## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Location** & **Mean Velocity (mm/Year)** & **Mean Velocity (St.D)** \\ \hline Rhodes (GR) & \(-1.46\) & 0.31 \\ Santorini (GR) & \(1.14\) & 0.24 \\ Samos (GR) & \(12.84\) & 1.62 \\ Delos (GR) & \(-0.28\) & 0.17 \\ Napoli (IT) & \(-1.75\) & 0.28 \\ Sicily (IT) & \(-1.08\) & 0.38 \\ Mallorca (ES) & \(-1.35\) & 0.05 \\ Barcelona (ES) & \(-1.45\) & 0.01 \\ Marseille (FR) & \(-1.26\) & 0.01 \\ Nice (FR) & \(-0.91\) & 0.02 \\ Dubrovnik (CR) & \(-2.44\) & 0.22 \\ Hvar (CR) & \(-1.01\) & 0.21 \\ Paphos (CY) & \(-1.37\) & 0.21 \\ Malta (MLT) & \(-1.91\) & 0.25 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Mean velocity and its calculated standard deviation in selected locations. and climate change interaction has also been studied independently, and four distinct pathways have been identified, including the direct climatic impact on the duration of the touristic seasons, the indirect environmental changes that transform the landscape of each destination, indirect socioeconomic changes including slower economic growth, increased spending on civil protection measurements, changing traveling behaviors, and policymakers' responses to the issue, including mitigation and adaptation measures [85]. It could be argued that the cross-sectoral response to climate-change-related hazards is based on the same principles of monitoring and implementation of mitigation and adaptation measures. In the case of C.H assets, however, such measures or projects should not interfere with the character or the structural and historic integrity of the monuments. Mitigation and adaptation measures can be broadly divided into offshore or mainland protective structures and broader area or monument-specific structures. In the case of Venice, the recent flooding events of 2018 and 2019 damaged significant cultural monuments (e.g., St. Mark's Basilica) and many businesses, including shops and cafes [86]. The Italian Government has responded to the flooding risk of Venice with an investment of more than 6 billion euros, which includes the construction of a series of 78 floating mobile barriers that have been placed in the three channels that connect the lagoon of the city to the Adriatic Sea, thus isolating the lagoon from the sea [87; 88; 89]. The so-called Project Mo.S.E (Experimental Electromechanical Module) was designed to address existing and documented flooding protection needs and its performance over the past years appears very effective [90]. Some studies have demonstrated that the economic benefits of this tailored response will largely outweigh the original and expected operational and maintenance costs [90]. Mo.S.E's approach, however, has also created some disruptions regarding inbound and outbound marine traffic [91] but also in the lagoon's ecosystem capacity to renew its waters and balance its sediment distribution [87; 92]. In the case of Scotland, individual coastal defense structures were employed to protect sites, including the Neolithic settlement at Skara Brae (UNESCO's W.H.S) [93]; however, it was once again noticed that in addition to their increased cost, they also caused disruptions in the marine and coastal ecosystems and, in some cases, exacerbated the flooding consequences in adjacent areas [94]. In that regard, scientists have questioned the capacity to save all coastal monuments from the erosion and flooding threats they face due to a lack of time, resources, and technical solutions [95]. Several research groups have proposed protocols, indices, and metrics such as the Cultural Heritage Risk Index (CHRI), the Cultural Heritage Vulnerability Index (CHVI) or the Risk Mapping Tool for Cultural Heritage Protection, which analyze and assign weights to the hazard, exposure, and vulnerability that a monument faces and thus can assist in prioritizing mitigation action plans [13; 14; 96; 97].