A Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Heritage Sites
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Studies
2.1.1. Kakadu National Park
2.1.2. Djelk Indigenous Protected Area
2.1.3. Case Study Selection
2.2. Option Identification
2.3. Option Appraisal
- 1.
- Cost efficiency (“Is the option affordable?”). Some adaptation options will be technically possible, but must be dismissed because the cost of their implementation is beyond current financial resources. Cost should therefore be assessed, but in the context of nonmonetary values [37].
- 2.
- Goal-oriented (“Does the option meet our goals?”). Options should be sought and appraised against the overall goals of stakeholders established during the ‘framing’ or scoping step of the adaptation planning process [41]. As Hinkler [25] states, the question “What are we adapting for?” (the desired outcome) is as significant as, if not more so, as the question “What are we adapting to?”. In this way, adaptation focuses on people’s capacity and willingness to respond [42].
- 3.
- Practicality (“Does the option require skills and capacities available to us?”). Human resources are fundamental to option implementation [43]. These include skills, information, leadership and management capacity [44]. Considering human resources opens up options that might have been dismissed if finances were the only consideration [11].
- 4.
- Cultural appropriateness (“Is the option ‘proper way’?”). Culture shapes the relationship of society to the environment and is an important determinant of responses to risks [45]. Options consistent with social norms will be more acceptable to local stakeholders [46,47,48]. In an Indigenous context, traditional protocols affect cultural site management and require oversight by traditional owners [49].
- 5.
- Co-benefit provision (“Will the option benefit the community in other ways?”). Options with co-benefits should be sought out [41,50]—they are more likely to be implemented than those with a single benefit [51]. In an Indigenous land management context, ‘win-win’ options will complement natural resource management [52].
- 6.
- Timeliness (“Can we implement the option in a short time frame?”). Options that can be implemented in the short- to mid-term have advantages over those with long lead times [43]. The latter face greater uncertainty [53] and the danger of immobilising decision-makers and exacerbating psychological, social or institutional barriers [54].
- 7.
- Robustness (“Will the option work if climate change is worse than expected?”). Robust or ‘low regrets’ options satisfy stakeholder goals under different future climate scenarios [27,55]. They also have advantages when downscaled climate projections are nonexistent or highly generalised, e.g., Reference [56], which is often the case for remote locations. For similar reasons, stakeholders should also favour flexible options—those that can be implemented in stages or dismantled easily [57,58].
2.4. Options-Analysis Workshops
3. Results
- defend the coast (i.e., comprehensively, with sea walls);
- surface documentation of high-risk sites generally for a local museum or database;
- relocate cultural sites;
- give sites protective legal designation;
- eradicate feral animals, in particular water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis);
- fence sites against feral animals;
- conduct fire management at sites;
- introduce a routine risk assessment and monitoring program by digitising the risk field survey (tested during previous steps in the research) and making it available on rangers’ I-Tracker GPS data-collection tablets [59];
- establish partnerships with archaeologists and regional stakeholders;
- give training to local stakeholders;
- address governance issues.
The Djomi museum [local museum in the township of Maningrida] is really good, taking photos and getting information, but in my way, I want to see it ‘live’; paintings, right there!
Sea walls? Nah! The sea is a really big thing, you can’t do anything like that. The sea level is coming up and the floodplain will be filled up, you can’t do anything about this.
3.1. Cultural Site Documentation via 3D Photogrammetry for Augmented Reality
There’s no problem with that so long as we have a little bit of help. It could bring everything back to life, we can make a record that will be there forever – that new technology could help.
3.2. Introduction of a Risk Assessment System
Rangers have to adapt it [the Risk Field Survey] into the routine conservation checks. It’s important to know what you’re dealing with and what is important before you go and push other people to help you.
3.3. Communicate the Vulnerability of Cultural Sites
Climate change is going to be a big thing throughout Australia. A video is definitely the way to go … It will help people better understand climate change [impacts on cultural sites] as well; a lot more other groups will want to start getting involved.
3.4. Partnerships
Few partners come up with the money for all the stuff to do with sacred site maintenance. You need money. Anyone could become a partner, but once you start mentioning funding, no one wants to put their hand up.
3.5. Training
Training meets our goals, and it’s in the [Kakadu National Park] Plan of Management, which says that we are supposed to protect rock art. Training needs to include cultural protocols. You can’t have people looking at [i.e., working at] the sites that don’t know what they’re doing.
3.6. Giving Sites Protective Legal Designation
AAPA needs to come and work with Traditional Owners. It would be really good, I think, if AAPA registered all the sacred sites; that would give us more power to stop mining and stop people coming in looking for oil, gas and the like.
3.7. Governance
How are you going to change the policies? In the 1980s, Kakadu was the place to visit. So we had a lot of money, and a lot of staff to look after a lot of different areas. But today the Park is getting no revenue. At the end of the day, it depends who plays politics best and gets in [i.e., who wins a federal election].
We are working together now, we have solved that problem. Office mob [non-Indigenous administrative staff] have now put it [intervening in Djelk natural resource management planning] on the side. They are focusing more outside of ranger stuff now.
4. Discussion
4.1. Direct Intervention
4.2. Building Cultural Site Resilience
4.3. Building Local Adaptive Capacity
4.4. Prompts and Generic Lists
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Compliance with Ethical Standards
References
- Erlandson, J. As the world warms: Rising seas, coastal archaeology, and the erosion of maritime history. J. Coast. Conserv. 2012, 16, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keen, I. Aboriginal Economy and Society; Oxford University Press: South Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Carmichael, B. Supporting Indigenous rangers’ management of climate-change impacts on heritage sites: Developing an effective planning tool and assessing its value. Rangel. J. 2015, 37, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carmichael, B.; Wilson, G.; Namarnyilk, I.; Nadji, S.; Cahill, J.; Bird, D. Testing the scoping phase of a bottom-up planning guide designed to support Australian Indigenous rangers manage the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage sites. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 1197–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNFCC. What Do Adaptation to Climate Change and Climate Resilience Mean? Available online: https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/the-big-picture/what-do-adaptation-to-climate-change-andclimate-resilience-mean (accessed on 1 January 2019).
- Carmichael, B.; Wilson, G.; Namarnyilk, I.; Nadji, S.; Hunter, F.; Brockwell, S.; Webb, B.; Bird, D. Local and Indigenous management of climate change risks to archaeological sites. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2017, 23, 231–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, T. Taking the middle path to the coast: How community collaboration can help save threatened sites. In The Future of Heritage as Climates Change: Loss, Adaptation and Creativity; Harvey, D., Perry, J., Eds.; Routledge: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Carmichael, B. Places in Peril: Archaeology in the Anthropocene. Available online: https://vimeo.com/203773921 (accessed on 1 September 2019).
- Carter, T.; Mäkinen, K. Approaches to Climate Change Impact, Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment: Towards a Classification Framework to Serve Decision-making; Finnish Environment Institute: Helsinki, Finland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Tacon, P.; Marshall, M. Conservation or crisis? The future of rock art management in Australia. In A Monograph of Rock Art Research and Protection; Zhang, Y., Ed.; Zhong Guo Zang Xue Chu Ban She/China Tibetology Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, R.; Beh, J. Leading Adaptation Practices and Support Strategies for Australia: An International and Australian Review of Products and Tools; National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Agnew, N.; Deacon, J.; Hall, N.; Little, T.; Sullivan, S.; Taçon, P. Rock Art: A Cultural Treasure at Risk; The Getty Conservation Institute: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Clarkson, C.; Jacobs, Z.; Marwick, B.; Fullagar, R.; Wallis, L.; Smith, M.; Roberts, R.; Hayes, E.; Lowe, K.; Carah, X.; et al. Human occupation of Australia by 65,000 years. Nature 2017, 547, 306–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, B.; Barker, B.; Petchey, F.; Delannoy, J.-J.; Geneste, J.-M.; Rowe, C.; Eccleston, M.; Lamb, L.; Whear, R. A 28,000 year old excavated painted rock from Nawarla Gabarnmang, northern Australia. J. Archaeol. Sci. 2013, 40, 2493–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kakadu Board of Management. Kakadu Management Plan 2016–2026; Director of National Parks: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2016.
- Pew Charitable Trusts. Working for Our Country. A Review of the Economic and Social Benefits of Indigenous Land and Sea Management; Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brandl, E. Australian Aboriginal Paintings in Western and Central Arnhem Land: Temporal Sequences and Elements of Style in Cadell River and Deaf Adder Creek Art; Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 1988.
- Brockwell, S.; Meehan, B.; Ngurrabangurraba, B. An-barra archaeological project: A progress report. Aust. Aborig. Stud. 2005, 1, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
- Meehan, B. Shell Bed to Shell Midden; Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 1982.
- Jelinek, J. Rembrranga ethnographical notes. Anthropologie 1979, 17, 307–323. [Google Scholar]
- National Land Care Program. Caring for Our Country Achievements Report 2008–2013. Available online: http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/achievements-report (accessed on 27 October 2018).
- Race, D.; Campbell, M.; Hampton, K.; Foster, D.; Fejo, C.; Robertson, D. Observations of climate change by remote communities: Lessons from the bush in Central Australia. J. Aust. Indig. Issues 2014, 17, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, I.; Malone, E.; Huq, S. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures; UNDP, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Dazé, A.; Ambrose, K.; Ehrhart, C. CARE Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis Handbook; CARE International: Nairobi, Kenya, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hinkel, J.; Bharwani, S.; Bisaro, B.; Carter, T.; Cull, T.; Davis, M.; Klein, R.; Lonsdale, K.; Rosentrater, L.; Vincent, K. UNEP—PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- UKCIP. Adaptation Wizard. Available online: http://www.ukcip.org.uk/ (accessed on 1 January 2018).
- Willows, R.; Connell, R. Climate Adaptation: Risk, Uncertainty and Decision-Making; UK Climate Impacts Programme: Oxford, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Ashmore, P. Archaeology and the coastal erosion zone. In Coastal Archaeology and Erosion in Scotland; Historic Scotland: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Barclay, G.; Fojut, N. The Management and Conservation of the Built and Maritime Heritage in the Coastal Zone; Historic Scotland: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Rowland, M. Climate change, sea-level rise and the archaeological record. Aust. Archaeol. 1992, 34, 29–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassar, M.; Pender, R. Climate Change and the Historic Environment; Centre for Sustainable Heritage, University College: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Rockman, M.; Morgan, M.; Ziaja, S.; Hambrecht, G.; Meadow, A. Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy; National Park Service; U.S. Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
- Harkin, D.; Hyslop, E.; Johnson, H.; Tracey, E. A Guide to Climate Change Impacts; Historic Environment Scotland: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Nelson, E.; Mathieu, E.; Thomas, J. Parks Canada’s adaptation framework and workshop approach: Lessons learned across a diverse series of adaptation workshops. Parks Steward. Forum 2020, 36, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ICOMOS. The Future of Our Pasts: Engaging Cultural Heritage in Climate Action; ICOMOS: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Getzner, M.; Spash, C.; Stagl, S. (Eds.) Alternatives for Environmental Valuation; Routledge: Oxon, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Chambwera, M.; Heal, G.; Dubeux, C.; Hallegatte, S.; Leclerc, L.; Markandya, A.; McCarl, B.; Mechler, R.; Neumann, J. Economics of adaptation. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M., Bilir, T., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K., Estrada, Y., Genova, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, S.; Wong, K.; Cho, M. Assessing the economic value of a world heritage site and willingness-to-pay determinants: A case of Changdeok Palace. Tour. Manag. 2007, 28, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, A.; Ritchie, B.; Papandrea, F.; Bennett, J. Economic valuation of cultural heritage sites: A choice modeling approach. Tour. Manag. 2010, 31, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gigerenzer, G. Adaptive Thinking. Rationality in the Real World; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Noble, I.; Huq, S.; Anokhin, Y.; Carmin, J.; Goudou, D.; Lansigan, F.; Osman-Elasha, B.; Villamizar, A. Adaptation needs and options. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M., Bilir, T., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K., Estrada, Y., Genova, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Smit, B.; Pilifosova, O. From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development; Smith, J., Klein, R., Huq, S., Eds.; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, R.; Midgley, G.; Preston, B.; Alam, M.; Berkhout, F.; Dow, K.; Shaw, M. Adaptation: Opportunities, constraints, and limits. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M., Bilir, T., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K., Estrada, Y., Genova, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Brooks, N.; Anderson, S.; Ayers, J.; Burton, I.; Tellam, I. Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development; Climate Change Group, International Institute for Environment and Development: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Adger, W.N.; Pulhin, J.M.; Barnett, J.; Dabelko, G.D.; Hovelsrud, G.K.; Levy, M.; Spring, Ú.O.; Vogel, C.H. Human security. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C., Barros, V., Dokken, D., Mach, K., Mastrandrea, M., Bilir, T., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K., Estrada, Y., Genova, R., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Alexander, C.; Bynum, N.; Johnson, E.; King, U.; Mustonen, T.; Neofotis, P.; Oettle, N.; Rosenzweig, C.; Sakakibara, C.; Shadrin, V.; et al. Linking Indigenous and scientific knowledge of climate change. BioScience 2011, 61, 477–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moser, S. Asset-Based Approaches to Poverty Reduction in a Globalized Context: An Introduction to Asset Accumulation Policy and Summary of Workshop Findings; Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- O’Brien, K.; Eriksen, S.; Nygaard, L.; Schjolden, A. Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim. Policy 2007, 7, 73–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walsh, F.; Mitchell, P. Planning for Country; IAD Press: Alice Springs, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Huq, S.; Reid, H. Mainstreaming adaptation in development. IDS Bull. 2004, 35, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Djelk Rangers. Djelk Rangers Annual Report 2013–2014; Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation: Maningrida, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, A.; Gawith, M.; Lonsdale, K.; Pringle, P. Managing Adaptation: Linking Theory and Practice; UK Climate Impacts Program, School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment: Oxford, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stafford Smith, M.; Horrocks, L.; Harvey, A.; Hamilton, C. Rethinking adaptation for a 4 °C world. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 2010, 369, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lempert, R.; Kalra, N.; Peyraud, S.; Mao, Z.; Tan, S.; Cira, D.; Lotsch, A. Ensuring Robust Flood Risk Management in Ho Chi Minh City; The Office of the Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Moise, A.; Abbs, D.; Bhend, J.; Chiew, F.; Church, J.; Ekström, M.; Kirono, D.; Lenton, A.; Lucas, C.; McInnes, K.; et al. Monsoonal North Cluster Report. In Climate Change in Australia Projections for Australia’s Natural Resource Management Regions: Cluster Reports; Ekström, M., Whetton, P., Gerbing, C., Grose, M., Webb, L., Risbey, J., Eds.; CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hallegatte, S. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2009, 19, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fankhauser, S.; Smith, J.; Tol, R.; Pittock, A. Weathering climate change: Some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol. Econ. 1999, 30, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NAILSMA. I-Tracker. Available online: http://nailsma.grasslands.net/hub/programs/i-tracker (accessed on 8 June 2016).
- Microsoft. HoloLens. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXy7lbs-D48&sns=em (accessed on 1 June 2018).
- Cassar, M.; Pender, R. The impact of climate change on cultural heritage: Evidence and response. 14th Trienn. Meet. Haguepreprints (Icom Comm. Conserv. ) 2005, 2, 610–616. [Google Scholar]
- AAPA. Protecting Sacred Sites Across the Territory. Available online: http://www.aapant.org.au/ (accessed on 2 October 2017).
- IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Nakashima, D.; Galloway McLean, K.; Thulstrup, H.; Ramos Castillo, A.; Rubis, J. Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate Change Assessment and Adaptation; UNESCO and United Nations University: Paris, France; Darwin, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Barnett, J.; Evans, L.; Gross, C.; Kiem, A.; Kingsford, R.; Palutikof, J.; Pickering, C.; Smithers, S. From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: Path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McNamara, K.; Smithers, S.; Westoby, R.; Parnell, K. Limits to Adaptation: Limits to Climate Change Adaptation for Two Low-Lying Communities in the Torres Strait; National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility: Gold Coast, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- MacLean, D. ICTs, Adaptation to Climate Change, and Sustainable Development at the Edges; International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Reilly, P. Towards a virtual archaeology. In Computer Applications in Archaeology; Lockyear, K., Rahtz, S., Eds.; British Archaeological Reports: Oxford, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Katz, J.; Tokovinine, A. The past, now showing in 3D: An introduction. Digit. Appl. Archaeol. Cult. Herit. 2017, 6, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Irving, L.; Hoffman, J. Nyungar place stories pilot: Using augmented reality for Indigenous cultural sustainability. In Rhetoric and Reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational Technology; Hegarty, B., McDonald, J., Loke, S., Eds.; Proceedings ascilite: Dunedin, New Zealand, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Bourke, P. Novel imaging of heritage objects and sites. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Virtual Systems & Multimedia, Hong Kong, China, 9–12 December 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Wahbeh, W.; Nebiker, S.; Fangi, G. Combining public domain and professional panoramic imagery for the accurate and dense 3D reconstruction of the destroyed Bel Temple in Palmyra. Isprs Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2016, 3, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ganesharajah, C. Indigenous Health and Wellbeing: The Importance of Country. Native Title Research Report No. 1/2009; Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies: Canberra, Australia, 2009.
- Hennessy, K. Virtual repatriation and digital cultural heritage: The ethics of managing online collections. Anthropol. News 2009, 50, 5–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colley, S. Ethics and digital heritage. In The Ethics of Cultural Heritage. Ethical Archaeologies: The Politics of Social Justice, vol 4; Ireland, T., Schofield, J., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Britz, J.; Lor, P. An ethical perspective on political-economic issues in the long-term preservation of digital heritage. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2012, 63, 2153–2164. [Google Scholar]
- Sheppard, A.; Low, T.; Glaznig, A. Interactions between invasive species and climate change in a Kakadu context and national priorities for their management. In Proceedings of the Kakadu National Park Landscape Symposia Series 2007–2009; Symposium 4: Climate Change, Gagudju Crocodile Holiday Inn Kakadu National Park, Australia, 6–7 August 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Smit, B.; Wandel, J. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2006, 16, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellemor, H. Reconsidering emergency management and Indigenous communities in Australia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2005, 6, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelling, M. Adaptation to Climate Change; from Resilience to Transformation; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Altman, J. Sustainable Development Options on Aboriginal Land: The Hybrid Economy in the Twenty-First Century. Discussion Paper No. 226; Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research. Australian National Unversity: Canberra, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Sutton, M.; Huntley, J.; Anderson, B. ‘All our sites are of high significance.’ Reflections from recent work in the Hunter Valley—Archaeological and Indigenous perspectives. J. Aust. Assoc. Consult. Archaeol. 2013, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S. Mute or mutable? Archaeological significance, research and cultural heritage management in Australia. Aust. Archaeol. 2008, 67, 19–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holtz, D.; Markham, A.; Cell, K.; Ekwurzel, B. National Landmarks at Risk; Union of Concerned Scientists: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shoredig. Meur Burnt Mound: Community Excavation and Reconstruction. Available online: http://scharp.co.uk/shoredig-projects/meur-burnt-mound/ (accessed on 2 February 2018).
- UNESCO. Predicting and Managing the Effects of Climate Change on World Heritage; UNESCO World Heritage Centre: Paris, France, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Generic Adaptation Planning Guides | Methods Pre-Selected for KNP/Djelk Workshops | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burton et al. (2005) | Dazé et al. (2009) | Hinkel et al. (2013) | UKCIP (2017) | Willows et al. (2003) | |||
| Comments on rejected steps | ||||||
| + | + | + | √ | |||
| + | ✗ | No generic list exists for cultural sites. | ||||
| + | + | + | √ | |||
| |||||||
| + | + | ✗ | Better addressed during 2. Methods for appraising options (below). | |||
| + | ✗ | Existing programs assessed as inadequate during project scoping: option responses captured at 1.1 (above). | ||||
| + | ✗ | Not comprehensive. Will be used in final guide alongside (ii) options to build site resilience; and (iii) options that directly intervene at sites. | ||||
| Comments on rejected steps | ||||||
| + | + | √ | ||||
| + | + | + | ✗ | Formal method is unable to monetise site value. | ||
| + | + | ✗ | Use more than just these two criteria. | |||
| + | + | ✗ | No generic list available for cultural sites. | |||
| + | + | √ | ||||
2.5.1 Identified assessment criteria | |||||||
Criteria | Source | Questions put to stakeholders | |||||
1. Cost efficiency 2. Goal orientation 3. Practicality 4. Cultural appropriateness 5. Co-benefit provision 6. Timeliness 7. Robustness | 1. Chambwera et al. (2014) 2. Noble et al. (2014) 3. Klein et al. (2014) 4. Adger et al. (2014) 5. Huq and Reid (2004) 6. Stafford Smith et al. (2010) 7. Lempert et al. (2013) | 1. “Is the option affordable?” 2. “Does the option meet our goals?” 3. “Does option require available skills & capacities?” 4. “Is the option ‘proper way’?” 5. “Will the option benefit the community in other ways?” 6. “Can we implement the option in a short time frame?” 7. “Will the option work if climate change is worse than expected?” | |||||
2.5.2 Scoring system for responses to questions put to stakeholders: ‘Yes’ = 2 pts. ‘Possibly’ = 1 pt. ‘No’ = 0 pts. |
Option Identification | Djelk/Kakadu | Ashmore (2005) | Barclay et al. (1995) | Dawson (2015) | Rockman et al. (2016) | Rowland (1992) | Cassar et al. (2005) | Option Prioritisation | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Djelk Men | Djelk Women | KNP Men/Women | ||||||||
Direct intervention options | ||||||||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ||
| √ | √ | ||||||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | ||||||
| √ | √ | ||||||||
| √ | √ | √ | 2 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| √ | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | |||
| √ | |||||||||
Options building cultural site resilience | ||||||||||
| √ | √ | √ | |||||||
| √ | √ | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| √ | |||||||||
| √ | 3 | 3 | 6 | ||||||
| √ | ✗ | NI | NI | ||||||
| √ | 4 | 2 | NI | ||||||
| √ | 3 | 4 | 6 | ||||||
| √ | NI | NI | 1 | ||||||
Options building stakeholders’ adaptive capacity | ||||||||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | |||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| √ | √ | √ | 1 | NI | 1 | ||||
| √ | √ | √ | √ | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| √ | NI | 1 | NI | ||||||
| √ | √ | ||||||||
| √ | √ | 2 | 4 | 1 | |||||
| √ | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||||||
| √ | |||||||||
Total options identified | 17 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 13 | 4 | 9 | Total options prioritised | ||
11 | 11 | 11 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Carmichael, B.; Wilson, G.; Namarnyilk, I.; Nadji, S.; Cahill, J.; Brockwell, S.; Webb, B.; Bird, D.; Daly, C. A Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Heritage Sites. Climate 2020, 8, 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8080088
Carmichael B, Wilson G, Namarnyilk I, Nadji S, Cahill J, Brockwell S, Webb B, Bird D, Daly C. A Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Heritage Sites. Climate. 2020; 8(8):88. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8080088
Chicago/Turabian StyleCarmichael, Bethune, Greg Wilson, Ivan Namarnyilk, Sean Nadji, Jacqueline Cahill, Sally Brockwell, Bob Webb, Deanne Bird, and Cathy Daly. 2020. "A Methodology for the Assessment of Climate Change Adaptation Options for Cultural Heritage Sites" Climate 8, no. 8: 88. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8080088