to areas with which we are familiar

 - Lines 142-167: To my knowledge, in articles using interviews and semi-qualitative/qualitative assessments as methodology, more details are provided (either in the text or as supplementary materials) on the type of questions asked.

Thank you for the comment. We’ve made a supplementary note on the semi-structural interviews showing topics we discussed.

 - Line 251: “We also believe that it is more important in this context to focus on the measured and experienced effects that climate change and climate change adaptation and mitigation have on heritage sites and landscapes rather than the reasons for these changes. Changes occur and need to be remedied now.”

This sounds a bit risky concept. While I acknowledge that it is important to focus on the remedies, without understanding the reasons that caused these effects we will keep on facing them through time, while by also understanding the deep reasons behind them we will be able to address the issues/reason from their inception. Moreover, by supporting this concept, the ultimate risk is to suggest that the entire field of cultural heritage risk assessment would seem useless. I suggest the authors to better explain their arguments.

We partly disagree with the reviewer. Too often the discussion gets side-tracked by the root causes of the changes. It is not that we do not agree that the root causes must be treated as well, but we see an urgency in the remedies that can’t wait until the other aspects are solved. We disagree that this makes heritage risk assessment useless, but we have expanded our reasoning.

-  Conclusion: These must absolutely be expanded. At the moment they are mainly summarizing the results and the points touched on in the discussion. For example, it would be very useful to understand more in detail the possible following steps and future long-term perspectives.

We would also like to know more about long-term effects of our suggestions, but as implementation is happening now or in the future, that will be mostly theoretic. However, we are happy to explain this. 

3. Minor issues and suggestions

- Lines 32-35: “The global average temperature is rising, and according to results from recent research, climate change is already affecting weather and climate systems in all regions of the globe, which will have enormous additional consequences for ecosystems around the world.”

Which research? Please quote.

We have added references here.

 - Lines 36-40: While the introduction thoroughly explains the recent developments and practical actions undertaken by international institutions, it lacks of providing a complete picture of the theories that led to the current situation and for which institutions like the UN or ICOMOS are seeking solutions. In fact, the authors only briefly mention that: (lines 36-40) “… a clear acceleration of processes, including increase of air and sea temperatures, extreme weather events, sea level rise and loss of inland ice and glacier mass, shows that the climate is changing faster over the last 30-40 years than what natural causes alone can explain.” There is much more to say than this. For example, some shared theories state that the period indicated could be longer. For example, according to a growing number of publications (see below) these processes started at least as early as the 1950s as a result of the Great Acceleration which may ultimately be the onset of the Anthropocene. The author should take this important debate into account.

Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney and C. Ludwig 2015 The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthropocene Review 2: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785

Steffen, W., & Lambin, E. (2004). Earth system functioning in the Anthropocene: Human impacts on the global environment. Interactions Between Global Change and Human Health. Scripta Varia, 106, 112-144.

We’ll include these references and expand on the debate, though we do not necessarily agree with the reviewer on definition of the Anthropocene.

- Fig. 1 is nice but a bit vague. As any figure should be stand-alone, I suggest for example, to explicit the initial topics and the resulting themes

We disagree with the reviewer on this and would prefer to keep it as it is. It is an illustration of the methodology, independent on what the exact themes and topics may have been. These are presented in the supplementary material.

- Line 350-353: “Proposed measures are therefore a Nordic knowledge bank, collection of examples and a Nordic network of professionals. The focus should be on assessing the use of traditional materials and implementing environmentally friendly quality materials.” This is an important and interesting idea. It reminds me of the Traditional Knowledge World Bank http://www.tkwb.org/w/index.php/Main_Page. Could the authors provide more details about this?

Thank you for including this reference. We will include some lines on how the TKWB is relevant for this matter.  

- Lines 476-477: “Good solution for safeguarding cultural heritage when rebuilding or expanding existing facilities is to enable a more frequent and closer collaboration between the cultural environment authorities and the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE) and similar authorities in the other countries…” In the case of dams, the 2000 report of the World Commission on Dams emphasized the necessity for creating ad-hoc protocols (or a specific ISO) for protecting archaeological heritage in the case of dams’ construction. This could be a powerful tool in the hands of heritage management authorities to protect historical places, especially considering that the authors recognize how the construction of new hydroplants in Norway was done “with decreased regulatory rules as an attempt to increase local power production. However, this has resulted in reduced protection of both cultural and natural heritage.” Very little research has been conducted in this regard:

Brandt, S.; Hassan, F. (Eds.) Dams and Cultural Heritage Management; World Commission on Dams: Cape Town, South Africa, 2000.

Zaina, F., & Tapete, D. (2022). Satellite-Based Methodology for Purposes of Rescue Archaeology of Cultural Heritage Threatened by Dam Construction Remote Sensing, 14(4), 1009.

Thanks for your excellent input, we have included these references.

Lines 674-688 I believe it is important for the authors to specify that this paper focuses on the mitigation of the possible damage caused to cultural heritage by solutions for climate change and not on the potential role of cultural heritage in mitigating climate change. This concept is briefly in lines 674-688 in connection with the UNESCO report on CBS in the Netherlands as well as in the conclusion. I suggest better clarifying this point from the very beginning because here and there this distinction and the specific focus of this paper are not fully clear. In the case of lines 674-688, I would suggest mentioning the fact that the importance of traditional crafts for fighting climate change has been recognized by some recent Horizon Europe calls and by the ICOMOS-IFLA convention:

ICOMOS-IFLA (2017) Principles Concerning Rural Landscape as Heritage. Paris, ICOMOS.

We have tried to clarify, and we do believe that both damage caused by climate change itself and damage caused by climate mitigation measures are important issues – we have just chosen to focus on the latter. We have included the reference to the landscape convention as well.

5. Final opinion

So, in general, I think this is a valuable work worthy of being published after these minor corrections. I also believe that once published it will be a useful tool for reflecting on a subject that has not yet been studied, guiding the future decision-makers.

Thank you for your input and your assessment.