Cultural Heritage Is a Necessary Component of Climate Solutions | Article

The Bering Land Bridge National Preserve on the western coast of Alaska contains one of the highest concentrations of archaeological artifacts in North America. The preserve tells the story of the first humans to inhabit North America dating back as far as 15,000 years ago. However, warming temperatures, thawing permafrost, and rising sea levels are damaging the site and washing away the heritage and artifacts it contains. Without increased documentation and archaeological attention, the history held in the preserve and in other historic sites on the Alaskan coast is at risk of being lost forever.

Coastal Alaskan cultural heritage sites are not unique in their vulnerability to climate impacts. As communities face the impacts of climate change, meaningful and valuable cultural heritage sites and traditions are also at risk. A 2017 study of archaeological sites in the southeastern United States found that an estimated 13,000 sites in the region are at risk of being lost or damaged with three feet of sea level rise, and a 2007 UNESCO Climate Change and World Heritage report identified 125 World Heritage sites that are currently threatened by climate change. The impacts of climate change on history and culture, while are often underrepresented in climate policy and research, must be addressed in order to ensure the preservation of heritage and tradition.

Historic Sites, Modern Risks

The Fourth National Climate Assessment projected that global sea level rise will range from 1-4 feet by 2100, and that global increases of 8 feet or higher “cannot be ruled out.” This puts thousands of sites with cultural, historic, and archaeological value at risk of being damaged or lost altogether, including archaeological sites that have not yet been discovered. Heritage sites encompass places and collections designated as historically or culturally important by national or international bodies, as well as archaeological sites with artifacts important to understanding history and culture. These sites are facing a litany of climate impacts, including the loss of sensitive archaeological evidence due to changing soil conditions, damage to historic buildings from groundwater and saltwater intrusion, damage to organic building material from pest migration, and structural damage from storms and flooding. Beyond physical damage, cultural heritage will also be affected by the social impacts of climate change, including communities “possibly migrating and abandoning their built heritage.”

Historic knowledge can provide guidance for adapting to a changing environment, and heritage sites can serve as opportunities for building resilience to climate change. According to a report on cultural heritage and climate action from the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), leaving out cultural heritage and holders of traditional knowledge from climate mitigation and adaptation planning is a lost opportunity. Heritage sites can serve as opportunities for climate communication and education, and research on historic sites and practices to understand past responses to changing climate conditions can help adaptation and mitigation planners develop strategies that integrate natural science and cultural heritage.

For example, coastal and river communities such as the island of Majuli in India have been living with and adapting to changing water levels for centuries. Studying historic modes of adaptation, such as the Majuli Islanders’ use of portable building techniques to help move monasteries in response to annual flooding, can inform modern attempts to build resilient and sustainable societies.

Preserving heritage sites is also important for maintaining traditions, historical knowledge, and identity. Loss of cultural heritage can hinder communities’ ability to recover from disasters by weakening cultural practices and social safety nets.

Finally, cultural heritage and history may serve as a starting point for climate policy.

“We know the science; we can measure what’s happening. The thing we’re lacking is the social and political will. It’s not the scientific element we’re lacking, it’s the human element,” said Marcy Rockman, a scientific coordinator for ICOMOS's Climate Change and Heritage Working Group. “Maybe we can’t get that social and political will without cultural heritage.”

To illustrate this point, Rockman, who spoke at an EESI briefing, Cultural Heritage and Climate Change, used the example of the SCAPE Trust, a citizen science project in Scotland that encourages communities to think about how their vulnerable cultural sites influence who they are and why the coast is important to them. Beginning from a place of meaning rather than a place of fear led to hopeful and creative conversations built from a shared sense of identity. It is this sense of history, place, and meaning that is at risk of being lost if culture and heritage are absent from climate planning and policy.

The State of Preservation

Currently, historic sites in the United States are under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS), which maintains the National Register of Historic Places. The National Register, authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the list of over 95,000 sites in the United States that have been designated as “worthy of preservation.” Registered sites are eligible for federal preservation tax credits and grant programs administered by the NPS. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has been the nation’s primary avenue for private investment in historic sites since it was chartered by Congress in 1949.

Although federal tax credits and grant programs have leveraged over $45 billion in private investment for the preservation, rehabilitation, and conservation of historic sites, the current system of managing the nation’s cultural heritage is insufficient in light of climate change. According to Rockman, the nation’s fragmented approach to cultural preservation limits the capacity to address the intersections between climate change and cultural heritage. The NPS reduced funding and staffing for its cultural resources work between 1995 and 2008, and archaeological and historical research receives less funding from the National Science Foundation than do other areas of research.

This fragmented approach and limited access to funding does not affect the histories of all cultures and groups equally, though. In testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee in February 2019, Alan Spears of the National Parks Conservation Association noted that when the NPS was founded and cultural heritage sites were beginning to be designated, the common view among academics was that African Americans had contributed little to the cultural development of the nation. This racist, century-old false interpretation of American history means that sites important to Black history in America were slow to be added to the National Register. “The Parks Service, like the nation, was slow to embrace African American history and culture,” Spears said.

The National Trust has similarly acknowledged the fact that few sites on the National Register represent the history of women and people of color. The African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund was created to begin filling longstanding cultural gaps, and the National Trust awarded $1.6 million in grants to 27 African American historical sites in January 2020. However, many of these newly-designated sites are located in areas highly vulnerable to climate change, such as New Orleans, and many more important places remain undesignated. The NPS has begun working to diversify the kinds of places protected through the national park system, including by recently designating monuments honoring Harriet Tubman, Cesar Chavez, Rosie the Riveter, and the Stonewall Inn, but there is still a racial and gender imbalance in places with official designation as heritage sites.

“There is a wealth of places that are important that have not yet been given recognition,” Rockman said, noting that sites with official designations are more likely to be considered in attempts to mitigate climate impacts on heritage.

As the NPS works to preserve the heritage of all Americans, park managers and archaeologists are already making critical decisions about how to retain the cultural value of sites threatened by climate impacts. For example, coastal erosion and sea level rise on the Outer Banks of North Carolina prompted the NPS to move the historic Cape Hatteras Lighthouse inland in 1999. The lighthouse was constructed 1,500 feet from the ocean in 1870, but was only 120 feet from the ocean when it was moved.

According to Rockman, who worked at the NPS from 2011 to 2018, the agency prioritizes its adaptation decisions using a model based on the significance and vulnerability of sites. The most significant places are identified, and adaptation actions are selected from a range of options including improving resilience on the site, relocating the site, documenting the knowledge provided by the site and preparing for its loss, and finding ways to incorporate the changing climate into the history of the site. Researchers are already working with the NPS to develop comprehensive vulnerability assessments of park assets to be used in protecting the cultural and natural resources of parks. Different kinds of monuments require different adaptation strategies. For example, the Appomattox Court House will always be the place the Civil War ended, even if the physical structure is moved to reduce climate exposure, but Ellis Island’s important spatial relationship to the Statue of Liberty and the New York Harbor would be broken if its facilities were moved. These considerations must figure into the approach to adaptation as well.

Moving Forward to Protect the Past

To help fill some of the gaps in the U.S. approach to cultural heritage, Rockman recommends creating a named federal office for cultural preservation, providing more funding for the offices already charged with preserving the nation’s heritage sites, fostering climate archaeology demonstration projects, and linking culture and archaeology in climate research and investment. ICOMOS recommends that policymakers develop clear practices for conserving culturally significant places that incorporate climate mitigation and adaptation, consider cultural heritage while developing climate policy, use heritage sites as opportunities for climate education and communication, and fund research on historic sites to understand past responses to changing climatic conditions.

Along with NPS efforts, some smaller nonprofit organizations are working to increase the visibility of climate change’s impact on cultural heritage. The Florida Public Archaeology Network, Maine Midden Minders, and the Society for California Archaeology have been working to build momentum, document heritage at risk of being lost, and monitor the changing landscape. According to Rockman, these groups and others like them are trying to do the work necessary to preserve cultural heritage in a changing climate, but are starting from nothing and need additional resources.

Historic landscapes, cultural landmarks, and archaeological artifacts are already being affected by climate change. Culture is often absent from discussions of climate change, but preserving heritage is necessary to build resilience and maintain community identity and tradition. To Rockman and others working at the intersection of history and climate, addressing this challenge is also an opportunity to build momentum for climate action. “Heritage sites will be affected by climate change, but they are also part of the solution,” Rockman said.

Author: Abby Neal