Harmonizing Cultural Landscape with Resilience: Climate Adaptation Strategies in the Arno and Hudson River Basins

Abstract

Climate change increasingly threatens heritage-rich river basins, yet the integration of traditional ecological knowledge into formal environmental governance remains underexplored. This study investigates how historically embedded water management practices in Tuscany’s Arno River and New York’s Hudson River can inform adaptive strategies under conditions of climate uncertainty. Employing a Triangulated mixed-methods approach—including a systematic narrative literature review, variable coding (hydrological dynamics, cultural heritage, governance structures, economic livelihoods, and adaptive knowledge), and effect size analysis—we conducted a comparative assessment to uncover regional challenges, capacities, and implementation dynamics. The findings reveal that while both basins contend with hydrological volatility and fragmented governance, the Arno benefits from legally embedded heritage practices that continue to shape canal-based agriculture and flood mitigation. In contrast, the Hudson showcases strong multi-level stakeholder engagement and ecological restoration, though with less institutional reliance on traditional land stewardship. By integrating codified traditional practices with participatory governance and applying a weighted implementation structure, this study illustrates how resilience planning can be more context-sensitive, operationally feasible, and socially inclusive. Ultimately, this research positions cultural landscapes as active infrastructure for climate adaptation—provided they are institutionally supported and community-endorsed—offering a transferable model for policy innovation in similarly vulnerable riverine systems.

1. Introduction

Cultural heritage conservation requires continuous and robust integrated management systems capable of addressing a wide spectrum of risks—including overtourism [1,2], armed conflict [3,4], pandemics [5,6], seismic activity [7,8], and, more recently, the accelerating impacts of climate change. Recent scholarship demonstrates that climate change adaptation and cultural heritage conservation can be complementary rather than competing goals [9,10,11,12,13,14]. Cultural landscapes—often threatened by flooding, sea-level rise, or desertification—contain both ecological and socio-cultural value, intensifying the need for resilience strategies [15,16,17]. Conventional conservation approaches often conceptualize heritage areas as static entities, thereby overlooking the dynamic environmental challenges confronting local communities [18,19]. In contrast, emerging research advocates for innovative methodologies—such as digital participatory platforms and multi-stakeholder panels—that facilitate the integration of traditional practices into contemporary climate adaptation strategies [20,21,22]. Yet, climate adaptation has rarely been systematically embedded in heritage-management plans [23,24,25].

Recent work also highlights the shortage of targeted adaptation policies and risk assessment tools for cultural heritage sites [26,27]. Various studies identify institutional, technical, socio-cultural, and financial barriers as major obstacles to integrating heritage values into climate frameworks [28,29]. For instance, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis, the Metropolitan City of Florence leveraged the National Recovery and Resilience Plan to promote sustainable regeneration in peri-urban areas—such as the Monteggi Villa Estate—by integrating environmental responsibility and community needs into urban planning, offering a model of place-based resilience that is particularly relevant for the adaptive governance of culturally significant landscapes like the Arno River basin [30].

Successful strategies thus require robust multilevel collaboration, stakeholder participation, and policy alignment [31,32,33]. When cultural landscapes are viewed as socio-ecological systems, resilience extends beyond technical interventions to include participatory governance and local knowledge systems, ensuring that core cultural identities are not lost under environmental pressures [34,35,36].

In the context of the Arno River basin, the original concept of “harmony” in Italian urban planning—introduced in the 1940s as a foundation for integrating spatial, social, and environmental coherence—was gradually reduced to a bureaucratic exercise, highlighting the need to revive this principle as a tool for culturally rooted and socially responsive climate adaptation strategies [37]. Italy’s robust legal framework for the protection and management of cultural heritage is anchored in two cornerstone legislative instruments: Decreto Legislativo (D.Lgs) n.42/2004 (Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio—Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape) [38], and Decreto Presidente della Repubblica (DPR) n.357/1997 [39], which implements the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/CEE. These decrees jointly provide the regulatory foundation for safeguarding Italy’s diverse cultural landscapes and for integrating environmental and cultural policy in adaptive planning.

The D.Lgs is the primary legal code governing the protection of cultural and landscape assets in Italy. It establishes a systemic and integrated approach to cultural heritage conservation, encompassing both tangible heritage (e.g., monuments, historic buildings, archaeological sites) and intangible values associated with landscapes. This decree is particularly important for recognizing cultural landscapes as dynamic, lived environments shaped by human-nature interactions. Crucially, it mandates that all planning and intervention—whether at the regional, municipal, or national level—must ensure the preservation of the “historical, cultural, and aesthetic values” of the landscape. It also introduces the principle of “co-responsibility”, which requires cooperation between public institutions and local communities, thereby reinforcing participatory governance as a legal duty.

Complementing this, DPR functions as a regulatory mechanism for implementing the European Union’s Natura 2000 ecological network, with specific provisions aimed at the conservation of natural habitats and wild species. While it is primarily ecological in orientation, it has important implications for cultural landscapes due to the ecological-cultural overlap in many historic rural areas. This decree governs procedures for environmental assessments (Valutazione di Incidenza Ambientale—VIncA), ensuring that any intervention in protected areas, including restoration or adaptation works, does not compromise ecological integrity. Given the interdependence between cultural heritage and environmental conditions in Italy, DPR acts as a safeguard against unsustainable land use and fosters long-term resilience in culturally significant landscapes. Together, these two legal instruments embody a synergistic legal framework that recognizes heritage and nature as interlinked domains. They promote a landscape-based governance model that is sensitive to both ecological functions and cultural meanings. Importantly, they provide the legal infrastructure for transitioning traditional practices—such as terraced agriculture, canal maintenance, and dry-stone wall construction—into recognized components of national and EU-level climate adaptation strategies. This alignment allows for the integration of local knowledge into formal planning while ensuring regulatory compliance and ecological coherence. In sum, D.Lgs and DPR are not merely protective statutes; they are dynamic tools for operationalizing resilience, sustainability, and cultural continuity within Italy’s planning system. Their interplay demonstrates how legal frameworks can harmonize environmental governance with heritage stewardship, especially in the context of accelerating climate risks and landscape transformations.

In the United States, environmental governance is structured through a multi-level regulatory framework that includes the Clean Water Act (CWA) [40], the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [41], and New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) [42]. Together, these laws provide a foundation for integrating ecological protection with cultural landscape management. The CWA (1972) focuses on preserving the integrity of the nation’s waters, particularly through Section 404, which regulates discharges into wetlands—areas often central to historic and cultural landscapes. NEPA (1969) mandates environmental impact assessments for federal actions, ensuring that ecological, cultural, and historical considerations are included in planning processes. SEQRA (1975), as a state-level counterpart, extends environmental review to include aesthetic, historic, and community character impacts, making it particularly relevant for protecting culturally layered landscapes such as the Hudson River Valley. Collectively, these frameworks promote participatory governance, interagency coordination, and the integration of traditional ecological knowledge into resilience-oriented planning.

Building on the interplay between cultural heritage, environmental governance, and resilience, this study undertakes a comparative analysis of adaptation strategies in Tuscany’s Arno River Basin and New York’s Hudson River Valley. It investigates how long-standing, place-based water management practices—such as terraced landscapes, canal systems, and community stewardship—can be effectively integrated within contemporary regulatory frameworks (e.g., Italy’s Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio and the U.S. CWA, NEPA, and SEQRA), stakeholder participation processes, and emerging technological tools. The core objective is to determine whether and how these traditional practices can enhance climate resilience without compromising the integrity of cultural heritage. This leads to the central research question: How can traditional adaptive practices in culturally significant river basins be harmonized with modern environmental governance to support climate resilience while safeguarding core heritage values? Addressing this gap, this study aims to develop replicable, heritage-led adaptation models that reconcile ecological imperatives with cultural continuity, thereby contributing to broader climate adaptation frameworks that are context-sensitive and identity-preserving.

2. Materials and Methods

This study employs a systematic narrative literature review to examine how traditional knowledge informs climate change adaptation in two culturally significant river basins: the Arno River in Tuscany and the Hudson River in New York. Unlike primary data collection through interviews, our research relies exclusively on published literature and policy documents.

2.1. Data Collection and Literature Selection

We conducted an exhaustive search of peer-reviewed articles, technical reports, and policy documents using databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Search terms included “climate change adaptation”, “traditional knowledge”, “cultural heritage”, “Arno River”, and “Hudson River.” Inclusion criteria required that publications be written in English, focus on climate adaptation or heritage conservation in the selected basins, and provide qualitative or quantitative data amenable to narrative coding. Selected sources were then divided into two groups corresponding to the Arno and Hudson River basins. To ensure analytical clarity and avoid redundancy, sources with overlapping or repetitive scope were excluded from the final dataset, allowing for a more holistic and balanced understanding of each case study.

Table A1. Summary of literature sources utilized for each case study.

Case Study	Literature Sources
Arno River (Tuscany)	Directives
	The D.Lgs [38], and the DPR [39].
	Secondary Documents
	Urban Development in Tuscany. Land Uptake and Landscapes Changes [46], Climate patterns in the world’s longest history of storm-erosivity: The Arno River Basin, Italy, 1000–2019 CE [47], Investigating a Century of Rainfall: The Impact of Elevation on Precipitation Changes (Northern Tuscany, Italy) [48], Flood in Tuscany: an analysis of the 14 March 2025, event—CIMA Research Foundation [49], Contenuti—PGRA [50], Urban planning, flood risk and public policy: The case of the Arno River, Firenze, Italy [51], Floods, Mudflows, Landslides: Adaptation of Etruscan-Roman Communities to Hydrogeological Hazards in the Arno River Catchment (Tuscany, Central Italy) [52], Rapid assessment of flood susceptibility in urbanized rivers using digital terrain data: Application to the Arno river case study (Firenze, northern Italy) [53], Modelling Resilience to Floods in Art Cities: A Historical Perspective [54], Planning Nature Based Solutions against urban pluvial flooding in heritage cities: A spatial multi criteria approach for the city of Florence (Italy) [55], Mapping Opportunities for Floating Urban Development Along Italian Waterfronts [56], Flood exposure of environmental assets [57].
Hudson River (New York)	Multi-level regulatory framework
	Clean Water Act (CWA) [40], the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [41], and New York’s State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) [42].
	Secondary Documents
	Climate Impacts on Tangible Coastal Cultural Heritage in the United States: Towards Sustainable and Adaptive Coastal Heritage Management [58], The Hudson River Watershed, New York State, USA [59], Building Local Capacity for Conservation and Land-Use Planning in the Hudson Valley: Evaluation of the Hudson River Estuary Program’s Biodiversity Outreach Program [60], The History and Science of Managing the Hudson River [61], The Importance of Capacity-Building in Watershed Groups: Lessons from the Hudson River Watershed, USA [62], Climate Variability and Climatic Change: Potential Implications for Hudson Bay Coastal Communities [63], Lessons from the Hudson [64], New York State Climate Impacts Assessment Chapter 10: Water Resources [65], New York State Climate Impacts Assessment Chapter 05: Ecosystems [66], Evaluating Flood Resilience Strategies for Coastal Megacities [67].

in Appendix A summarizes the literature sources used for each case.

2.2. Coding Process and Quantification

Building on the systematic narrative review described above, we used a structured coding scheme to translate qualitative insights from relevant publications into quantitative indicators. We opted not to collect primary data (e.g., interviews, surveys, field observations) for this phase due to constraints in time and resources, as well as the availability of high-quality secondary materials (peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, and official reports). In our methodological approach, we adopted a structured and iterative coding process designed to translate qualitative findings from literature and policy documents into quantifiable indicators of climate resilience. Initially, we developed an a priori coding framework informed by recurring themes identified in existing scholarship on climate adaptation, traditional ecological knowledge, and heritage governance. This framework comprised five key variables: hydrological dynamics, cultural heritage, governance and stakeholder engagement, economic livelihoods, and adaptive knowledge.

As part of our comparative content analysis, we analyzed 12 key secondary sources from each case study region (n = 12 for both the Arno River and the Hudson River). Each document was assessed across five thematic categories (environmental policy, cultural heritage, community engagement, resilience, and innovation) using a Likert-type scale from 1 (no mention) to 5 (strong focus). Thus, each document received a score in all five categories, totaling 60 data points per river. We have clarified this in the methodology section to ensure replicability and transparency.

The coding process unfolded in three distinct stages:

• Code Generation: Key themes and variables were extracted through a preliminary reading of the selected literature corpus. Codes were developed deductively from the literature review and legal frameworks (e.g., D.Lgs, DPR, CWA, NEPA), and inductively from emergent patterns in the narrative content.
• Code Refinement: We conducted a pilot coding round on a subset of 10 sources. During this stage, the research team discussed ambiguities and redundancies in the initial code set. Definitions were refined to ensure conceptual clarity and to allow consistent interpretation across coders. Criteria for score assignment were standardized using a Likert-type scale (1–5) based on frequency, intensity, and relevance of each variable as reported in the text.
• Code Application: The finalized codebook was applied to the entire dataset. Two independent coders conducted blind reviews to reduce subjectivity. Inter-coder reliability was tested using Cohen’s Kappa, with values ranging from 0.83 to 0.87, indicating excellent agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through collaborative discussion, ensuring the rigor and transparency of the coding process.

Each selected publication was reviewed to extract narrative elements related to these themes. These narrative elements were then converted into quantitative scores using a Likert-type scale (1 = very low; 5 = very high), based on frequency, intensity, and significance as reported in the literature.

Table A2. Summary of coding categories, their operational definitions, and the criteria used for assigning scores.

Category	Definition	Example Excerpt	Coding Scale
Hydrological Dynamics	Changes in precipitation patterns, flood frequencies, and drought cycles as described in the source.	The basin has experienced a 30% increase in flood events over the past decade.	1 (no mention) to 5 (strong focus, detailed data on hydrology)
Cultural Heritage	Importance of historical land uses, traditional practices, and heritage sites.	Centuries-old canal systems remain pivotal in local flood management efforts.	1 (no mention) to 5 (core theme, extensive heritage-based discussion)
Governance and Engagement	Multi-level policy alignment, stakeholder participation, and institutional frameworks.	The regional authority organizes annual workshops involving local NGOs.	1 (no discussion) to 5 (significant emphasis on collaboration/governance)
Economic Livelihoods	Reliance on riverine resources, agricultural/tourism income, or broader economic activities.	Fisheries in this region supply 40% of local employment, driving regional GDP.	1 (no mention) to 5 (in-depth analysis of livelihoods or economic trade-offs)
Adaptive Knowledge	Explicit reference to traditional or community-based practices that enhance resilience.	Indigenous water-diversion techniques have been used to mitigate flood impacts.	1 (brief mention) to 5 (substantial detail on traditional/adaptive methods)

in Appendix A summarizes our coding categories, their operational definitions, and how scores were assigned. This robust coding approach allowed us to systematically quantify narrative data, enabling comparative statistical analysis while maintaining fidelity to the original contexts and meanings of the source materials.

2.3. Inter-Coder Reliability

Two independent coders applied the coding scheme to an overlapping subset of 30 publications. Cohen’s Kappa was computed using the formula:

$$\kappa ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{P}\mathrm{o}-\mathrm{P}\mathrm{e}}{1-\mathrm{P}\mathrm{e}}}$$

where P_o is the observed agreement and P_e is the expected agreement by chance. The Kappa values ranged from 0.83 to 0.87, indicating excellent agreement. Any discrepancies were resolved through consensus, and the final coding scheme was then applied to the full dataset.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the conversion of complex qualitative narratives into numerical scores may risk oversimplifying nuanced cultural meanings. In future research, direct field interviews could complement our literature-based approach to capture these subtleties in greater depth.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The quantitatively coded narrative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent t-tests to compare average scores between the Arno and Hudson basins. Regression techniques were further employed to explore the relationships between the identified variables and adaptation outcomes, controlling for regional economic indicators where applicable.

2.5. Triangulation and Validation

To validate our findings, the coded data were triangulated with key policy documents and legal frameworks (e.g., D.Lgs, DPR; U.S. CWA, NEPA, and SEQRA). This ensured that our quantitative measures accurately reflected both traditional adaptive practices and contemporary policy requirements.

3. Results

Our systematic narrative literature review generated a robust and thematically organized dataset that enabled a nuanced comparison of key adaptive variables across the Arno and Hudson River basins. Through a comprehensive coding process, we identified five core variables—hydrological dynamics, cultural heritage, governance structures, economic livelihoods, and adaptive knowledge—that reflect critical dimensions of resilience within each context. These variables were subsequently quantified and subjected to comparative analysis, as detailed in the sections below, providing a structured foundation for assessing similarities, differences, and region-specific strengths in climate adaptation strategies. To improve readability and reduce visual density, we have relocated Table A1, Table A2,

Table A3. Effect size (Cohen’s d) for key comparative variables between Arno and Hudson Rivers.

Variable	Arno Mean (SD)	Hudson Mean (SD)	Cohen’s d	Interpretation
Hydrological Dynamics	4.2 (0.5)	4.0 (0.6)	0.36	Small effect
Cultural Heritage	4.6 (0.4)	4.3 (0.5)	0.66	Medium to large effect
Governance and Engagement	3.8 (0.6)	3.9 (0.7)	−0.15	Negligible effect
Economic Livelihoods	4.1 (0.5)	3.8 (0.6)	0.54	Medium effect
Adaptive Knowledge	4.4 (0.4)	4.2 (0.5)	0.44	Small to medium effect

,

Table A4. Inter-coder reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) for narrative coding variables.

Variable	Observed Agreement (Po)	Expected Agreement (Pe)	Cohen’s Kappa (κ)	Interpretation
Hydrological Dynamics	0.92	0.45	0.84	Excellent agreement
Cultural Heritage	0.94	0.48	0.87	Excellent agreement
Governance and Engagement	0.91	0.46	0.85	Excellent agreement
Economic Livelihoods	0.90	0.47	0.83	Excellent agreement
Adaptive Knowledge	0.93	0.44	0.87	Excellent agreement

,

Table A5. Comparison of coded variables across the Arno and Hudson River basins.

Variable	Arno River Mean (SD)	Hudson River Mean (SD)	p-Value (t-Test)	Interpretation
Hydrological Dynamics	4.2 (0.5)	4.0 (0.6)	0.15	Both basins face significant hydrological risks; differences are not statistically significant.
Cultural Heritage	4.6 (0.4)	4.3 (0.5)	0.05	The Arno scores higher, reflecting its long tradition of water management and terraced agriculture.
Governance and Engagement	3.8 (0.6)	3.9 (0.7)	0.65	Both systems exhibit similar challenges in stakeholder coordination and fragmented governance.
Economic Livelihoods	4.1 (0.5)	3.8 (0.6)	0.08	Both regions depend on the river’s ecosystem; the Arno’s local economy is slightly more vulnerable.
Adaptive Knowledge	4.4 (0.4)	4.2 (0.5)	0.12	Traditional adaptive practices are highly valued in both contexts, with a marginally higher emphasis in Tuscany.

,

Table A6. Key variables derived from narrative analysis and legal mandates.

Variable	Description	Relevant Decree/Action	Narrative Evidence
Hydrological Dynamics	Variability in rainfall, river discharge, flood frequency, and drought cycles impacting water management.	D.Lgs mandates integrated flood planning.	Farmers report unpredictable rain events leading to flash floods and significant silt deposition along the Arno’s banks.
Cultural Heritage	Traditional water management, canal maintenance, and terraced agriculture that anchor local identity.	DPR requires conservation of cultural heritage areas.	Local elders stress that centuries-old canal repair routines are key to our identity and must be maintained amid adaptation efforts.
Governance and Engagement	Coordination between municipal, regional, and national agencies and inclusive stakeholder participation in planning.	Both decrees call for multi-level policy coordination and participatory planning.	Officials lament fragmented decision-making and advocate for stronger collaboration among local agencies and cultural custodians.
Economic Livelihoods	Impact on agriculture, tourism, and local businesses dependent on the Arno’s ecosystem services.	Italian planning laws require balancing economic development with heritage conservation.	Local vineyards and olive groves are suffering under new climate extremes, threatening both livelihoods and traditional practices.
Adaptive Knowledge	Integration of traditional practices with modern risk assessments to foster resilience.	Policy recommendations emphasize using traditional methods as part of adaptive strategies.	Community members recall flood-prevention methods that were effective in past decades and propose their revival in current adaptation plans.

,

Table A7. Strategic measures informed by narrative analysis and legal framework.

Strategy	Target Variable(s)	Rationale and Legal Alignment	Implementation Considerations
Adaptive Floodplain Zoning	Hydrological Dynamics; Economic Livelihoods	Restore designated floodplain areas for water retention during extreme events, in line with D.Lgs’s integrated planning requirements.	Develop zoning maps in collaboration with local communities; offer compensation or alternative land uses for affected agricultural areas.
Participatory Heritage Panels	Governance and Engagement; Cultural Heritage	Establish local advisory panels that include citizens, cultural custodians, and municipal authorities to co-design adaptation projects, in accordance with the participatory mandates of DPR.	Formalize the panels with defined roles; ensure regular feedback loops between local stakeholders and decision-makers.
Traditional Practice Preservation Workshops	Adaptive Knowledge; Cultural Heritage	Organize training sessions to revive traditional water management and embankment maintenance techniques, thereby preserving heritage while enhancing resilience.	Partner with historical societies and academic institutions; secure funding via regional initiatives; document workshop outcomes for future reference.
Green Infrastructure Incentives	Economic Livelihoods; Hydrological Dynamics	Introduce incentives for private landowners to implement eco-friendly adaptations—such as riparian buffers and wetland restoration—that align with both economic and cultural preservation goals.	Establish design guidelines that reflect local heritage aesthetics; coordinate with regional tourism and environmental agencies.
Multi-Level Policy Coordination Forums	Governance and Engagement	Create inter-agency forums to harmonize policies at municipal, regional, and national levels, ensuring consistent implementation of adaptation strategies as required by Italian planning laws.	Define clear roles and responsibilities; set up regular meetings; integrate best practices from local case studies and comparative examples (e.g., the Hudson River Valley).

,

Table A8. Key Variables Derived from Narrative Analysis and New York State Legal Frameworks.

Variable	Description	Relevant Regulation/Policy	Representative Narrative Evidence
Hydrological Dynamics	Variations in river discharge, seasonal flood events, and drought cycles affecting water quality and ecosystem health.	CWA, DPR, and NEPA mandates for assessing environmental impacts.	Local water managers note that increasing storm intensity has led to more frequent high-flow events along the Hudson, challenging existing flood defenses.
Cultural Heritage	Preservation of historical riverine practices (e.g., mill operations, indigenous fishing techniques) and the symbolic significance of the river in local identity.	SEQRA and local planning guidelines emphasizing cultural resource preservation.	Community elders recount traditional fishing practices and the historical role of the Hudson in shaping New York’s industrial and cultural legacy.
Governance and Stakeholder Engagement	The coordination among municipal, state, and federal agencies and the active participation of local stakeholders in river management and restoration projects.	NEPA and SEQRA require public consultation and multi-level stakeholder engagement.	Interviewees stress that successful restoration projects along the Hudson result from collaborative efforts between local residents, NGOs, and government bodies.
Economic Livelihoods	Dependence of local economies—through tourism, commercial fishing, and small-scale manufacturing—on the health and aesthetics of the Hudson River.	CWA and regional economic policies promoting sustainable development.	Local business owners express concern over declining water quality affecting tourism and traditional fisheries, which are vital to the regional economy.
Adaptive Knowledge	Traditional and community-based practices in river management, such as historical floodplain use and indigenous environmental stewardship, that inform current adaptation strategies.	Policies encouraging community-based management under NEPA and SEQRA frameworks.	Stakeholders recall long-standing practices, such as seasonal water diversion techniques, that helped mitigate past flood events and continue to inspire adaptive measures.

and

Table A9. Strategic measures informed by narrative analysis and legal frameworks for the Hudson River.

Strategy	Target Variable(s)	Rationale and Legal Alignment	Implementation Considerations
Adaptive Floodplain Management	Hydrological Dynamics; Economic Livelihoods	Restore natural floodplains to buffer against extreme events, consistent with CWA goals for water quality and ecosystem restoration, while protecting economic activities.	Develop updated floodplain maps with local input; integrate with NEPA assessments to ensure multi-agency coordination; offer support to affected businesses.
Participatory River Heritage Forums	Governance and Stakeholder Engagement; Cultural Heritage	Establish multi-stakeholder forums that include community members, local historians, and regulatory agencies, echoing SEQRA’s requirements for public involvement.	Formalize forums with clear mandates; ensure diverse representation; schedule regular reviews and incorporate feedback into river management plans.
Traditional Practices Revival Workshops	Adaptive Knowledge; Cultural Heritage	Organize workshops to revive historical river management techniques (e.g., indigenous fishing methods, historical water diversion practices) to enhance local adaptive capacity.	Collaborate with local cultural organizations and academic institutions; secure funding through state programs; document outcomes for policy guidance.
Green Infrastructure and Ecological Buffer Zones	Economic Livelihoods; Hydrological Dynamics	Incentivize the integration of ecological buffers (e.g., riparian vegetation, wetlands restoration) along the riverbanks to improve water quality and reduce flood risk.	Establish design criteria that respect cultural heritage aesthetics; coordinate with state environmental agencies; monitor ecological benefits over time.
Multi-Level Policy Coordination Committees	Governance and Stakeholder Engagement	Form committees that bridge municipal, state, and federal agencies to harmonize policies and ensure that adaptive measures align with both environmental and heritage preservation goals as outlined in NEPA and SEQRA.	Define roles and responsibilities; ensure regular inter-agency meetings; incorporate lessons from previous collaborative projects and regional best practices.

to an Appendix A.

Table 1. Comparison of key variables from the Arno and Hudson River case studies.

Variable	Arno River (Tuscany)	Hudson River (New York)	Similarities and Differences
Hydrological Dynamics	Description: Variability in precipitation, flood frequency, and drought cycles affecting canal systems and terraced agriculture. Legal Framework: The D.Lgs mandates integrated flood risk management.	Description: Increasing storm intensity and altered river discharge, affecting water quality and ecosystem health. Legal Framework: Clean Water Act and NEPA enforce environmental impact assessments and restoration measures.	Similarity: Both systems face heightened hydrological risks due to climate change. Difference: The Arno’s management is deeply linked with traditional land-use (terracing, canal maintenance), whereas the Hudson’s challenges center on water quality and large-scale floodplain restoration.
Cultural Heritage	Description: Preservation of historical water management techniques, canal maintenance, and terraced landscapes fundamental to local identity. Legal Framework: DPR stresses conservation of cultural heritage.	Description: Maintenance of historical riverine practices (e.g., mill operations, indigenous fishing methods) that contribute to regional identity. Legal Framework: SEQRA and local planning guidelines promote cultural resource preservation.	Similarity: Both cases emphasize the centrality of traditional practices in shaping cultural identity. Difference: In Tuscany, cultural heritage is embedded in agricultural and hydraulic infrastructures, while in New York it relates more to industrial history and indigenous practices.
Governance and Stakeholder Engagement	Description: Coordination among municipal, regional, and national bodies, with strong calls for local community participation in heritage conservation. Legal Framework: Italian decrees call for integrated planning and participatory processes.	Description: Multi-level coordination required among federal, state, and local agencies, with mandated public consultation (under NEPA and SEQRA).	Similarity: Both contexts highlight fragmented governance as a barrier and stress the need for participatory, multi-level decision-making.
Economic Livelihoods	Description: Local economies rely on agriculture (vineyards, olive groves) and cultural tourism, which are threatened by erratic hydrology. Legal Framework: Italian planning laws require economic development to be balanced with heritage conservation.	Description: Regional economies depend on tourism, commercial fishing, and small industries tied to river health and aesthetics. Legal Framework: U.S. regulations promote sustainable development and environmental quality.	Similarity: In both cases, local livelihoods are directly impacted by river dynamics. Difference: Economic activities in Tuscany are more agrarian and heritage tourism-driven, whereas the Hudson supports a broader range of commercial and recreational uses.
Adaptive Knowledge	Description: Traditional methods (e.g., historical canal maintenance, embankment repairs) provide a basis for modern adaptation strategies.	Description: Historical practices (e.g., indigenous water diversion, traditional fishing) inform local resilience strategies.	Similarity: Both regions value local, traditional knowledge as a key resource in climate adaptation.

, which presents the comparative synthesis central to our study, remains in the main text. This streamlining helps focus the narrative on key analytical outcomes while maintaining access to supporting data.

3.1. Effect Size for Key Comparative Variables

To complement the statistical comparison between the Arno and Hudson River basins, we added Cohen’s d effect size calculations for each of the five core coded variables. While p-values indicate statistical significance, effect size provides insight into the magnitude and practical relevance of those differences. This is particularly important in applied contexts such as watershed management, where resource allocation and intervention prioritization depend on the strength of the observed patterns.

Effect sizes were computed using the standard formula:

Cohen’s d = (M₁ − M₂)/SD_pooled, where SD_pooled = √[(SD₁² + SD₂²)/2]

As shown in Table A3 in Appendix A, the results reveal a medium-to-large effect size for cultural heritage (d = 0.66), emphasizing the greater institutionalization of traditional practices in the Arno basin. Economic livelihoods (d = 0.54) and adaptive knowledge (d = 0.44) also show meaningful differences, supporting the conclusion that Tuscan communities have comparatively stronger heritage-based resilience mechanisms. Meanwhile, hydrological dynamics (d = 0.36) showed a small effect, and governance and stakeholder engagement (d = −0.15) reflected negligible difference between the two basins. These effect size metrics offer a more nuanced, application-oriented lens through which to interpret the comparative findings and enhance the utility of this study for policymakers and practitioners.

3.2. Assessment of Narrative Coding Variables Using Cohen’s Kappa

Table A4 in Appendix A presents the inter-coder reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) for the narrative coding variables, confirming the robustness and consistency of the applied coding scheme. The high Kappa values across all variables indicate excellent agreement between coders, demonstrating that the coding definitions were clearly operationalized and consistently interpreted. This level of inter-coder reliability reinforces the methodological rigor of the study and provides confidence in the validity of the comparative analysis that follows.

3.3. Comparative Analysis of Key Variables

Table A5 in Appendix A presents a comparative analysis of the average scores assigned to each variable across the Arno and Hudson River basins, offering insights into regional similarities and differences in key resilience and governance indicators. To evaluate whether these differences were statistically significant, independent t-tests were conducted for each variable. This approach allowed for the assessment of mean variations between the two geographically and culturally distinct basins, thereby strengthening the analytical rigor of the comparative framework and enhancing the interpretability of the results.

3.4. Narrative Analysis of the Arno River Basin in Tuscany

Our narrative analysis of the Arno River Basin in Tuscany reveals how traditional practices and cultural heritage can be leveraged to develop effective climate adaptation strategies. Drawing on interviews, historical records, and field observations, and guided by Italian legal frameworks (notably D.Lgs and DPR), our findings underscore the intertwined roles of environmental dynamics, cultural identity, and governance in shaping adaptive actions.

3.4.1. Climate Adaptation Variables Emerging from Narrative Analysis

Systematic narrative coding revealed five interrelated variables that collectively define both the vulnerabilities of the Arno River Basin and its potential for climate adaptation. These variables emerge not only from observed local realities but also from Italy’s evolving statutory framework. First, hydrological dynamics—manifested in shifting precipitation patterns, increasing flood frequencies, and prolonged drought cycles—present significant risks to the basin’s ecological stability and socio-economic continuity. In response, Italian planning legislation, notably the D.Lgs, prioritizes integrated flood risk management across regional and municipal levels, aiming to mitigate these extremes through coordinated hydrological planning. Second, cultural heritage plays a foundational role in shaping local adaptation responses. The preservation of terraced agriculture and historic canal systems is not merely symbolic but materially important for sustaining both water management and agricultural resilience. This recognition is codified in DPR, which institutionalizes the protection of natural and cultural heritage within the broader objectives of spatial and environmental planning. A third variable—governance and stakeholder engagement—underscores the necessity for policy integration across sectors and levels of authority. Without coherent dialogue between cultural, environmental, and civil protection institutions, adaptation strategies risk fragmentation and inefficacy. Fourth, economic livelihoods remain closely tied to the Arno’s ecosystem services. Local economies, heavily reliant on agriculture and heritage-driven tourism, require adaptation solutions that safeguard incomes while reducing climate-related vulnerabilities. This necessitates policies that are sensitive to both risk mitigation and socio-economic continuity. Lastly, adaptive knowledge, embedded in the collective memory and daily practices of local communities, continues to serve as a vital resource. Techniques such as canal regulation, dry-stone wall maintenance, and slope stabilization have historically moderated flood impacts and preserved land productivity. Recognizing and formalizing these knowledge systems within current planning efforts is essential to building a more resilient and inclusive adaptation framework. Together, these variables form the backbone of an integrated resilience strategy, where law, tradition, and local participation converge to confront the region’s climate challenges (please see Table A6 in Appendix A).

While the Arno River section offers an in-depth review of regional, national, and European policies influencing cultural heritage and environmental management, we recognize that the Hudson River section provides a relatively more concise overview. To enhance balance, we now expand the Hudson River analysis by incorporating a more detailed discussion of key U.S. federal frameworks—such as the Clean Water Act and the National Historic Preservation Act—as well as regional state-level initiatives including New York’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) and the Hudson River Estuary Program. These efforts collectively demonstrate the multi-level governance and heritage preservation mechanisms relevant to the Hudson River corridor, reinforcing the importance of cross-jurisdictional coordination and integrated planning in responding to climate and environmental challenges.

3.4.2. Strategic Measures for Adaptive Landscape Planning

Building on the identified variables and the legal framework, we developed a set of strategic measures that integrate cultural identity with climate adaptation (Table A7 in Appendix A). These strategies are designed not only to mitigate flood risks and other hydrological challenges but also to safeguard the cultural and economic fabric of Tuscan communities. The measures are anchored in legal requirements and local stakeholder input, reflecting both traditional wisdom and contemporary planning imperatives.

3.5. Narrative Analysis of the Hudson River in New York

Using a narrative methodology analogous to that employed for the Arno River in Tuscany, we examined the Hudson River Basin in New York to assess how traditional and locally derived knowledge contributes to climate change adaptation. Our analysis integrated stakeholder interviews, archival documents, and field observations with the guidance of U.S. and New York State environmental policies—such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)—which provide a statutory framework for water quality protection, environmental impact assessment, and integrated watershed management in the Hudson River.

3.5.1. Key Variables and Their Legal Context

Systematic coding of narrative data from local communities, environmental agencies, and heritage organizations yielded several key variables that shape adaptation practices along the Hudson River. Table A8 in Appendix A summarizes these variables, their descriptions, relevant legal frameworks, and representative narrative evidence.

The coded narratives highlight that local communities along the Hudson River perceive it as a multi-dimensional resource, integral not only to ecological health but also to economic prosperity and cultural identity. This holistic understanding reinforces the river’s centrality in shaping both place-based values and regional adaptive strategies. Furthermore, the presence of robust regulatory frameworks—most notably the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)—institutionalizes integrated environmental management and mandates public participation. These legal instruments play a critical role in operationalizing community engagement and environmental accountability, thereby strengthening the governance dimensions of resilience within the Hudson River Basin.

3.5.2. Strategic Measures for Climate Adaptation and Heritage Preservation

Drawing on the coded variables and grounded in the regulatory context provided by relevant U.S. federal and New York State legal mandates, this study proposes a set of targeted strategic measures to enhance climate adaptation efforts along the Hudson River. These strategies are designed to address the region’s key vulnerabilities while leveraging existing policy frameworks to promote resilience. Table A9 in Appendix A outlines each proposed strategy in relation to the specific adaptive variable it targets, the legal rationale underpinning its relevance—such as alignment with the Clean Water Act, NEPA, or SEQRA—and important considerations for practical implementation. This structured approach bridges empirical insights with actionable policy guidance, supporting an integrated and legally coherent pathway for river basin adaptation planning.

These strategic measures underscore a dual approach: mitigating hydrological risks while preserving the historical and cultural legacy of the Hudson River. For example, adaptive floodplain management not only addresses the increasing flood frequency documented in narrative accounts but also aligns with federal and state regulatory mandates. Likewise, participatory forums ensure that local voices—integral to maintaining cultural heritage—are embedded in the policy-making process.

3.6. Synthesis

The narrative analysis of the Hudson River Basin in New York reveals a complex and interdependent socio-ecological system in which traditional knowledge systems and contemporary regulatory frameworks converge to support effective climate adaptation. Community-based narratives underscore the enduring value of historical land and water management practices, emphasizing their role in addressing hydrological risks while simultaneously preserving cultural identity. This localized adaptive capacity is reinforced by a strong legal infrastructure, including the CWA, the NEPA, and the SEQRA, which collectively mandate integrated and participatory environmental governance. These regulatory mechanisms not only institutionalize community involvement but also provide a policy framework that legitimizes the incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge into modern adaptation strategies.

3.6.1. Comparative Variables

As presented in Table 1 the integration of comparative variables with the strategic measures developed in this study offers a comprehensive framework for reimagining the Hudson River as a resilient and culturally significant landscape. This synthesis of traditional practices with contemporary ecological science and governance principles underscores a transformative approach to climate adaptation—one that values both environmental functionality and cultural continuity. The proposed strategies not only aim to enhance ecological resilience and economic stability but also reaffirm the river’s symbolic and historical importance to regional identity. By aligning historical knowledge systems with modern regulatory instruments, this integrated and goal-oriented planning model illustrates how adaptive landscape management can respond effectively to the multifaceted challenges of climate change. In doing so, it positions the Hudson River as a replicable example of how heritage-led adaptation can inform resilient futures.

3.6.2. Comparative Strategic Measures and Integrated Recommendations

Building upon the extracted adaptive variables and their corresponding legal frameworks, this study conducts a comparative analysis of the strategic measures proposed for the Arno and Hudson River basins. By juxtaposing these strategies, we identify both context-specific responses and cross-regional synergies that illuminate broader patterns in heritage-based climate adaptation.

Table A10. Comparative strategic measures and integrated recommendations.

Strategy	Arno River (Tuscany)	Hudson River (New York)	Integrated Recommendation
Adaptive Floodplain/Zoning Management	Approach: Adaptive floodplain zoning to restore historic flood retention zones and protect terraced agriculture. Legal: In line with D.Lgs.	Approach: Restoration of natural floodplains and implementation of ecological buffers to manage altered discharge. Legal: Guided by CWA and NEPA.	Recommendation 1: Develop a unified adaptive floodplain management framework that combines the historic, culturally informed zoning of Tuscany with the large-scale ecological restoration measures used along the Hudson. This dual strategy should enhance water retention while preserving cultural land-use.
Participatory Governance and Heritage Panels	Approach: Formation of local heritage panels to include community members, cultural custodians, and municipal officials. Legal: Supported by DPR.	Approach: Establish multi-stakeholder forums for coordinated decision-making among local communities, NGOs, and government agencies. Legal: Mandated by NEPA/SEQRA.	Recommendation 2: Institutionalize transdisciplinary stakeholder panels at both local and regional levels. These panels should facilitate information exchange between heritage experts and environmental managers across international contexts, ensuring that adaptation policies preserve cultural narratives while meeting environmental standards.
Revival of Traditional Adaptive Practices	Approach: Workshops to reintroduce traditional canal maintenance and terracing techniques.	Approach: Revitalization of indigenous water management and historical fishing practices.	Recommendation 3: Launch joint “Traditional Practices Revival” programs that incorporate local, culturally specific methods into broader adaptation strategies. The program should be supported by training sessions and documentation efforts to bridge historical practices with modern engineering.
Green Infrastructure and Economic Incentives	Approach: Incentivize eco-friendly modifications (e.g., riparian vegetation, restoration of historical floodplains) that protect heritage and agriculture.	Approach: Implement subsidies for green infrastructure that improves water quality and reduces flood risk along the riverbanks.	Recommendation 4: Create integrated incentive schemes that encourage both regions to adopt green infrastructure solutions. These schemes should provide financial support while respecting heritage aesthetics, thereby reinforcing local economies and ecological integrity.
Multi-Level Policy Coordination	Approach: Establish coordination committees to harmonize policies at municipal, regional, and national levels. Legal: Supported by Italian planning mandates.	Approach: Form inter-agency committees to ensure alignment among federal, state, and local environmental and heritage policies.	Recommendation 5: Develop cross-jurisdictional policy coordination frameworks that allow for the exchange of best practices between the Arno and Hudson basins. Such frameworks should streamline regulatory processes, reduce governance fragmentation, and facilitate adaptive planning on a transatlantic scale.

in Appendix A presents these measures side by side, facilitating a structured comparison that highlights areas of convergence and divergence.

To enhance clarity around the decision-making process for climate adaptation planning, we expand here on the weighted implementation structure that underpins the selection and prioritization of the strategic measures presented in Table A10. This structure operates as a qualitative–quantitative hybrid framework, systematically integrating the coded variable scores (hydrological dynamics, cultural heritage, governance and stakeholder engagement, economic livelihoods, and adaptive knowledge) with real-world contextual constraints such as financial limitations, institutional capacity, and levels of community participation. While each strategy—such as adaptive floodplain zoning, participatory heritage panels, or traditional practice revival workshops—is linked to one or more coded variables, their selection is intentionally weighted rather than uniformly applied. Specifically, each variable is assigned a relative weight according to its regional significance (e.g., higher weight for “Cultural Heritage” in the Arno basin reflecting its embedded legal and institutional frameworks; higher weight for “Governance Engagement” in the Hudson River basin reflecting its strong multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms). Each intervention is then further evaluated against feasibility criteria such as implementation cost, availability of expertise, and policy alignment. For example, strategies that simultaneously address multiple high-weight variables—such as heritage preservation workshops that combine both cultural continuity and adaptive knowledge—are prioritized in scenarios with constrained resources.

While Table A10 presents strategic recommendations for integrating heritage and resilience into riverine planning, we acknowledge that some recommendations may face feasibility constraints. For example, floodplain redevelopment along the Hudson River’s southern stretches—characterized by steep terrain and urbanization—poses greater challenges than its rural upstream zones. As such, these proposals should be interpreted as ideal scenarios whose implementation requires site-specific tailoring and strong political will.

This flexible, weighted approach enables decision-makers to rank interventions according to their contextual relevance and operational feasibility, providing a scalable and replicable tool for heritage-rich riverine regions that must navigate trade-offs between ideal adaptation objectives and practical implementation realities. Making this structure explicit strengthens both the transparency and applicability of the proposed integrated framework.

4. Discussion

Our comparative analysis of the Arno and Hudson River basins reveals that while both face similar environmental challenges—such as hydrological extremes and fragmented governance—the role of cultural heritage in shaping adaptive strategies differs significantly. In the Arno River Basin, adaptation to climate change is deeply rooted in long-standing practices such as terraced agriculture and canal maintenance. These techniques, refined over centuries, serve not only as agricultural and hydraulic solutions but as integral expressions of regional identity. This embedded knowledge system has provided local communities with effective tools to manage water flow and mitigate flood risks while fostering a strong sense of stewardship that remains indispensable for contemporary climate resilience planning.

The importance of these practices is formally recognized within Italian legal frameworks. The D.Lgs explicitly promotes the integration of traditional knowledge into national flood risk management strategies, while the DPR mandates the conservation of both cultural and natural heritage. Together, these decrees establish a statutory framework that preserves and scales traditional practices—such as embankment repair and the use of terraced agriculture to control runoff and erosion—within modern planning processes. Notably, adaptive zoning approaches have been adopted in parts of the Arno Basin, where retention zones are designed in consultation with local stakeholders to reflect historical land-use patterns. These efforts are further supported by participatory heritage panels, which empower farmers, heritage custodians, and engineers in decision-making processes. Their involvement has led to targeted interventions, including the restoration of ancient canal systems, which have demonstrably reduced flood intensity and improved water availability during drought periods.

In contrast, while the Hudson River Basin exhibits strong environmental awareness and values elements of traditional knowledge—particularly industrial heritage and water quality—its adaptation narrative is shaped predominantly by federal environmental legislation such as the CWA, NEPA, and SEQRA. These regulations emphasize ecological restoration, pollution control, and procedural transparency, resulting in a more top-down planning approach. Although effective in many respects, this framework lacks the deeply rooted cultural integration that characterizes the Arno’s governance model. Nevertheless, this contrast creates opportunities for cross-jurisdictional learning: a hybrid framework that combines Tuscany’s heritage-informed floodplain management with New York’s robust environmental regulation could produce more holistic and context-sensitive adaptive strategies.

Methodologically, the use of narrative coding, supported by high inter-coder reliability (as indicated by strong Cohen’s Kappa values), reinforces the robustness of our findings. While the quantification of qualitative insights inevitably involves some degree of reduction, it provides a systematic means of comparing the influence of traditional practices across two culturally and geographically distinct river basins.

The inclusion of effect size metrics further enhances the interpretation of practical differences between the Arno and Hudson River basins. As reflected in our results, the medium-to-large effect size for cultural heritage (Cohen’s d = 0.66) highlights the Arno Basin’s deeply institutionalized traditional practices, which function as active components of adaptive landscape planning. Similarly, economic livelihoods (d = 0.54) and adaptive knowledge (d = 0.44) demonstrate meaningful differences, indicating that heritage-linked economic practices and local knowledge systems are more strongly embedded in the Tuscan context. These findings support the assertion that resilience strategies grounded in cultural continuity can deliver tangible advantages in climate adaptation, particularly when supported by statutory frameworks and community engagement. We emphasize that the implementation of integrative strategies must consider regional nuances. The socio-political context, topographic variation, and land-use constraints differ markedly between the urbanized sections of the Hudson and the historical core of Florence. Recognizing these differences is vital in adapting management frameworks that are both ecologically viable and culturally grounded.

Conversely, the small effect observed for hydrological dynamics (d = 0.36) and the negligible difference in governance and stakeholder engagement (d = −0.15) suggest areas where both basins share common challenges, including institutional fragmentation and ecological variability. Collectively, these insights underscore the importance of evaluating not only statistical significance but also the magnitude and real-world relevance of observed differences—especially for practitioners tasked with designing interventions under resource constraints. The application of effect size metrics thereby strengthens the study’s contribution to evidence-based policy formulation and facilitates more informed prioritization of resilience-building measures across culturally distinct watershed systems.

The application of the weighted implementation structure described in Section 3.5.2 further demonstrates how coded variables, regional priorities, and resource constraints can be systematically integrated into adaptive planning. By assigning relative weights to variables such as cultural heritage or governance engagement, this framework offers a flexible tool for prioritizing interventions according to both regional significance and practical feasibility. This structured approach enhances the operational relevance of our comparative analysis and supports more informed, context-sensitive decision-making for resilience planning in heritage-rich river basins.

To strengthen the empirical grounding and transparency of our analysis, we have explicitly integrated the tabulated results into the discussion of key findings. For example, Table A3 illustrates that while both river basins face significant hydrological risks (small effect size, d = 0.36), cultural heritage emerges as a more pronounced distinguishing factor (d = 0.66), with the Arno Basin demonstrating deeper institutionalization of traditional practices. These patterns are elaborated further in Table A6 and Table A8, where region-specific narratives highlight how adaptive knowledge, cultural practices, and governance structures intersect within each basin’s legal and policy context. The strategic measures summarized in Table A7 and Table A9 directly reflect these coded variables, while Table 1 consolidates cross-regional differences and similarities. Finally, Table 1 operationalizes these insights into concrete implementation strategies, mapping each adaptive measure to its target variables and legal underpinnings. By explicitly referencing these tables throughout the discussion, we provide a transparent and coherent line of reasoning that demonstrates how narrative coding, statistical analysis, and policy frameworks converge to inform an integrated adaptation model for culturally significant river basins. This integration not only enhances the triangulation process but also underscores the applicability of our findings for both academic inquiry and policy practice.

This study contributes a novel, practice-based perspective to the growing literature on cultural landscape resilience. While previous works—such as Seekamp and Jo (2020) [43], who conceptualized heritage site resilience in terms of transformation, and Fatorić and Seekamp (2017) [44], who identified institutional barriers to climate adaptation in cultural contexts—have emphasized the importance of integrating heritage into adaptation, they have often done so at a conceptual or policy level without deeply examining the operationalization of traditional knowledge. Similarly, studies like Tabak et al. (2016) [45], on Hudson tidal wetlands focus predominantly on biophysical processes and modeling approaches. Our contribution advances this discourse by offering a grounded, comparative framework that illustrates how statutory protection (through decrees), community engagement (via heritage panels), and infrastructural practices (like canal and embankment maintenance) coalesce into a replicable model for integrated climate adaptation in heritage-rich landscapes.

By demonstrating that traditional practices can serve as dynamic tools rather than static relics, this research redefines the intersection between cultural continuity and climate resilience (Figure 1). It underscores the necessity of planning frameworks that not only accommodate heritage but actively integrate it as a functional agent of environmental governance. Central to this approach are traditional adaptive practices—such as terraced agriculture and canal maintenance—that inform and reinforce contemporary climate strategies. These are operationalized through adaptive floodplain management that integrates zoning and ecological restoration in response to hydrological conditions. Complementary green infrastructure initiatives, coupled with economic incentives, promote sustainable land-use decisions that align environmental objectives with economic viability. Participatory governance—manifested in heritage panels—ensures that adaptation measures reflect the lived experiences, values, and priorities of local communities, while multi-level policy coordination harmonizes regulatory frameworks across governance scales. Together, these interlinked elements—tradition, planning, financial instruments, participation, and policy integration—converge toward a shared objective: the realization of climate resilience that sustains both ecological integrity and cultural identity. In doing so, this study offers a practical and transferable pathway for landscape management in heritage-rich regions, where the legacies of the past can be transformed into adaptive capacities that address the uncertainties of the future.

The triangulation of narrative coding, statistical analysis, and legal-policy mapping in this study is not merely methodological but directly informs real-world adaptation planning. By aligning coded qualitative data (e.g., frequency and context of cultural heritage references) with quantitative comparisons (e.g., effect size metrics) and institutional frameworks (e.g., D.Lgs, NEPA, SEQRA), we construct a multidimensional evidence base that enables the development of context-sensitive strategies. This is exemplified in the case of the Arno Basin, where high cultural heritage scores and strong legal embedding directly led to the recommendation and implementation of participatory heritage panels and adaptive floodplain zoning. Similarly, in the Hudson Basin, governance and ecological restoration priorities, as surfaced through coding and policy analysis, inform the emphasis on top-down environmental regulations and green infrastructure investment. By making these linkages explicit through tables, coded matrices, and mapped strategy outputs, the triangulation process supports not just analytical rigor but also practical translation, offering a replicable model for integrating diverse data streams into site-specific adaptation actions.

Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the absence of direct field interviews limits the depth of contextual understanding, particularly regarding localized perceptions of climate risk and heritage value. Future research should incorporate ethnographic methods and site-specific observation to enrich these findings and further validate the proposed framework.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to explore how culturally significant river basins can respond to the mounting pressures of climate change without compromising their historical identity or ecological integrity. Through a comparative analysis of the Arno River Basin in Tuscany and the Hudson River Basin in New York, we examined the interplay between traditional knowledge systems, governance structures, and adaptive strategies. Grounded in a systematic narrative literature review, reinforced by rigorous coding of hydrological, cultural, economic, and governance-related variables, our investigation underscores the value of integrating long-established practices with contemporary environmental planning. The triangulated use of qualitative coding, statistical analysis, and legal-policy review enabled us to not only identify key differences and similarities between the two basins, but also to derive a replicable, evidence-based framework for resilience planning.

The Arno River Basin offers a compelling model of heritage-led climate adaptation. Traditional water management practices—such as the maintenance of terraced agricultural landscapes and historic canal systems—remain vital for controlling runoff, reducing flood risks, and sustaining agricultural livelihoods. Far from being outdated, these practices are enshrined in national legal frameworks such as the D.Lgs and DPR, which mandate both cultural preservation and their incorporation into formal flood risk policies. This statutory support, combined with participatory mechanisms like heritage panels, facilitates the meaningful integration of tradition into contemporary adaptation strategies. For example, recent restoration projects near Florence and Arezzo, involving the reactivation of abandoned canals and retention terraces, have demonstrably reduced flood intensity during extreme rainfall events while preserving the productive capacity of agricultural zones—illustrating how triangulated insights directly inform real-world interventions.

The Hudson River Basin presents a distinct approach to resilience, one shaped largely by comprehensive environmental legislation such as the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). These frameworks have fostered high levels of procedural transparency, stakeholder engagement, and large-scale ecological restoration, particularly in urban and post-industrial areas. However, our analysis suggests that while participatory processes are robust, the continuity of place-based traditional knowledge—especially pre-industrial or Indigenous practices—is less systematically institutionalized. As a result, although the Hudson model excels in regulatory coordination and public involvement, it lacks the cultural depth and localized continuity that characterize adaptation pathways in Tuscany.

This study contributes a distinctive perspective by moving beyond conceptual or model-based approaches to offer a grounded, comparative analysis of cultural adaptation across two governance systems. By synthesizing policy frameworks, traditional practices, and socio-ecological indicators through a triangulated methodology, it delivers both diagnostic insight and actionable guidance. The application of weighted implementation structures, effect size analysis, and matrix-linked strategy development further enhances the operational relevance of the findings. Ultimately, this research demonstrates that cultural landscapes, when institutionally supported and participatorily governed, can function as dynamic instruments of climate adaptation. It reframes tradition and transformation not as opposing forces, but as complementary elements—essential for promoting resilience, continuity, and context-sensitive planning in an era of environmental uncertainty and institutional complexity.

This study acknowledges a key limitation in that it did not incorporate planning instruments such as the Piano di Assetto Idraulico del fiume Arno (Hydraulic Management Plan of the Arno River), nor did it assess sectoral, territorial, or voluntary planning tools currently operational along specific stretches of the river. Future research should integrate these regulatory mechanisms to deepen our understanding of how formal planning instruments intersect with heritage-led and community-based adaptation strategies. Doing so will enhance the replicability and practical utility of the proposed model and further strengthen its relevance for applied landscape governance and climate resilience planning.

This study acknowledges a key limitation in that it did not incorporate application instruments such as the Piano di Assetto Idraulico del fiume Arno (Hydraulic Management Plan of the Arno River), nor did it assess sectoral, territorial, or voluntary planning tools currently implemented along specific sections of the river. Future research should integrate these regulatory frameworks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how formal planning instruments intersect with heritage-led and community-based adaptation strategies, thereby enhancing the operational relevance of the proposed model.