High-Resolution Boundaries Map Climate Risk Across 386 Coastal Heritage Sites

Researchers created high-resolution digital boundaries for 386 coastal World Heritage Sites, drawing 1,250 polygons that can be combined with local flood, erosion, ecological and cultural data. The dataset turns point listings into polygon boundaries so sea-level, flood and erosion models can intersect asset footprints.

World Heritage listings contain locations and basic records, but many sites lack complete analysis-ready boundaries, limiting the ability to connect global hazard models with specific cultural and natural assets. Cultural, natural and mixed-site boundaries come from different sources, requiring licensing, scale, date and local correction to be preserved.

A global dataset is a starting point, not a substitute for local elevation, coastal processes, climate models, community knowledge and asset vulnerability. Dates, scale and licensing also need governance. High-resolution geometry does not equal high certainty; risk still depends on elevation, coastal dynamics, scenarios, vulnerability and protection.

About 14 digitisers combined UNESCO, protected-area, wetland and local maps to hand-draw boundaries for 289 cultural, 91 natural and six mixed sites. Applications should record coordinate systems, data versions, processing, model parameters, validation and manager review.

The dataset covers more than 235 million hectares and 1,250 polygons. It was published in Scientific Data and will support follow-on analysis of sea-level rise and flooding. The Scientific Data paper verifies scope and method, while future loss and adaptation benefits remain follow-on research.

Machine-readable heritage boundaries can support insurance, adaptation investment and budgeting, but provenance and local validation are essential so model precision is not mistaken for certainty. Spatial evidence can support insurance, adaptation budgets and heritage governance without replacing local knowledge.

SNN editorial analysis: Taiwan coastal industrial parks, ports, heritage assets, wetlands and tourism facilities also need asset boundaries connected to flood, storm-surge, erosion and subsidence data. Pre-Disclosure Evidence Infrastructure should preserve dataset version, geometry source and date, coordinate system, resolution, digitisation method, validation, hazard model and scenario, asset vulnerability, local review and adaptation decisions. A risk map alone cannot show whether boundaries, models and asset inventories refer to the same period. Taiwan could use stable asset identifiers so insurance, public works, nature-related disclosure and heritage management share a traceable base map. This is editorial interpretation.

Next checks include dataset updates, adoption by site managers, integration with flood and erosion models and whether vulnerable sites gain adaptation finance. Follow-up should cover updates, local adoption, risk models and adaptation decisions.