Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Serbia
2. Faculty of Sport and Psychology, EDUCONS University, Novi Sad, Serbia
Abstract
The risks climate change poses to cultural heritage have garnered increased attention in recent decades, prompting reactions from organizations such as UNESCO and ICOMOS. While there is a consensus among heritage actors that the climate crisis requires a departure from ?business as usual?, there is no unanimity regarding which aspects of heritage protection should remain unchanged and which necessitate transformation, nor what level of action and transformation is required. Such disagreements may not always be immediately apparent, as different approaches are often mentioned within the same policy paper or call for action. They offer different interpretations of the climate crisis impacts, different framings of what is at stake, and different political visions regarding the necessary steps, thus creating tensions. This paper utilizes maximum variation sampling to identify and analyse groups of approaches through which climate change has been addressed within the cultural heritage field, ranging from technical protection to decolonisation. It highlights the significance of grasping their political and eco-social underpinnings, crucial for fostering transdisciplinary dialogues that draw upon the expertise of natural and social sciences, engineering and humanities to alleviate tensions, jointly shape future actions and develop sustainable solutions that respect and protect heritage while fostering regenerative socio-ecological relations.
Publisher
National Library of Serbia
Reference40 articles.
1. Z. Bassam, J. Shakhashiri, Jerry, A. Bell, Arab. J. Chem. 7 (2014) 5 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.10.004)
2. A. E. Stagrum, E. Andenæs, T. Kvande, J. Lohne, Sustainability 12 (2020) 1721 (https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12051721)
3. E. Sesana, A. S. Gagnon, C. Ciantelli, J. Cassar, J. J. Hughes, WIREs Clim. Change 12 (2021) (https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.710)
4. H. Fluck, M. Dawson, Policy Pract. 12 (2021) 263 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2021.1990492)
5. C. Daly, C. E. Purcell, J. Donnelly, C. Chan, M. MacDonagh, P. Cox, J. Cult. Heritage Manage. Sustain. Dev. 11 (2021) 313 (https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-04-2020- 0053)