Building block 1: Gender-differentiated vulnerability assessment

This vulnerability assessment methodology allows for the accurate targeting of nature-based solutions to critical areas of need in cities and sectors of the population. It specifically includes a gender focus to ensure that adaptation efforts take into account how climate change affects women differently than men, given their varying roles in society. The vulnerability studies allow identifying the areas of greatest danger from weather-related events (such as landslides, floods, etc.) based on the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of the analyzed territory. They are carried out through participatory processes with communities and key stakeholders and climatic scenarios that integrate climatic, environmental and socioeconomic variables at the same time. The analysis also allows estimating the risk of loss of ecosystem services and therefore the potential needs for adaptation to climate change. This exercise is the basis for designing and implementing nature-based solutions to strengthen the resilience of communities in urban and peri-urban systems. Finally, this process builds a sense of co-ownership and relationships for partnerships to carry out the project.

One of the main conditions needed for this building block’s success is the inclusion and approval of local communities and key stakeholders within those communities and their respective governments. Additionally, strong sources of climate and hydrological data facilitate this analysis process greatly.

A key aspect of this block is access to data. For example, Mexico has abundant meteorological and hydrological data while El Salvador does not. This allowed for a much more thorough climate change scenario in the former case. In terms of the consultation process, capturing perceived risk, in addition to modeled risks, is key for developing targeted activities where they are most needed. In that process, including women through the gender-differentiated approach also contributes to better targeted adaptation efforts by successfully identifying socially vulnerable populations. During this vulnerability assessment, capacity building is essential to ensure that communities and policy makers can interpret and use the assessments subsequently.

KNPS
East Asia
Korea National Park Service
- KNPS
KNPS
East Asia
Korea National Park Service
- KNPS
KNPS
East Asia
Korea National Park Service
- KNPS
KNPS
East Asia
Korea National Park Service
- KNPS
ICOMOS
West and Central Africa
North Africa
East and South Africa
Central America
North America
West Asia, Middle East
East Asia
East Europe
International
Secretariat
Strengthening IUCN-ICOMOS and other Institutional partnerships
Building international interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams
Field explorations on World Heritage sites
Creating a glossary of terms
ICOMOS
West and Central Africa
North Africa
East and South Africa
Central America
North America
West Asia, Middle East
East Asia
East Europe
International
Secretariat
Strengthening IUCN-ICOMOS and other Institutional partnerships
Building international interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams
Field explorations on World Heritage sites
Creating a glossary of terms
ICOMOS
West and Central Africa
North Africa
East and South Africa
Central America
North America
West Asia, Middle East
East Asia
East Europe
International
Secretariat
Strengthening IUCN-ICOMOS and other Institutional partnerships
Building international interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teams
Field explorations on World Heritage sites
Creating a glossary of terms
Heritage as a shared responsibility

As the public-private partnership improved approaches to conservation, it became clear that the challenges being faced on site were affected by its wider context. It was vital to recognise the Vesuvian area and wider socio-economic dynamics, as a source of opportunities, not threats, that could reinforce site management. Heritage was increasingly viewed as a shared responsibility.

A key initiative was the Herculaneum Centre, a non-profit association founded by the heritage authority, the municipality and a research institute to consolidate a network of local, national and international partners. For 5 years, it implemented an activity programme focused on stimulating new types of involvement in Ercolano’s heritage. The capacity to work with others was enhanced within institutions and civil society through research networks, community projects and a variety of learning environments.

The trust of local partners created conditions, unimaginable ten years earlier, for the regeneration of a difficult urban district adjacent to the archaeological site known as Via Mare.

With the Centre’s programme completed, this tradition of cooperation has been taken forward by Herculaneum’s new heritage authority, supported by the Packard foundation and other partners.

Many initiatives, including the Centre and Via Mare, built upon the early efforts of team members of the Herculaneum Conservation Project. Positive results from linking up with ongoing local initiatives and building bridges between realities operating separately began to shape long-term strategies for management of the site and the setting.

From 2004 onwards, a series of reforms in Italian legislation have created more opportunities for traditionally rigid and closed public heritage authorities to work effectively with others.

  • The creation of an initial partnership acted as a catalyst for many more, ending up in an extensive and  self-sustaining network. In Ercolano, some of the vibrant panorama of local associations and cooperatives created in the past two decades can be directly linked to the 5 intensive years of the Herculaneum Centre, and initiatives since to consolidate that progress. The emphasis on new forms of interaction at heritage places continues to be vital.

  • Reaching outside of the site resulted in greater benefits for Herculaneum in terms of political and social support for its conservation, additional resources and inclusion in strategic programming.

  • A public heritage institution must have in its mandate the concept of ‘working with others’ even if this is not yet captured in legislative and institutional frameworks. A public heritage institution genuinely carries out its purpose by empowering contributions from –  and benefits to – a wider network of local, national and international actors.