**4. Results**

### *4.1. Pre-Coding Analysis: Frequency of Mentions to 'Climate Change' in State of Conservation Reports*

This section presents the results of the two pre-coding dimensions, frequency of mentions within SOC reports and SOC reports' general information (dimensions one and two in Table 1) and the correlation between their related items.

Although climate change risks to WH areas are acknowledged in the list of factors threatening properties (https://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/), our analysis showed that the term 'climate change' by itself was mentioned only 103 times within SOC reports in the period 2000–2019 (Figure 1). Mentions of climate change began appearing in 2000 and although these were not constant increased over time. The year 2017 had the highest number of mentions (n = 16), whereas 2002 and 2004 indicated no mentions. Mentions were observed referring to climate change as a general factor affecting the conservation of properties and rarely correlated to specific natural phenomena. The slow but increasing number of mentions across reports suggests that at the local level, climate change is still in an early identification stage within the WH system.

**Figure 1.** Timeline of total mentions (n = 103) of 'climate change' between 2000 and 2019.

Currently, 1121 properties are included in the WH List. Among these, 77.5% (869) are cultural properties, 19% (213) are natural properties, and 3.5% (39) are mixed properties. Only 574 of these properties have been discussed to date by the WHC and reported on in SOC reports. Similar to the distribution of categories on the WH List, cultural properties led the discussion on SOC reports on all negative impacts as it concerned the conservation of WH properties (68.5%, n = 393), followed by natural properties at 27% (n = 153) and 5% (n = 28) for mixed properties. This study found that the 103 mentions to climate change were discussed as having an impact on 64 properties, corresponding to 6% of all WH properties on the list and 11% of properties discussed in SOC reports. However, the analysis found that natural properties took the lead in the debate on climate change impacts on OUV. Approximately 80% of the total mentions of climate change were made by natural properties, followed by cultural properties at 14%. Mixed properties discussed climate change the least (6%) (see Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Comparison between total World Heritage (WH) properties and properties in State of Conservation reports discussing climate change.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of WH properties discussing climate change, as well as the percentage of mentions of climate change issues per UNESCO geographical region. The analysis of the geographical distribution of mentions to climate change showed that Asia and the Pacific (APA) reported on climate change the most, followed by Europe (EUR), Africa (AFR), Latin America, and the Caribbean (LAC) and Arab States (ARA). However, the number of WH properties being a ffected by climate change showed a slight change in regional order, where APA and AFR accounted for a major number (17 properties), followed by EUR with 16 properties, LAC with 11 and, finally, ARA with only three properties.

**Figure 3.** Distribution of WH properties discussing climate change (in %) and total references to climate change (cc) per The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) geographical area.

### *4.2. Post-Coding Analysis: The Context of Mentions and Landscape-Based Conservation Principles*

This section discusses the results of summative post-coding dimensions three and four in Table 1. Relationships between the relevant years of SOC reports (dimension one, item one in Table 1) were employed to present the evolution of post-coding items over time. Post-coding dimension three, contexts of mentions, identified expression of concerns as the predominant context in which climate change was discussed, with 47.6% of all mentions. The second type of mentions identified the implementation of actions and measures (31%) presented by State Parties to the WH Centre. Rehabilitation activities and maintenance works, including concrete descriptions of actions such as the extension of boundaries and other adaptive interventions, were the most frequently mentioned measures. The final group corresponded to recommendations (21.4%) made by the WH Centre and advisory bodies to State Parties during the WHCOM; these commonly focused on further steps for managemen<sup>t</sup> and conservation improvements. An overview of the evolution of context of mentions is shown in Figure 4. Specific examples across WH categories are discussed and illustrated in the following section.

**Figure 4.** Mentions di fferentiated according to context (coding dimension 3).

Results from the post-coding analysis corresponding to dimension four in Table 1, landscape-based conservation principles, revealed the most pressing issue as a lack of evidence of climate change impacts on OUV (37.4% of all mentions) (Figure 5). This principle highlights the role of monitoring and documentation tools for informing managemen<sup>t</sup> actions and conservation measures. The second principle, adaptation measures, was observed in roughly one third of all SOC reports (36.7%). This principle concerned the availability of systemic measures to address the impacts of climate change. Mentions discussing issues of landscape governance were in third place (18%). This referred to the

inclusion of heritage conservation at wider strategic and operational levels as a means for responding to climate change, particularly acknowledging policies, strategies, and the coordination of different managemen<sup>t</sup> sectors. Finally, landscape scale was the least-discussed principle (8%) and focused on the upscaling of conservation activities beyond WH property boundaries; the principle was also discussed in relation to socioeconomic context and other environmental or physical aspects pertaining to where properties were located.

**Figure 5.** Mentions identified as landscape-based conservation principles (coding dimension 4).

The summative of post-coding dimensions that classify the types of mentions of climate change proved that these became more elaborated over time in taxonomic terms. This can be seen by the increase of concurrences of post-coding items over time. During the period 2009 to 2012, a peak in mentions of natural properties was observed to correlate with more than one item from landscape-based conservation principles and context of mentions. A second peak in correlations was observed from 2017 to 2019. In both periods, natural properties were found to be predominant; in the most recent period, however, cultural properties became more visible (see Figures 4 and 5). Latest discussions were more likely to include several items of post-coding dimensions three and four than earliest mentions. As such, these included the recognition of measures implemented by State Parties together with expressed concerns and provided recommendations. Additionally, each context of mentions could be linked to one or more landscape-based conservation principles. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that discussions on climate change are becoming more comprehensive regarding managemen<sup>t</sup> practices. This is further explained in the next section. A general summary of findings is shown in Appendix A.

### *4.3. Relationships between Post-Coding Dimensions*

In this section, we present the results of the relationship analysis between post-coding dimensions in hierarchical order. Here, post-coding dimension four, landscape-based principles, as well as related items aligned under items of post-coding dimension three, contexts of mentions.

Figure 6 indicates that the most frequent correlations between post-coding dimensions linked concerns (post-coding item 3.1) with adaptation measures (post-coding item 4.4). Examples of these mentions include common petitioning from the WHCOM to State Parties to reduce the impacts of previously identified threats (e.g., pollution, natural phenomena, natural resources depletion) that had been observed as exacerbated by climate change, and that may potentially increase a property's vulnerability. This situation suggests a lack of managemen<sup>t</sup> and conservation strategies for reducing the vulnerability of WH properties to climate change, particularly to environmental risks. Following on closely, post-coding item 3.1, expression of concerns, correlated to post-coding item 4.2, evidence of climate change impacts. Considering that WH properties are requested to implement their own monitoring and documentation processes, related mentions highlighted a lack of adequate methods

for documentation, data collection, and for assessing the impacts of climate change on properties' OUV as a means for informing and supporting the prioritisation of actions. It was observed that these mentions often lack a definition of the type of threat and how it is related to climate change; for example, an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of natural phenomena, or the transformation of environmental settings as stated in projections for particular local contexts, etc. Finally, concerns (item 3.1) showed the least correlation to post-coding items 4.3 and 4.1, landscape scale and landscape governance, respectively. These groups of mentions focused on understanding properties' components and conservation actions within a larger physical scope and included the involvement of a broader range of actors; for example, the consideration of WH properties at higher policy and managemen<sup>t</sup> levels that targeted climate change. Examples of mentions found correlating dimension three, one, and dimension four per WH category are shown in the Table 2 item.

**Figure 6.** Illustrates the summative assessment of post-coding dimensions three and four.

The second group of correlations between post-coding dimensions, as shown in Figure 6, found an increasing recognition of implementation of measures primarily responding to the need for gathering evidence of the impacts of climate change on WH properties (post-coding items 3.3 and 4.2). More comprehensive monitoring programs and assessment studies are mentioned as requirements within the framework of studies and conservation programs that are primarily undertaken by an entity external to the national party and local managemen<sup>t</sup> officials. Following on closely was the frequency of mentions for subgroups involving correlations between implementations of corrective measures (post-coding item 4.4) and landscape governance (post-coding item 4.3). These two categories are related because rehabilitation and maintenance activities are often strengthened at higher strategic and managemen<sup>t</sup> levels; for example, for natural properties, such actions aim at maintaining OUV related to biodiversity. In cultural heritage, actions may include developing new protective infrastructures that can facilitate WH adaptation to climate change. These include considerations for heritage conservation in the form of strategic managemen<sup>t</sup> and development plans applied at a broader territorial level in which heritage is embedded. The least frequent mention in this group (see Figure 6) correlated implementations with post-coding item 4.4, landscape scale. Related actions included the extension of WH properties' boundaries and the implementation of transboundary studies (e.g., the Great Himalayan National Park Conservation Area and the overall approach to the waterfront in the Historic Inner City of Paramaribo). Examples of this group are shown in Table 3.

The third group of correlations (Figure 6) corresponded to recommendations (post-coding item 3.2) made by the WHC to State Parties regarding climate change managemen<sup>t</sup> and measures (post-coding item 4.4), followed by regular maintenance and adaptive managemen<sup>t</sup> measures supported by enhanced monitoring tools and the involvement of wider governance levels (post-coding items 4.2 and 4.3). A final correlation represented acting in collaboration with other sectors for reducing threats and pressures that increased properties' vulnerability to climate change (post-coding item 4.1). Table 4 shows examples of this group of mentions.


**Table 2.** Summary of main findings per WH category.


**Table 3.** Example of analysis implementations (item 3.2) and landscape conservation principles (dimension four).


*Climate* **2020**, *8*, 39

### **5. Discussion and Conclusions**

This study provided an overview of how climate change is discussed within the WH monitoring system (SOC reports). The reliability of this monitoring tool is often challenged by politicised clashes between State Parties, the WH Centre, and advisory bodies. Despite such limitations, this research revealed that progress has been made in terms of recognising climate change as a threat to WH properties. However, addressing this issue has not ye<sup>t</sup> been su fficiently integrated within the monitoring system. Only 64 (6%) of all WH properties mentioned climate change in SOC reports. Among WH categories, natural heritage leads the discussion on climate change. This is explained by the fact that their OUV is based on environmental characteristics that are directly a ffected by climate change [77,78]. Although cultural heritage properties have gained visibility in recent years, the number of both cultural and mixed properties are unlikely to reflect the reality of current climate challenges worldwide. This is particularly true when considering the increasing number of literature on climate risks and vulnerability assessments [18].

In this study, we identified four principles of landscape-based approaches used as a response to climate change challenges for the conservation of natural, cultural and mixed properties mentioned in SOC reports. These principles were observed predominantly as concerns expressed by the WHCOM regarding the need for adaptive measures and for gathering evidence that is more consistent regarding the impacts of climatic factors on the OUV of properties. Additionally, monitoring and evidence-based managemen<sup>t</sup> are increasingly being requested. This suggests that monitoring tools requested by the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the WHC (and as part of the process for a property to be nominated with WH status) are likely insu fficient for assessing the complexity of climate change in relation to WH conservation.

Conservation using a landscape approach provides considerable room for action regarding collaborative strategies among governance and managerial sectors at the local level. Our results showed that both the upscaling of conservation activities in its wider context, as well as partnerships among di fferent sectoral and governance sectors, can benefit from additional exploration in the context of climate change solutions. Our analysis also identified that a clarification is required regarding two aspects of what is being monitored and reported as 'climate change' in SOC reports. The first aspect refers to the identification of threats resulting from climate change, e.g., the increase in frequency and/or intensity of given natural phenomena. The second aspect refers to the transformation of environmental settings as part of the earth's natural processes related to climate change. Di fferentiation in the reporting and monitoring of such situational aspects raises two very di fferent challenges for the conservation discipline. Increasing natural phenomena and their related risks challenge local managerial capacities and calls for adaptation strategies and risk preparedness. Furthermore, the transformation of the planet's physical environment can (and should) lead to deeper questioning of the paradigm behind the conservation discipline. According to Solli et al. [79], 'The more fundamental (almost existential) question is what will climate change do to the concept of heritage and our way of expressing scientific narratives about the past?'

We conclude that landscape approaches require additional study not only for the managemen<sup>t</sup> of WH properties but also for the expansion of heritage conceptualisations. Climate change makes evident the need for deeper connections between cultural and natural values. Thus, heritage understandings should be expanded to include local, regional and/or State significance, and into the relationships between nature and culture. In this sense, developing a common understanding of what constitutes anthropogenic climate change and its associated impacts, including how these can be reduced through feasible climate adaptation actions for both natural and cultural properties, may serve as a crucial first step in improving the monitoring of WH properties. As highlighted in existing research [49,80], a new or revised operationalisation of the limits of acceptable change, without losing heritage values, is crucial for the climate adaptation of WH properties. However, this responsibility should not fall solely on the UNESCO WH system. Rather, it should be undertaken primarily by State Parties as part of their own agendas on mitigation and adaptation to climate change. For policymakers, the exploration and implementation of landscape-based managemen<sup>t</sup> approaches can advance the adaptation and strengthening of WH multi-scale governance systems. This can foster the operationalisation of local sustainable goals that can integrate heritage values, while also enhancing good governance practices.

Furthermore, adapting comparative methods such as those used by qualitative datasets for policy analysis [81] can help to uncover useful pathways for UNESCO agendas. For example, using the concept of saliency can retrospectively reconstruct policy agendas, compare agendas over time, enable scholars to reconstruct relative attention to all issues on an agenda, and benefit the monitoring system with a more transparent and systematic analysis for all WH properties. This will allow for embedding WH contexts within larger environmental and political processes of climate adaptation and mitigation.

In the meantime, UNESCO is presently updating its climate change policy for WH properties (see https://whc.unesco.org/en/climatechange/). The updated policy is expected to promote preventive and proactive measures for implementation by State Parties in order to strengthen the resilience of cultural and natural WH properties. The landscape principles discussed in this paper can serve as a basis for addressing the gaps in practice and knowledge related to the climate change managemen<sup>t</sup> of WH properties and address related impacts through actions for adaptation and mitigation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, P.G.; revisions and refinement of methodology, S.F. and M.I.; validation, S.F. and M.I.; formal analysis, P.G.; resources, all authors; data curation, P.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.G.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, P.G.; project administration, P.G.; funding acquisition, NIKU. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the Research Council of Norway [160010/F40].

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
