In recent years environmental management has been raised to a new level in the context of cultural heritage sites. Climate change, urbanization, mass tourism, and limited institutional resources and management capacities are the most pressing challenges facing cultural heritage today. These issues clearly demonstrate that fragmented, segmented approaches are insufficient and unable to adapt effectively or safeguard the cultural values inherited by future generations. This study aims to address the main concern of heritage management fragmentation by conducting a thematic literature review across Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, Wiley, and MDPI databases. Using a structured thematic synthesis approach, the review has mapped out the major themes that shows risks of climate change, engineering and technical solutions (energy efficiency, environmental monitoring, and modeling tools), and governance systems in the general context of the EU and Lithuania. The review highlights major knowledge and practice gaps related to disciplinary and institutional fragmentation. While climate risk assessments are descriptive and do not lead to any actions; engineering solutions are often in contradiction with conservation ethics; and governance is affected by intersectoral coordination failures, inadequate stakeholder engagement, and a lack of standardized performance indicators not understandable to cross-sector decision makers. To address the identified gaps, this paper develops a novel five-layer integrated adaptive framework for cultural heritage management, consisting of the following layers: 1) Shared values and objectives; 2) Evidence and knowledge integration; 3) Technical interventions; 4) Governance and participation; and 5) Monitoring, evaluation, and adaptation, supported by balanced KPIs and Plan-Do-Check-Act cycles. This conceptual framework attempts to integrate conservation ethics, environmental engineering, and participatory governance into the circular economy concept developed in the Toolkit 2.0, Enhancing Our Heritage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meilutė-Ganusauskienė et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: