Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Reconceptualising the relationships between heritage and environment within an Earth System Science framework

Journal: Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Manuscript ID JCHMSD-08-2019-0099

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

cultural heritage, natural heritage, environment, holistic, co-creation, Keywords: systems thinking

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 1 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 1 Article type: Viewpoint 4 5 6 7 2 Reconceptualising the relationships between heritage and 8 9 10 3 environment within an Earth System Science framework 11 12 13 4 Abstract 14 15 16 17 5 Purpose: This paper questions the common perception within heritage science that the 18 19 6 environment is seen primarily as a risk factor that can change or impact heritage. This paper 20 21 7 reconceptualises the relationship between heritage and the environment within an Earth 22 23 8 System Science Framework, enabling a more sustainable approach for understanding and 24 25 9 conserving heritage sites to be implemented. 26 27 28 10 Design/methodology/approach: To explore the relationship between heritage and the 29 30 11 environment, this paper considers how perceptions of the environment within heritage 31 32 12 science have been shaped in response to the conservation challenges facing movable 33 34 13 heritage. Furthermore, as heritage encompasses a wide array of immovable buildings and 35 36 37 14 sites whose relationships with the environment are complex and nuanced, this paper 38 39 15 premises that the environment cannot be considered separately from heritage as it is 40 41 16 intrinsically related by: i) providing components of heritage; ii) modifying heritage; iii) being 42 43 17 modified by heritage; iv) adding to heritage value and v) acting as a co-creator of heritage. 44 45 46 18 Findings: This paper proposes that heritage science should learn from, and work within, the 47 48 19 well-established Earth System Science framework. This enables interactions and feedbacks 49 50 20 between heritage and components of the environment to be explored across a range of 51 52 21 scales. 53 54 55 22 Practical implications: This systems-based approach allows heritage science to consider 56 57 58 23 the environment more holistically and sustainably within its research and practice and better 59 60 24 equips it to conserve movable and immovable heritage in the Anthropocene.

Submitted to JCHMSD 1 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 2 of 15

1 2 3 25 Originality/value: This paper provides a novel approach for viewing the relationship 4 5 26 between heritage and the environment by using a well-established framework from other 6 7 27 highly interdisciplinary fields. 8 9 10 11 28 Key words: cultural heritage; natural heritage; environment; holistic; co-creation; 12 13 29 systems thinking 14 15 16 30 1. Introduction 17 18 19 31 Heritage science is an emerging field that aims to improve interpretation, conservation, 20 21 32 engagement with, and sustainable long-term management of natural and cultural heritage 22 23 33 through scientific research (National Heritage Science Forum, 2018; Strlič, 2018). It is an 24 25 34 inherently multidisciplinary field that builds upon conservation science, focuses on scientific 26 27 35 approaches to the conservation of cultural heritage, fits within the broader remit of heritage 28 29 36 studies, and engages widely with several disciplines. Cultural heritage includes physical 30 31 manifestations that UNESCO defines as being significant to the archaeology, architecture, 32 37 33 34 38 science or technology of a specific culture (UNESCO, 2017) while natural heritage refers to 35 36 39 geological, biological and geomorphological features and landscapes that people value. 37 38 39 40 As a relatively young field, heritage science is rapidly emerging and developing its identity 40 41 41 within academic and policy/practice contexts. The need for a sustainable approach to 42 43 42 conservation has been widely recognised (e.g. CHCfE Consortium, 2015) but currently, the 44 45 43 development of ideas in heritage science has been primarily driven by the ethical and 46 47 44 practical considerations surrounding movable cultural heritage (Kennedy, 2015; Viñas, 48 49 45 2002). This has resulted in heritage being abstracted from its surroundings as something 50 51 46 that must be protected. In this framework, ‘the environment’ is often perceived as a factor 52 53 54 47 that can change or impact heritage and poses a risk (e.g. European Commission, 2014 p.5) 55 56 48 – it should therefore be mitigated through intervention such as preventive conservation 57 58 49 (Lucchi, 2018). Within a moveable heritage context (e.g. museums, galleries), these 59 60 50 mitigation strategies are typically implemented as external controls—such as heating,

Submitted to JCHMSD 2 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 3 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 51 ventilation, and cooling (HVAC) systems—and barriers (e.g. display cases) implemented in 4 5 52 the storage and presentation of heritage. However, immovable cultural heritage (such as 6 7 53 buildings and archaeological sites) and natural heritage, which are not feasibly removed 8 9 10 54 from their settings without significant intervention, also need to be considered, resulting in 11 12 55 the need for an on-going dialogue to recognise and explore the complex and dynamic 13 14 56 relationship between heritage and the environment (Bridgewater and Rotherham, 2019; 15 16 57 Wells, 2019). 17 18 19 58 We propose a new, more sustainable, vision for heritage science based on a clearly 20 21 59 articulated relationship between heritage and the environment which would underpin 22 23 60 heritage science theory and practice. We believe this reconceptualization of heritage science 24 25 61 draws attention to the multifaceted relationships between heritage and environment and, in 26 27 62 part, responds to Strlič’s call for an understanding of heritage ecologies which he argues 28 29 provide “a comprehensive model of the relationships between heritage and its physical and 30 63 31 32 64 social environments [which] would enable a greater understanding of how heritage is 33 34 65 created, and what (as well as how and for how long) is to be preserved” (Strlič, 2018 35 36 66 p.7261). 37 38 39 67 We discuss the implications of this reconceptualization by suggesting an alignment of 40 41 68 heritage science with Earth System Science would help advance key areas within the 42 43 69 discipline which Strlič also identifies including “the knowledge of multimodal material– 44 45 70 environment interactions, as well an understanding of how value and benefits are created, 46 47 71 exploited, transferred, or lost.” (Strlič, 2018 p.7261). Furthermore, an improved ability to 48 49 72 characterise the nature of relationships with stakeholders within wider heritage communities 50 51 52 73 could reduce the ‘implementation gap’ (Dillon et al., 2014) between science and its 53 54 74 application to policy and practice by providing a more holistic understanding of heritage. 55 56 57 75 2. Heritage within the Earth system 58 59 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 3 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 4 of 15

1 2 3 76 It has long been established that the value and authenticity of heritage is influenced by its 4 5 77 location and setting (e.g. Pendlebury et al., 2009). However, within heritage science, the 6 7 78 importance of the environment has often been reduced to being considered as a risk. This 8 9 10 79 perception of the environment as a hazard or a potential source of danger has even been 11 12 80 the case when heritage buildings and sites have been viewed within their surroundings 13 14 81 (Degrigny et al., 2019). We strongly oppose this simplification and thus premise the 15 16 82 following: 17 18 19 20 83 Premise 21 22 23 84 Heritage cannot be considered and valued separately from the environment. 24 25 26 85 In the following sections we articulate five specific and interlinked aspects of this premise. 27 28 29 86 2.1. Environment as a component of heritage 30 31 32 87 Heritage cannot be considered and valued separately from the environment as all heritage is 33 34 formed of components that use resources directly or indirectly sourced from the 35 88 36 37 89 environment. Environment is found as a component of heritage across a very wide range of 38 39 90 scales across a spectrum from making a minor contributor to a heritage object to being 40 41 91 instrumental to an entire site and its setting. Geological materials like natural stone, can be 42 43 92 transferred from the environment into a cultural heritage context as a building material. Other 44 45 93 resources from the environment can undergo significant processing during production 46 47 94 resulting in new types of materials such as lime mortar and Portland cement. Although these 48 49 95 materials may seem more removed from the environment, the characteristics of the final 50 51 96 product are still influenced by the properties of the original material. 52 53 54 97 Today, the coexistence of natural and cultural components is ubiquitous. This has been 55 56 57 98 widely recognised in the designation of some UNESCO sites as ‘cultural landscapes’ 58 59 99 (Rössler, 2006). The environment inherently provides both the setting and the context for 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 4 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 5 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 100 heritage sites. This can fundamentally affect how heritage is initially situated within the 4 5 101 landscape. For example, the location of standing stones at Machrie Moor, on the Isle of 6 7 102 Arran in Scotland, is dependent on: i) the topography of the landscape, as the stones have 8 9 10 103 been located on a flatter area to maximise the distance of visibility, and ii) the coincidence of 11 12 104 the configuration of standing stones during the midsummer solstice with the intersection of 13 14 105 adjacent hills (Barnatt and Pierpoint, 1983). The importance of the environment as a 15 16 106 component of natural heritage is even more obvious as natural heritage is, by definition, 17 18 107 largely made up of geological and biological materials. 19 20 21 108 2.2 Environment as modifying heritage 22 23 24 109 As is well known, environmental factors modify and pose risks to heritage through, for 25 26 110 example, air pollution affects historic limestone buildings through the reaction of sulphur 27 28 111 dioxide with the carbonate stone to produce gypsum encrustations. These crusts, which are 29 30 often black because of the inclusion of carbonaceous particles (soot), can damage the 31 112 32 33 113 underlying stonework, look unsightly and require often expensive conservation treatment 34 35 114 and removal. Viewing the environment as a modifier of heritage, rather than a risk to 36 37 115 heritage, decouples values associated with heritage from the physical change. This enables 38 39 116 the use of damage functions (Strlič et al., 2013) that represent unacceptable change. They 40 41 117 combine representations of value (including acceptable use and fit for purpose) with dose- 42 43 118 response functions of physical change that characterise the relationship between the 44 45 119 environment and heritage. At a larger scale, recent ocean acidification linked to climate 46 47 120 change and local human activities have been shown to be damaging the Great Barrier Reef 48 49 121 off the north east coast of Australia, which is a UNESCO World Heritage site. Here, a 50 51 52 122 complex set of relationships between people, environment and heritage are evident. 53 54 55 123 2.3 Environment as modified by heritage 56 57 58 124 In turn, heritage cannot be considered as separate from the environment as the very 59 60 125 presence of heritage alters the environment around it. This can occur at a range of scales. In

Submitted to JCHMSD 5 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 6 of 15

1 2 3 126 some cases, such as the Isle of Portland on the south coast of England, the construction of 4 5 127 heritage has required the quarrying of large amounts of geological material producing major 6 7 128 excavations across the island. This has created new types of landforms through 8 9 10 129 anthropogenic intervention at unprecedented rates relative to naturally-occurring geological 11 12 130 processes. Heritage also alters the environment on smaller scales. For instance, historic 13 14 131 buildings can cause small-scale topoclimatic variations in wind regimes near their surfaces. 15 16 132 This effect is cumulative within dense, urban environments often having large-scale impacts 17 18 133 on the environment, such as the urban heat island effect which is an important control on 19 20 134 processes that can affect heritage (Guilbert et al., 2019). Linking to the previous section, we 21 22 135 can see that there is a dynamic relationship between heritage and environment: the 23 24 136 environment is both an influencer of heritage and is influenced by its presence. 25 26 27 137 2.4 Environment as adding to heritage value 28 29 30 In addition, the environment can go beyond being a component of heritage and enhance its 31 138 32 33 139 value. For example, heritage-environment interactions can result in physical changes which 34 35 140 can enhance the aesthetic or other values of heritage. The formation of gypsum crusts and 36 37 141 staining on stone as a result of industrial and transport-related sulphur emissions noted 38 39 142 above (del Monte et al., 1984) can cause deterioration of historic materials, but may also 40 41 143 contribute to the ‘patina of age’. Such patinas are seen as important contributors to the 42 43 144 aesthetic of an old building and may also have historical and scientific values as evidence of 44 45 145 previous human activities. 46 47 48 146 As a further example, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are compounds frequently found 49 50 147 in air, which can be products of off-gassing from organic materials. However, VOCs are also 51 52 53 148 drivers of the olfactory (smell) component of air, making them integral to how heritage is 54 55 149 experienced (Bembibre and Strlič, 2017). For example, within libraries and archives the 56 57 150 smell of ‘old books’ is considered as a vital part of the heritage value (Sonnenwald and 58 59 151 McElligott, 2017). 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 6 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 7 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 152 2.5 Environment as co-creator of heritage 4 5 6 153 Finally, heritage cannot be considered separately from its environment as the environment 7 8 154 demonstrates agency in the production of heritage. This is the dynamic culmination of the 9 10 11 155 aforementioned interactions between environment and heritage. The environment actively 12 13 156 contributes to the creation, propagation, and decay of heritage throughout its lifetime, as 14 15 157 recently explored by DeSilvey (2017). Within environmental systems, it has long been 16 17 158 accepted that environmental processes and human impacts cause landforms to be 18 19 159 constantly shaped and re-shaped, with some arguing that the human impact on these 20 21 160 systems is so critical they have led to the formation of Anthropogenic landscapes (Bertness 22 23 161 et al., 2002). Similarly, environmental processes and human activity are developing a 24 25 162 complex narrative of interactive processes involving heritage. 26 27 28 163 Ruskin considered ruins to be noble, truthful, and tangible results of the passing of time 29 30 (Ruskin, 1889). This is a direct result of the agency of the environment within the ongoing 31 164 32 33 165 production of heritage. Not only does the environment provide material for heritage and 34 35 166 participate in processes of change, but since the 17th and 18th century has been embodied 36 37 167 in the concept of co-creation, in which landscapes are co-developed by environment and 38 39 168 heritage– the latter as representations of human activity. 40 41 42 169 The co-creation of heritage due to environmental processes and human activity is embodied 43 44 170 by the much-discussed case of Pompeii (Holtorf and Kristensen, 2015). The financial and 45 46 171 resource burden of attempting to conserve this massive site has brought to the forefront the 47 48 172 challenges of limiting environmental considerations to risk and the futility of rejecting 49 50 emerging narratives of heritage sites. The present existence of Pompeii is enabled by a 51 173 52 53 174 volcanic eruption that occurred approximately 2000 years ago. Large-scale natural disasters 54 55 175 would generally perceived as significant threats to heritage sites, but their potential 56 57 176 contribution to the formation of new types of heritage, and especially future heritage, must 58 59 177 be acknowledged, emphasising the co-creation of the environment within heritage. 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 7 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 8 of 15

1 2 3 178 3. Implications 4 5 6 179 In order for heritage science to address the premise of this paper and reconsider the 7 8 180 relationships between heritage and environment, some reconceptualization is necessary 9 10 11 181 (Figure 1). There have been suggestions for a ‘heritage system services’ approach (Gysen, 12 13 182 2018; Leissner, 2013) but this has not yet been formalised. Links between cultural heritage 14 15 183 and ecosystem services have been reviewed (Hølleland et al., 2017) and life cycle 16 17 184 approaches for cultural heritage have been suggested (Blundo et al., 2014) but neither have 18 19 185 not been extended to natural sites. Therefore, neither of these capture the extensive array or 20 21 186 the complexity of processes occurring between both cultural and natural heritage sites and 22 23 187 the environment. Instead, we suggest that heritage science should align itself more closely 24 25 188 with Earth System Science. 26 27 28 29 30 Component of heritage 31 (including environmental resources for producing heritage materials, heritage sites, heritage 32 contexts) 33 34 35 Modifier of heritage Modified by heritage 36 (including environmental agents of (including topoclimates, environmental 37 deterioration or destruction) damage from resource extraction) 38 39 40 41 Contributor to heritage values (including enhancing aesthetic, historical 42 and scientific values) 43 44 45 46 Co-creator of heritage 47 (the dynamic net result of the above sets of interactions) 48 49 189 50 51 190 Figure 1. A conceptual diagram showing the link and complexity of processes occurring between 52 53 191 heritage and the environment. 54 55 56 192 The Earth System Science framework considers interactions between components of the 57 58 193 environment, as well as the impact of human societies on these components (Kump et al., 59 60 194 2004) as shown in Seitzinger et al. (2015, Fig. 1). It was first utilised in environmental and Submitted to JCHMSD 8 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 9 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 195 geographical sciences and is now commonly applied to a deeply interdisciplinary field which 4 5 196 studies how the Earth functions as a whole complex adaptive system, and how humanity 6 7 197 contributes to, and in turn is affected by, it (Lenton, 2016). Given the broad range of 8 9 10 198 backgrounds of both heritage scientists and those engaging with heritage science, using the 11 12 199 Earth system as a framework could: 13 14 200 i) form an ‘interdisciplinary bridge’ that links disciplines and normalises discipline specific 15 16 201 terminology and approaches within heritage science, 17 18 202 ii) position heritage science more closely with major other fields concerned with the 19 20 203 developing relationships between humans and their environment and understanding 21 22 204 complex adaptive systems. 23 24 25 205 Aligning heritage science within Earth System Science also provides heritage scientists with 26 27 206 a framework which captures complexity and interactions between ‘human’ and ‘natural’ 28 29 processes which can be easily overlooked - especially for cultural heritage sites. The Earth 30 207 31 32 208 system is typically divided into four primary ‘spheres’: the lithosphere (land), hydrosphere 33 34 209 (water), biosphere (living things), and atmosphere (air). Each sphere includes several 35 36 210 components that are relevant to heritage and sub-spheres, some of which are very relevant 37 38 211 to heritage: for example, the hydrosphere would include the cryosphere, the frozen water 39 40 212 component which can cause freeze-thaw weathering processes to occur in stone and other 41 42 213 building materials. The lithosphere would include soil which for the reburial of archaeological 43 44 214 sites can act as a protective layer from atmospheric processes. The anthroposphere, 45 46 215 sometimes considered a subset of the biosphere, encompasses the total human presence 47 48 216 throughout the Earth system including our culture, technology, built environment, and 49 50 51 217 associated activities (Kuhn and Heckelei, 2010). 52 53 54 218 These four (or sometimes five, if the Anthroposphere is included) spheres interact in several 55 56 219 ways: for example, water within the hydrosphere can evaporate and thus also be found 57 58 220 within the atmosphere in the form of humidity (water vapour) or be constrained by man- 59 60 221 made constructions such as dams – thus entering the anthroposphere. This

Submitted to JCHMSD 9 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 10 of 15

1 2 3 222 reconceptualisation allows for more nuanced relationships between heritage and 4 5 223 environment, that blur the distinction between the natural and cultural, meaning that the 6 7 224 distinction between whether a component is considered as heritage (objects of focus) or as 8 9 10 225 part of the environment (factors that might cause change), is determined by value and 11 12 226 perspective (Harrison, 2015; Lowenthal, 2005). This more nuanced and holistic perspective 13 14 227 should help link heritage sites and objects more clearly with global issues and concerns – 15 16 228 allowing heritage scientists to be better placed in tackling the grand challenges facing 17 18 229 heritage, such as climate change, providing a clearer understanding of heritage within 19 20 230 present environment as well as helping to understand what a sustainable future for our 21 22 231 heritage might be. 23 24 25 232 4. Concluding thoughts 26 27 28 233 To fully understand how heritage is impacted on and interacts with the Earth system, 29 30 heritage scientists cannot perceive the environment simply as a risk. Instead, we premise 31 234 32 33 235 that the environment cannot be considered separately from heritage as the environment is 34 35 236 intrinsically related to heritage in five main ways by: 36 37 38 237 1) Providing components of heritage; 39 40 238 2) Modifying heritage; 41 42 239 3) Being modified by heritage; 43 44 240 4) Adding to heritage value; 45 46 241 5) Acting as a co-creator of heritage. 47 48 49 242 Aligning heritage science within Earth system science enables heritage to be viewed as a 50 51 243 complex adaptive system that is constantly interacting with, impacting on, and being 52 53 54 244 impacted by its surrounding components and processes. This approach provides heritage 55 56 245 science with a mechanism for a more holistic and sustainable consideration of the 57 58 246 environment within its research and practice. 59 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 10 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 11 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 247 Acknowledgements 4 5 6 248 No funding was used in the production of this article. 7 8 9 249 References 10 11 12 13 250 Barnatt, J. and Pierpoint, S. (1983), “Stone Circles: Observatories or Ceremonial Centres”, 14 15 251 Scottish Archaeological Review, Vol. 2, pp. 111–15. 16 17 18 252 Bembibre, C. and Strlič, M. (2017), “Smell of heritage: A framework for the identification, 19 20 253 analysis and archival of historic odours”, Heritage Science, Vol. 5 No. 2, available 21 22 254 at:https://doi.org/10.1186/s40494-016-0114-1. 23 24 25 255 Bertness, M.D., Ewanchuk, P.J. and Silliman, B.R. (2002), “Anthropogenic modification of 26 27 256 New England salt marsh landscapes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of 28 29 257 Sciences, Vol. 99 No. 3, pp. 1395–1398. 30 31 32 258 Blundo, D.S., Ferrari, A.M., Pini, M., Riccardi, M.P., Garcıá, J.F. and Del Hoyo, A.P.F. 33 34 (2014), “The life cycle approach as an innovative methodology for the recovery and 35 259 36 37 260 restoration of cultural heritage”, Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and 38 39 261 Sustainable Development, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 133–148. 40 41 42 262 Bridgewater, P. and Rotherham, I.D. (2019), “A critical perspective on the concept of 43 44 263 biocultural diversity and its emerging role in nature and heritage conservation”, People 45 46 264 and Nature, Vol. In press, available at:https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10040. 47 48 49 265 CHCfE Consortium. (2015), Cultural Heritage Counts for Europe, Krakow, available at: 50 51 266 www.encatc.org/culturalheritagecountsforeurope. 52 53 54 267 Degrigny, C., Borgarino, P., Cefai, S., Hortal Muñoz, J.E., Irbe, I., Leus, M., Lu, S.-L., et al. 55 56 268 (2019), Integration of Heritage Buildings and Sites in Their Surroundings, Nova. FCT 57 58 59 269 Editorial, Lisbon, Portugal. 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 11 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 12 of 15

1 2 3 270 DeSilvey, C. (2017), Curated Decay: Heritage beyond Saving, University of Minnesota 4 5 271 Press, Minnesota. 6 7 8 272 Dillon, C., Bell, N., Fouseki, K., Laurenson, P., Thompson, A. and Strlič, M. (2014), “Mind the 9 10 11 273 gap: Rigour and relevance in collaborative heritage science research”, Heritage 12 13 274 Science, Vol. 2 No. 11, available at:https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7445-2-11. 14 15 16 275 European Commission. (2014), “Communication from the Commission to the European 17 18 276 Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the 19 20 277 Committee of the Regions — Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for 21 22 278 Europe”, available at: https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/culture/library/publications/2014- 23 24 279 heritage-communication_en.pdf. 25 26 27 280 Guilbert, D., Caluwaerts, S., Calle, K., Van Den Bossche, N., Cnudde, V. and De Kock, T. 28 29 281 (2019), “Impact of the urban heat island on freeze-thaw risk of natural stone in the built 30 31 environment, a case study in Ghent, Belgium”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 32 282 33 34 283 677, pp. 9–18. 35 36 37 284 Gysen, K. (2018), “Integration is the magic word”, Annual Meeting of the European 38 39 285 Federation of ForitfiedFortified Sites (EFFORTS), Venice, Italy. 40 41 42 286 Harrison, R. (2015), “Beyond ‘Natural’ and ‘Cultural’ Heritage: Toward an Ontological Politics 43 44 287 of Heritage in the Age of Anthropocene”, Heritage & Society, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 24–42. 45 46 47 288 Hølleland, H., Skrede, J. and Holmgaard, S.B. (2017), “Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem 48 49 289 Services: A Literature Review”, Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 50 51 290 Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 210–237. 52 53 54 291 Holtorf, C. and Kristensen, T.M. (2015), “Heritage erasure: Rethinking protection and 55 56 57 292 preservation”, International Journal of Heritage Studies, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 313–317. 58 59 60 293 Kennedy, C.J. (2015), “The role of heritage science in conservation philosophy and

Submitted to JCHMSD 12 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 13 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 3 294 practice”, Historic Environment: Policy and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 214–228. 4 5 6 295 Kuhn, A. and Heckelei, T. (2010), “Anthroposphere”, Impacts of Global Change on the 7 8 296 Hydrological Cycle in West and Northwest Africa, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 282– 9 10 11 297 341. 12 13 14 298 Kump, L., Kasting, J. and Crane, R. (2004), The Earth System, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper 15 16 299 Saddle River, New Jersey. 17 18 19 300 Leissner, J. (2013), “Do we need a paradigm shift to save our European cultural heritage?”, 20 21 301 available at: http://www.nkf- 22 23 302 s.se/uploads/1/3/6/6/13662894/goteborgchoctober2013jlpresentationeu.pdf. 24 25 26 303 Lenton, T. (2016), Earth System Science – a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University 27 28 304 Press, Oxford. 29 30 31 305 Lowenthal, D. (2005), “Natural and cultural heritage”, International Journal of Heritage 32 33 Studies, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 81–92. 34 306 35 36 37 307 Lucchi, E. (2018), “Review of preventive conservation in museum buildings”, Journal of 38 39 308 Cultural Heritage, Vol. 29, pp. 180–193. 40 41 42 309 del Monte, M., Sabbioni, C. and Vittori, O. (1984), “Urban stone sulphation and oil-fired 43 44 310 carbonaceous particles”, Science of the Total Environment, The, Vol. 36, pp. 369–376. 45 46 47 311 National Heritage Science Forum. (2018), Strategic Framework for Heritage Science in the 48 49 312 UK, 2018–2023, available at: 50 51 313 http://www.heritagescienceforum.org.uk/documents/NHSF_StrategicFramework- 52 53 314 FINAL_Web.pdf. 54 55 56 315 Pendlebury, J., Short, M. and While, A. (2009), “Urban World Heritage Sites and the problem 57 58 59 316 of authenticity”, Cities, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 349–358. 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 13 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development Page 14 of 15

1 2 3 317 Rössler, M. (2006), “World Heritage cultural landscapes: A UNESCO flagship programme 4 5 318 1992 - 2006”, Landscape Research, Vol. 4, pp. 333–353. 6 7 8 319 Ruskin, J. (1889), Seven Lamps of Architecture, 6th editio., George Allen, Orpington. 9 10 11 12 320 Seitzinger, S.P., Gaffney, O., Brasseur, G., Broadgate, W., Ciais, P., Claussen, M., Erisman, 13 14 321 J.W., et al. (2015), “International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and Earth system 15 16 322 science: Three decades of co-evolution”, Anthropocene, Vol. 12, pp. 3–16. 17 18 19 323 Sonnenwald, D. and McElligott, J. (2017), “Investigating Human-Rare Historic Book 20 21 324 Interaction among Young Adults”, Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal, Vol. 22 23 325 32, pp. 126–149. 24 25 26 326 Strlič, M. (2018), “Heritage Science: A Future-Oriented Cross-Disciplinary Field”, 27 28 327 Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, Vol. 57 No. 25, pp. 7260–7261. 29 30 31 328 Strlič, M., Thickett, D., Taylor, J. and Cassar, M. (2013), “Damage functions in heritage 32 33 science”, Studies in Conservation, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 80–87. 34 329 35 36 37 330 UNESCO. (2017), “Tangible cultural heritage”, available at: 38 39 331 http://www.unesco.org/new/en/cairo/culture/tangible-cultural-heritage/ (accessed 27 40 41 332 February 2019). 42 43 44 333 Viñas, S.M. (2002), “Contemporary theory of conservation”, Studies in Conservation, Vol. 47 45 46 334 No. Supplement-1, pp. 25–34. 47 48 49 335 Wells, J.C. (2019), “Science for built heritage”, Science, Vol. 364 No. 6439, p. 413. 50 51 52 336 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Submitted to JCHMSD 14 Viewpoint Article Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

Page 15 of 15 Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development

1 2 Component of heritage 3 (including environmental resources for producing 4 5 heritage materials, heritage sites, heritage 6 contexts) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Modifier of heritage Modified by heritage 14 15 (including environmental agents of (including topoclimates, environmental 16 deterioration or destruction) damage from resource extraction) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Contributor to heritage values 25 26 (including enhancing aesthetic, historical 27 and scientific values) 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Co-creator of heritage 36 37 (the dynamic net result of the 38 39 above sets of interactions) 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60