RADAR Research Archive and Digital Asset Repository Copyright © and Moral Rights for this thesis are retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Note if anything has been removed from thesis. Removed p79, Fig 11, p134 - Fig 27, p308 - Appendix 12, p309-331 (published papers) When referring to this work, the full bibliographic details must be given as follows: Phillips,H (2013)The adaptive capacity of the management of cultural heritage sites to climate change. PhD thesis. Oxford Brookes University. WWW.BROOKES.AC.UK/GO/RADAR The Adaptive Capacity of the Management of Cultural Heritage Sites to Climate Change Helen Francine Phillips Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Oxford Brookes University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Submitted: 6th June 2013 i ABSTRACT Despite the growing body of research on the concept of adaptive capacity, there is an absence of research which investigates adaptive capacity in the field of cultural heritage management. Climatic changes have potentially serious implications for the historic environment, which is itself a non-renewable resource. Cultural heritage sites can be particularly sensitive to severe weather events and to changes in climate, both due to direct impacts on built structures, archaeology and designed landscapes, but also due to changes in visitor behaviour and the potentially adverse implications of adaptive measures on heritage significance. This research investigated the adaptive capacity of the management of cultural heritage sites in the UK, through the assessment of adaptive capacity at selected case study sites. A questionnaire survey of all UK WHS sites, a review of plans and policy, and interviews with key stakeholders at a national level also contribute to the study. An in-depth qualitative analysis of three UK World Heritage Sites was undertaken, which were Ironbridge Gorge, Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal and Blenheim Palace. Fieldwork included site visits, interviews with stakeholders involved in site management such as property managers, conservators and local authority officers, and a thorough documentary review. A conceptual framework of adaptive capacity relevant for heritage management has been developed, which can be used as a tool for analysis, in order to highlight strengths and weaknesses in capacity. The key determinants of adaptive capacity in the framework, identified through the research, are cognitive factors, leadership, learning capacity, access to information, authority and resources. The research makes a contribution to adaptive capacity theory, with adaptive capacity theory being found to be applicable to heritage management, but with certain limitations. Areas of weakness and strengths in adaptive capacity at the case study sites and in wider World Heritage management planning have been identified, and practical recommendations are presented. The study found that whilst progress is being made within the heritage sector on adaptation, there are significant challenges and areas where capacity could be enhanced. Notably, there is a lack of information on best practice and guidance on adaptation within a heritage context. Tools for futures thinking such as climate change scenarios are not being ii widely used in management planning, and concerns about the uncertainties associated with climate data are prevalent. Although clear top down guidance is needed to provide drivers and a framework for action, this needs to be balanced with local flexibility, in order to allow locally appropriate and sensitive decision making to protect significance. There is also a need for further collaboration and dialogue between different sectors, with sustained cooperation required to combine the approaches and requirements of those from different fields e.g. the integration of heritage concerns into the work of emergency planners. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors Mrs Elizabeth Wilson and Dr Aylin Orbasli for their encouragement, valuable feedback and morale boosting sessions, for which I am truly grateful. I would like to sincerely thank Oxford Brookes University for providing financial sponsorship through the Urban Futures Studentship without which this research would not have been possible. A special thank you goes to all the interviewees and participants of this research, many of whom were extremely generous with their time and knowledge. Thanks to my colleagues and friends particularly existing and past members of planning, architecture, urban design and real estate. I could not have asked for a more supportive group of colleagues and their camaraderie, ideas and humour contributed to making the last few years really enjoyable ones! In particular thanks to (alphabetically) Afua, Alex, Aliye, Arthur, Celia, Gisele, Julia, Makbule, Maria, Matt, Nicole, Sharul, Sofia, Sue, Veronika and Victoria. For their enduring friendship - Annie, Catherine, Emma, Philippa and Sonia. This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their continuing faith in me, generosity and encouragement. Finally, my profound gratitude to Dan, whose support, boundless energy, optimism and humour keeps me smiling. iv CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 THESIS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 21 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 21 1.2. Research Aim and Objectives .................................................................................. 22 1.3. Summary of Methodology ....................................................................................... 23 1.4. Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 2 THE ADAPTATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE TO CLIMATE CHANGE ..................... 26 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 26 2.2. An Introduction to Cultural Heritage ....................................................................... 26 2.2.1. Key Concepts ................................................................................................... 26 2.2.2. Heritage Management .................................................................................... 28 2.2.3. Heritage at Risk ................................................................................................ 31 2.3. Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 32 2.3.1. Definitions of Climate Change ......................................................................... 32 2.3.2. Observed Climate Change ............................................................................... 32 2.3.3. Future Climate Change and the Need for Adaptation ..................................... 34 2.3.4. Planning for an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Scenarios ........................ 35 2.4. The Impacts of Climate Change on Cultural Heritage ............................................. 38 2.4.1. Research on Impacts........................................................................................ 38 2.5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 47 CHAPTER 3 VULNERABILITY, ADAPTIVE CAPACITY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ....................... 49 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 49 3.2. Vulnerability ............................................................................................................ 49 3.2.1. Conceptualising Vulnerability .......................................................................... 49 3.2.2. Measuring Vulnerability .................................................................................. 51 3.3. Adaptive Capacity .................................................................................................... 51 3.3.1. Defining Adaptive Capacity ............................................................................. 51 v 3.3.2. Institutions and Adaptive Capacity .................................................................. 53 3.3.3. Assessing/Measuring Adaptive Capacity ......................................................... 54 3.3.4. Top Down/Bottom Up Assessments of Adaptive Capacity ............................. 56 3.3.5. Determinants of Adaptive Capacity ................................................................. 58 3.4. Previous Research on Adaptive Capacity and Cultural Heritage ............................. 60 3.4.1. Conceptual Frameworks of Adaptive Capacity ................................................ 61 3.5. Selection of Key Determinants for the Research .................................................... 65 3.5.1. Brief Background to Selected Determinants ................................................... 67 3.6. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................