Flood Risk Maps To Cultural Heritage Measures and Process - 2015 - Journal of Cultural Heritage PDF
Flood Risk Maps To Cultural Heritage Measures and Process - 2015 - Journal of Cultural Heritage PDF
Flood Risk Maps To Cultural Heritage Measures and Process - 2015 - Journal of Cultural Heritage PDF
Available online at
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com
Original article
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 24 May 2013
Accepted 11 March 2014
Available online 21 May 2014
Keywords:
Cultural heritage
Global climate change
Risk management
Risk map
Preventive conservation
Vulnerability analysis
a b s t r a c t
Due to extreme climate change, catastrophe normality has become a global trend. The idea of preventive
conservation is now the primary focus of cultural preservation worldwide. Risk maps have become
the tool to predict cultural heritage vulnerabilities because of irreversible cultural characteristics that
can never be duplicated after being destroyed. Because the concepts of risk maps and cultural heritage
preservation are relatively new in Taiwan, this study attempts to create a set of cultural heritage risk
maps. Using ood as its primary disaster type and New Taipei City in northern Taiwan as its targeted
area, this study rst analyses disaster-prone areas using current global preservation approaches. Thematic
analysis and eld study are also used for analysis. Finally, based on cultural heritage vulnerability, the
study examines present heritage preservation strategies and rediscovers the three aspects of sustainable
management, disaster management, and climate change and adaptation in response to cultural heritage
management. In addition, this study analyses the feasibility of using parks as water detention areas to
reduce ood damage temporarily not only to cultural heritage areas but to human lives and property, as
well.
2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The normalisation of catastrophe has become an unavoidable
trend. In 2009, typhoon Morakot brought heavy rainfall that hit Taiwan mercilessly, causing enormous loss and numerous fatalities.
The loss of cultural heritage sites reached nearly USD 17 millions,
including six national monuments, 11 municipal monuments, and
14 historic buildings [1]. Although a USD 9.3 million recovery
project was later approved, recovery funds and delicate rescue
measures could never replicate the value of the genuine cultural
heritage lost. This typhoon was certainly not an isolated incident;
extreme climate will become more severe and frequent. In addition
to the enormous threat to life and property, irreplaceable artefacts of human civilisation are now disappearing so rapidly that
the process has become a global crisis whose losses no nation can
afford.
The present risk concept of cultural heritage conservation in
Taiwan merely covers structural enhancement, reproong of
facilities, insect-proong, and preservative measures but lacks
preventive strategies for large-scale disasters (i.e., debris ow,
tsunami, and ood). Disaster management measures focusing
on cultural heritage deserve more attention than ever. Tangible
Tel.: +886 911 223 188; fax: +886 422 367 096.
E-mail address: [email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.03.002
1296-2074/ 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
2. Literature review
2.1. Disasters and types of cultural heritage
2.1.1. Denition and scope of disasters
Disaster generally includes hazard as well as actual disaster. A
hazard is the change in a situation or a series of situations that has
the potential to cause harm or property loss. A disaster is the collapse of a series of social functions that cause loss of life, materials,
economy, or the environment. In addition to the possibility of life
and property loss, the meaning of disaster also includes damage to
or loss of the general value of a countrys cultural heritage and the
211
ecological system and its environment [2]. UNESCO [2] notes that
the disaster risk to cultural heritage comes from both external and
internal causes. The external cause is the disturbance or damage
to cultural heritage sites caused by typhoon, tsunami, destructive
sabotage, or war. The internal cause is the fragility of the structure or materials of cultural heritage and their sensitivity to the
environment.
oods, with major damage resulting from an inadequate geotechnical structure. Protective measures are based on predicting the
extent of ow using historic ow analysis, which includes potential socioeconomic consequences and cultural heritage value loss
to ease the effects of ood on the ancient city [11].
Global climate change has increased the frequency, scope, and
unpredictability of oods, all of which decrease the effectiveness of
various anti-ood facilities. A hydrological stimulation model, GIS
technology, and regional vulnerability assessment provide useful
tools for cultural heritage preservation so that needed resources
for different cultural heritage sites are equally distributed [12].
2.2. The disaster risk management strategies of cultural heritage
Pre-disaster tasks include disaster risk reduction, prevention,
and preparedness. During a disaster is the response phase. After
the disaster, recovery and reconstruction become the most essential agendas. Once a disaster occurs, most cultural heritage sites
cannot be protected from the imminent threat unless preparations
have been effected to protect the sites because there are other priorities to address. However, global climate change increases the
possibility and scale of natural disasters ability to damage the
environment and increase the difculty of protecting ones cultural
heritage. The value of cultural heritage lies in what is irreplaceable
after it is destroyed. Thus, disaster risk assessment and prediction
are critically important for the preservation of cultural heritage.
2.2.1. Risk management
Risk management is the steps and process of effectively
managing possible events and reducing events negative effects,
preventing existing hazards from turning into disasters as well.
Risk management should not only passively reduce the threat but
actively pursue the possibility of innovation and public value. With
the development of an ever-changing environment, risk management gradually becomes comprehensive emergency management.
Three important elements should be included [13,14]:
hazard: to review the present situation using past studies and scientic analysis and to understand and predict possible disasters
in the future to reduce loss;
risk: includes probability and/or likelihood. The probability analysis can be determined by the probability of certain disasters and
their possible intensity;
vulnerability: affected by constantly changing concepts, generally the result of the interaction between a dynamic natural
environment and a complicated social and economic environment.
212
Table 1
The causes of risk assessment in Italy risk map project.
Basic risk categories
Analytic factors
Human risks
cultural heritage sites should rst identify the goals, scope, and
responsibility and then identify and assess the risks the subject is
facing. The project should attempt to provide preventive strategies
and relief methods and plan emergency preparation projects and
response measures when disaster occurs.
The European Union (EU) oods directive initiates the
assessment and management of ood risk to reduce adverse consequences to a countrys cultural heritage as an explicit task. More
than 3500 cultural monuments, museums, archives, etc., must
be considered in the management planning process in BadenWurttemberg [18]. The assessment of ood risk is based on the
probability of oods and the vulnerability of each object. A rstlevel assessment is processed with a geographical information
system. Municipalities and responsible gures of authority check
the rst-level assessment. To support the activities of concerned
stakeholders, information regarding diverse aspects of preparedness and recovery is provided. Generally, stakeholders establish
object-specic emergency response plans. These plans must be
coordinated with response planning on the local level and vice
versa [18].
2.3. Risk map
2.3.1. The scope and denition of a risk map
A risk map is also called a hazard potential map or a hazard map.
A risk map indicates the setting of hazard situations, warning values, potential hazard areas, the main landmarks, and the possible
scope of effects [19] and presents the hazard potential. A risk map
clearly presents the probability and the effects of disasters, including the evaluation of the loss caused by disasters in certain areas
or the probability of certain-scale disasters, i.e., an earthquake risk
map [20]. The risk map is the substantiation of risk assessment on
the map, which helps responders plan projects and strategies for
all phases of disasters. The predictable or unpredictable effects of
disasters will thus be reduced.
2.3.2. Case study of risk map of cultural heritage
Risk maps of cultural heritage are intended to provide a technical tool for preventive conservation for authorities. For cultural
heritage sites whose value cannot be recovered, preventive tools
are more important than recovery.
Carta del Rischio was begun by the Italian Central Institute
for Restoration in 1992. GIS was applied to establish a cultural
heritage risk map to aid in understanding various environmental
hazards. The map noted specic cultural heritage sites in highly
dangerous environments; predicted possible future damage; established conservation departments of cultural heritage; and provided
managers/owners of heritage properties with various policies,
strategies, and disaster response measures to address the principles
of preventive conservation.
The EU passed a cross-nation-sponsored study named the Noah
s Ark Project in 2002. This projects goal was to discuss the effect
of global climate change on heritage buildings and cultural landscapes. It was the rst systematic European investigation of the
causes and possible occurrences of damage to cultural heritage
sites because of climate change. This project conducted experiments and presented courses of action to prevent stone, marble,
wood, and other materials of European cultural heritage structures
from being affected by climate factors. The project created maps
of European cultural heritage areas affected by climate change.
The outcome included climate maps, heritage maps, damage maps,
risk and multiple risk maps, and subject research data. These maps
were available to owners and managers of cultural heritage structures, policy-making departments, and national cultural heritage
groups [21]. The substantial achievement of this project serves as
an excellent model for integrated interdisciplinary study.
3. Study area
According to article 3 of Cultural Heritage Conservation Law
(Taiwan), cultural heritage refers to the seven designated or registered types of heritage with historic, cultural, artistic, or scientic
value. The study seeks to develop correct and advantageous disaster management measures to protect cultural heritage when oods
strike as well as to reduce risk by environmental planning and
design. Therefore, features of the tangible objectives in the study
refer to sites that are immovable, would be difcult to recover
after destruction, and are closely attached to the environment; this
would include ve types: national monuments, municipal monuments, historical architecture, relics, and cultural landscapes.
This study takes NTPC in Taiwan as its example. The cultural heritage types in NTPC represent its historical background. Evidence
of human settlement from the early prehistoric age was discovered
at the Tamsui River; relics were also excavated from areas in Shulin
and Tucheng. During the Spanish and Dutch colonial periods in the
17th century, Western-style buildings, ports, and fortresses were
built at this rivers estuary. A large number of immigrants from
China migrated there during the Qing Dynasty, not only expanding settlement to the upper and branch river areas but also leaving
massive numbers of traditional Mingnan-style buildings, e.g., mansions, colleges, and temples. Japanese culture rushed in during the
Japanese colonial period, a time when modern industry was rst
introduced to Taiwan. The architectural style was a mixture of traditional Mingnan, Japanese, and Western inuences. Therefore, NTPC
is famous for its architectural varieties and the richness of its cultural heritage that witnessed the urban development of northern
Taiwan and its historic memories.
There are 29 administrative districts in NTPC, with a total area
of 2053 km2 . According to the latest (to 2013/03) information from
the Cultural Affairs Department of NTPC, there are four relics, six
national monuments, 61 municipal monuments, 38 examples of
historical architecture, and four cultural landscapes. Of a total of
113 cultural heritage sites, 32 are located in Tamsui, followed by
14 in Xindian. Six districts have no designated cultural heritage
sites at all. The distribution and amount of cultural heritage in each
district are shown in Table 2 and Fig. 2, respectively.
4. Research design
4.1. Research method
The effects of climate change on cultural heritage are mainly
divided into direct physical effects and indirect effects [22]. Direct
effects refer to the physical effects on tangible cultural heritage
sites caused by natural phenomena; indirect effects refer to social
and economic changes caused by climate change. Climate change
indirectly affects the conservation, management, and operation of
213
214
Table 2
Amount of each cultural heritage type in New Taipei City.
Administrative district
National monument
Municipal monument
Historical architecture
Cultural landscape
Relic
Subtotal
Tamsui
Xindian
Ruifang
Xinzhuang
Shulin
Pingxi
Bali
Banqiao
Xizhi
Yingge
Taishan
Gongliao
Sanchong
Luzhou
Zhonghe
Wugu
Shenkeng
Yonghe
Tucheng
Sanxia
Pinglin
Wulai
Sanzhi
Shimen
Jinshan
Wanli
Shuangxi
Shiding
Linkou
Subtotal
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
23
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
5
10
6
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
32
14
11
8
6
6
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
Utilising ArcMap, this study attempts to understand related spatial information and present needs, review, and statistical analysis
of patterns and attribute information in these layers. The study also
overlays elevation maps and cultural heritage locations to understand the dependence of cultural heritage upon its surrounding
environment. The study not only identies the initial distribution
215
5. Results
This study uses NTPCs cultural heritage as its object and ood
as its main risk to assess risks of massive destruction to cultural
heritage by ood. The study utilises GIS to conduct risk assessment
of cultural heritage:
this study establishes an SHP database on cultural heritage to
mark these locations in each district;
this study overlays the cultural heritage distribution map with
a ood-prone map of daily precipitation (200 mm, 350 mm,
450 mm, and 600 mm) as well as classifying ooding depth at
ve levels from 00.3 m, 0.31 m, 12 m, 23 m, and above 3 m;
this study also designates a ooding depth above 0.3 m as a serious threat to cultural heritage preservation to assess ood risks
to cultural heritage sites in each district;
high-risk cultural heritage locations are selected, and hazardprone factors to these locations are analysed. Fig. 3 shows the
research steps in this study.
216
although most sites are located in Tamsui, and the Shihs old mansion sustained more damage (at a ood depth of between 1 and
2 m) than the others. When daily precipitation reaches 600 mm, the
ooding increases and affects up to 17 cultural heritage sites. The
ood depth is between 0.3 and 1 m, mainly in Tamsui; the Shihs
old mansion would be at a ood depth above 3 m.
Analysis indicates that the majority of the affected cultural heritage sites are located in Tamsui, suggesting that Taipeis early
development was concentrated in the Twatiutia and Tamsui areas
because Tamsui was the main trading port in northern Taiwan during that time. Because of the increasing commerce, business, and
217
Table 3
Affected cultural heritages in different precipitation.
Daily precipitation (mm)
Districts
Heritage types
Cultural heritages
Subtotal
200
> 0.3
350
> 0.3
450
0.31
Tamsui
MM
HA
NM
MM
MM
MM
NM
MM
Xinzhuang
12
23
>3
Xizhi
Tamsui
0.31
Tamsui
HA
Shulin
MM
HA
MM
NM
MM
HA
MM
Yonghe
Xizhi
Tamsui
MM
MM
MM
Luzhou
Sanchong
Xizhuang
21
>3
Total
2
1
0
1
0
2
1
3
1
1
1
0
2
18
218
Fig. 7. Park area distribution map to cultural heritage ood detention in New Taipei City.
219
Table 4
Amount of available park area and the affected cultural heritage in New Taipei City.
Districts
Tamsui
Luzhou
Sanchong
Xizhuang
Shulin
Yonghe
Xizhi
Amounts
Park area
Detention park area
High-risk cultural heritage
29
3
9
16
6
2
50
1
1
26
3
3
7
1
1
9
3
1
9
1
1
http://map.ntpc.gov.tw/.
6. Discussion
The study process revealed some issues worthy of further discussion from the perspective of theories and practices.
From the perspective of theories, the biggest issue is whether
there are enough tools to create risk maps. Risk mapping requires a
top-to-bottom policy for training in the process and the investment
of resources to develop the mechanism in response to the rapidly
changing environment. More hopeful results can be achieved for
future cultural heritage sites in response to disasters caused by climate change. The current research results elicit more real issues
that belong to the risk identication phase. However, multiple
visions and suggestions should be included once current research
moves into the risk assessment phase. Moreover, issues such as
viewpoints and participation of citizens and non-governmental
organisations or non-prot organisations are all worthy of further
discussion.
The present location of cultural heritage sites, the possible
disasters and the risks should be examined before discussing the
necessary preventive measures and the corresponding level of protective capabilities. The study results show that only 16% of cultural
heritage sites would be affected by ood although continuous protective measures are the key to cultural heritage preservation. If
the protection is insufcient, a countrys cultural heritage may
be completely damaged, either immediately or gradually. From
the perspective of disaster management after the development of
a risk map, cultural heritage protection will be meaningful only
after acknowledgement of the facts that cultural heritage may be
harmed; that risk can be reduced; and that emergency planning,
intervention of response measures, and emergency response plans
or measures are necessary. Or, if a relic is all that is left after the
damage, what type of secondary conservation intervention should
be implemented?
The risk map currently covers nearly all contingencies. From
earthquakes and air pollution to population density, all these would
damage cultural heritage sites. The cause of a disaster should be
dened more broadly and integrated into further studies. Compound disasters should also be considered in the discussion of
cultural heritage conservation. Compound causes of disasters and
the results of expanded disasters lead to double damage. The differences between a single-hazard and all-hazards also lead to various
risk maps. In Venice, for example, the rising water level and the
pressure of the tourist population may lead to serious results. An
effective mechanism or measures must be planned and promoted.
The follow-up research should focus on local heritage and local
disasters so that potential risks to cultural heritage sites can be
examined from the perspective of compound disasters.
From the perspective of actual practices, the issue of cultural
heritage conservation is as important as the development of sustainability. Cultural heritage conservation should be based on
the only one earth concept, and each countrys cultural heritage is unique. Cross-collaboration and active participation aim
at improving the mechanisms to respond to climate change to
preserve cultural heritage by sharing experiences and techniques.
Cross-sectional cooperation must be further enhanced so that the
functions and effects of risk maps will be improved more precisely and effectively. For example, the Noah s Ark Project is
based on the prediction of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the general climate model (HadCM3) and the
regional climate model (HadRM3) created by the Hadley Centre
established by Britain in response to climate change. The project
predicts the effects of climate change in Europe and includes the
possibility of greater risks. Members of each department should
present information based on their own expertise and integrate
the data into the nal outcome. This important procedure covers
existing achievements and information from every section so that
the risk map can be presented more precisely. The efforts that the
Hadley Centre made for establishing interdisciplinary collaboration
on climate change model are worthy of emulating.
From the perspective of sustainable management, how should
we respond to the trends of climate change and disaster development considering the requirement of cultural heritage reuse? The
balance between use and protection to avoid the compound effects
of natural and human disasters appears tricky as always. Finding the
balance denitely requires more careful planning. In addition, the
conservation of a countrys cultural heritage is generally regarded
as an intellectual property. There will be increasingly more dependence on insurance in the future. If cultural heritage conservation is
connected to insurance, the commercial cores of insurance companies will invest more energy in research and calculations. Risk
maps can serve as a relatively important tool for insurance. Risk
maps such as the American ood insurance rate map will work.
Utilising the experience and actuarial capacity of private insurance
companies, the maps will be improved to be more precise and serve
as a more effective protective tool in response to preventive conservation. Understanding risk in the planning of risk maps leads
to their use as a public education tool, which will increase their
signicance as protectors of cultural heritage.
7. Conclusions
Cultural heritage threatened by global climate change and the
risk management of disasters have been ignored for a long time.
Many scientic techniques to address these issues have been developed, and various tools have been created; however, more rational
tools are required to respond actively to the uncertainty of largescale disasters.
This study collects the present measures being used in other
countries and uses NTPC as an example. The study presents the
initial study procedures and provides the initial results of risk identication. Based on the extent of hazard and vulnerability analysis,
this study provides steps and methods of risk analysis and assessment accompanied by a eld survey. The survey gradually discerns
feasible strategies in Taiwan and the possible effects of natural
disasters on cultural heritage. The following are the major ndings
of this initial study:
this is the rst interdisciplinary cultural heritage risk analysis
using GIS to analyse disaster management and cultural heritage
in Taiwan. With the advantages of GIS disaster-prone analysis,
this study establishes a set of operation measures of risk evaluation and management via disaster-prone and cultural heritage
maps;
220
[11] M. Holicky,
Assessment of ooding risk to cultural heritage in historic sites, J. Perform. Constructed Facil. 24 (5) (2010) 432438.
[12] I.D. Tutunaru, T.V. Blidaru, I.C. Pricop, The assessment of the cultural heritages
vulnerability to ash oods in Bahlui river basin, Iasi county, Eur. J. Sci. Theology
9 (2) (2013) 233242.
[13] J.J. Wang, Integrated model combined land-use planning and disaster management: the structure, context and contents, Disaster Prev. Manag. 21 (1) (2012)
110123.
[14] J.J. Wang, Introduction to hazard-risk-vulnerability, Fire Mon. 12 (2006) 7579.
[15] UNISDR (United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Living with risk. A global review of disaster reduction initiatives, ISDR, Geneva,
2002.
[16] J. Watt, Risk decision making and management of cultural heritage, in: 2010
International symposium on global climate change and cultural property conservation, Council for Cultural Affair, Taiwan, 2010.
[17] J. Jokilehto, International collaboration and ICCROMs role in risk preparedness,
in: Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties: Development of Guidelines for
Emergency Response, Chuo-Koron Bijustu Shuppan Co., Ltd, Tokyo, 1999, pp.
7585.
[18] M. Hascher, Management of ood risk for cultural heritage at BadenWrttemberg, Wasser Wirtschaft - Hydrologie, Wasserbau, Hydromechanik,
Gewsser, kologie, Boden 103 (11) (2013) 5053.
[19] J.J. Wang, H.Y. Shan, S.Y. Maa, L.H. Chen, L.J. Lin, Classication, making and application of the hazard map in Taiwan, Fire Mon. 10 (2011)
5262.
[20] J.Y. Wu, P.J. Shao, W.Y. Lin, Y.C. Ke, H.C. Hung, T.J. Chen, L.C. Chen, C.Y. Huang,
C.L. Jan, C.P. Sa, A glossary of disaster and emergency management, Wunan,
Taipei, 2006.
[21] C. Sabbioni, Noahs Ark Project, in: 2010 International symposium on global
climate change and cultural property conservation, Council for Cultural Affair,
Taiwan, 2010.
[22] UNESCO, Climate Change and World Heritage. Report on Predicting and Managing the Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage and Strategy to Assist
States Parties to Implement Appropriate Management Responses, World Heritage Reports 22, UNESCO, Paris, 2007.
[23] J.J. Wang, S.Y. Maa, Y.C. Lin, S.C. Chang, H.S. Chu, C.Y. Fang, Program of
Flood-Prone Area and Hazard Mitigation Planning in Taoyuan County, Water
Resources Bureau, Taoyuan County Government, Taoyuan, 2010.
[24] K.S. Cheng, E.C. Hsu, H.C. Yeh, A random fractal model for design storm
hyetographs, Taiwan Water Conservancy 47 (3) (1999) 4354.