气候变化时代视角下的文化景观保护

作者：罗伯特Z. 梅尔尼克

翻译：肖遥 葛韵宇

气候变化时代视角下的文化景观保护

作者：罗伯特Z. 梅尔尼克

翻译：肖遥 葛韵宇

在全球生态系统中，气候变化已被看作一种新兴的影响力。在这样的背景下，气候变化也成为文化景观研究领域的新兴发展方向。本文记叙了3个仍在进行中的美国国家公园的研究案例。这3个案例显示了当气候变量改变文化景观时不同的预期影响，景观反映，及应当采取怎样的措施去保护文化景观。气候的长期变化和大型气候事件之间的差异表明必须监控气候。同时，在面对动态的气候系统时，研究还应当采用多样的方法并且接受未知的变量。

文化景观；气候变化；景观保护

气候变化对重要文化景观的影响研究是一个持续发展并且逐渐壮大的研究领域（海格斯，2003）。在该领域中还存在许多未知和亟待研究的部分（维斯特灵等，2011）。本文阐述了一个由俄勒冈大学文化景观研究团队进行，并由美国国家公园管理局支持的项目（图1）。这个项目均持续了数年，并且仍在进行中，并没有结题。本项目的目的是揭示美国国家公园西太平洋区域早期景观记录中潜在的景观应对气候变化的薄弱点，特别是曝光度和敏感度。本项目主要包含了以下几个部分：搜集研究西太平洋区域国家公园的气候变化项目的数据；识别出公园文化景观应对预期气候变化的薄弱点；识别预先定义的特征性地物景观所受到的影响；探寻一种持续稳定的方法来加速地物景观在气候事件或气候变化趋势影响下的恢复。该领域的早期研究多关注美国东部（梅尔尼克，2015）。本文的案例部分会对其中的一个研究进行论述（图2）。

本文中涉及的主要定义和说明如下：

本文中的气候变化项目致力于研究气候变化视角下的文化景观，这些研究建立在文化景观研究团队（CLGR）①和其他机构的早期研究基础之上。这些早期研究既有与国家公园管理局相关的，也有毫不相关的（梅尔尼克，2009; 2015时代的变化 ）。本项目和NPS的气候变化反应课题有着紧密的联系。这种联系能够确保本项目能够持续地在国家公园其他的区域长期开展（斯古谱等，2015）。鉴于本项目所具有的资源保护和游人使用的双重属性，美国国家公园管理局在其中起到了国际性的领导作用。

本项目还包括了一些在其他国家或地区进行的研究，例如英格兰、意大利、荷兰和其他一些地方，这些研究也都正在进行当中（英国遗产，卡萨尔 2005）。研究中的气候数据和分析过程主要来源于气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）的最新版综述。另一些数据来源于美国国家或地方。

本研究中的文化景观，包括美国东部和西部，都是通过3条显著的标准筛选出来的。

首先，非常重要的一点，文化景观的历史重要性和客观物质的完整性必须是得到肯定和公认的。在这样的视野下，文化景观研究团队并不是一个确立、发现或申辩景观意义的工作单位。在所有的案例中，景观的意义都是通过美国国家公园管理局程序所确定的，包括不断更新的文化景观清单（CLI）。一些案例中，这些信息来自文化景观报告（CLR）。

其次，将景观分区和生态分区相互融合是十分重要的。虽然气候变化是全球性现象（de Melo 2015），但基于动态的变量时，气候对不同生态区域的影响方式是多种多样的。对多种生态区域的研究使得研究团队能够提出不同的案例，便于不同的公园使用其中的经验或从中学习借鉴。在美国西部地区的国家公园系统中，生态分区是依据既定的美国农业部分区确定的（美国农业部 2016）。这些生态区域被描述为“网络”结构（图3）。

第三，将景观类型和美国国家公园管理局既定编制的分类系统（美国国家公园管理局，2016）融合起来是十分有益的。当一处文化景观被世界遗产委员会（世界遗产委员会2016）认定时，即表示该文化景观代表了人工与自然的完美结合。美国国家公园管理局为了管理这样的景观，会将它分为以下4种类型中的一种（尽管一个景观有时会具有多种性质）：历史遗迹、历史性的设计景观、历史乡土景观和人类学景观（美国国家公园管理处，2016）。

这3条显著的标准——历史价值、生态价值和文化景观的多样性，使得文化景观研究团队能够为公园土地管理者提供一套能够参考的案例。研究团队还希望，即便公园的典型文化景观并没有被包含在这些案例中，公园土地管理者仍然能够独立地依据案例中提出的模型进行资源保护（梅尔尼克等， 2015）（图4）。

在研究的第一阶段，研究团队首先对国家公园管理认定的西部国家公园中的重要历史性景观进行筛选。正如前文中提到的，研究团队依据跨越行政边界（例如州或县）的生态特征，将西部国家公园区域划分为“网络”结构。本研究中所有的文化景观都经过了这样的分类鉴定和研究。研究团队利用的信息来源于历史数据、文档和已经完成的价值评估。

尽管该研究主要针对人为引起的气候变化，但气候变化本身却不是研究的主要焦点。本研究并不要求工作团队去判断一种气候变化是否由人类活动所造成，而是重点关注气候变化对那些具有重要文化遗产价值的区域造成的影响。

该项目重点研究了文化景观在受气候变量的影响程度及其敏感度，以便更好地了解这些区域的应对气候变化的薄弱点。事实上，景观的弹性和适应性这两者的相互作用，在一定程度上导致了薄弱点的产生（冈萨雷斯，2015）。我们也可以换一种方式来描述这个问题：当景观暴露在环境变量的影响下时，若增强或剥夺景观抵御环境变化的能力，经历了一定时间后，景观会出现怎样的变化呢？以及最重要的，景观有多少可能失去它典型的特性和特征，或者这些特性和特征会有怎样的衰退呢？最后，通过这些评估，能够明晰土地管理者需要做些什么来应对这些薄弱点，以及在面对气候变量时如何增强景观的弹性（梅尔尼克等，2015. 本安根和多岚，2015）（图5）。

对于气候变化而言，无论它是否由人类活动引起的，都已经对全球范围内极具价值的文化景观造成了直接的影响（本顿，2015）。我们正在目睹着文化景观的变化，这些变化已经威胁到景观的历史状况，甚至影响着景观的存续（波恩菲尔德，2015）。虽然气候变换已经是文化景观的理论研究界和实践界都不能阻止的趋势，但是我们仍然能够探索一些方法和工具来减弱气候变化对重要景观造成的影响。本研究的主要关注点在于通过发展工具，使文化景观分析、管理和气候学科技相结合。

正如大家公认的那样，气候变化已被看作一个全球化的、日益严重的问题（斯托克斯，2015）。例如，荷兰已经采取了许多关键措施来减缓气候变化和气候瞬时事件所带来的影响（基础设施与环境部，2013）。目前该领域的研究成果以美国的案例为主，但也汲取了不同国家和文化形态的经验。

在气候变化和文化景观的研究领域中，有许多正在进行的重要探索和研究。本文介绍了这些研究中的主要阶段性工作（图6）。

对于所有的文化景观研究而言，最核心的问题如下：究竟是什么因素使得文化景观成为一种特殊的、独特的景观呢？我们应当赋予文化景观的特征特性怎样的权重以便合理地指导景观保护呢（布拉贝茨和奇尔顿，2015）？

从研究文献中可以总结出，文化景观并不是一种静态的物体、构筑或者建筑物。而是一种应当通过记录、分析和充分理解保护下来的复杂的动态系统。我们使用“保护”而非“保存”（或保留）一词来描述这个过程，是要强调这种过程并不是抵制和停止变化的。文化景观的动态变化应当处于良好的管理之下，而非完全抵制变化。依靠对可接受的变化速率和变化程度的明确识别，使景观的显著特征不至于消失。

要达成上述目的，首先，我们需要找出古往今来造就景观典型特征的因子。并在深入了解的基础上，将这些因子依据其含义、贡献和重要性进行系统分类。值得注意的是，尽管在目前的研究中倾向以定量数据来指引法律和政治上的决策，但定性数据和专业经验评估仍然需要得到重视。

其次，在鉴定气候变量对典型文化景观造成的历史影响时，工具的确定是十分重要的。同时，要就还必须明晰究竟哪种气候变量起到了最关键的作用。我们需要学会区分长期的气候变化趋势和重要的气候变化之间的区别（格拉斯伯格，2014）。气候变化趋势指那些可能不太明显的持续性变化。其中最为公众熟悉的就是气温的持续升高、降水量减少和海平面上升等问题。另外还有一些其他的变量，例如风暴强度、风暴的发生、风的侵蚀、海岸侵蚀、洪水、森林火灾、入侵物种的增加、本地物种的减少等等。这些变量提示我们，研究中需要放宽眼界，进行长时间的观测，而不是局限于某一天、某一月或某一年。

典型的气候重大事件包括飓风、不同寻常的风暴、强降雨、突发的急剧侵蚀、温度变化引起的雪崩和干旱等。

当一处文化景观不同时期的状况被动态评估后，我们就能梳理出关键因素：已知的影响（过去）、现状（现在）和文化景观的薄弱点（未来）。简单地说，“已知的影响”就是文化景观因为气候变量意境发生的改变及其变化的方式。例如一座果园的健康因为土壤紧实度增高发生了变化，而土壤紧实的原因是降雨的减少和温度的升高。这整个过程就可以被看做是已知的影响。接下来，我们可以进一步探讨和记录果园的现状（多岚，2009） 。

第三步是评估景观应对未来气候变量的薄弱点。这一步与前两部相比较是十分困难的，因为我们需要确定（而非预测）主要气候变量（如气温、降水和海平面高度）的变化概率，同时还需要评估被研究的景观在这些变量中的暴露程度以及景观的敏感度（艾根博德等，2015）。

举个例子来描述在这一步进行的研究。在前文中提到了果园的案例，那么可以继续思考：如果气温缓慢上升，降水量缓慢下降，会发生什么呢？这些变化会怎样影响果园的健康和持续性，又会对果园中的植株个体和灌溉系统造成怎样的影响呢？

若要确定和分析文化景观在气候变量影响下的变化程度，需要明确以下几个方面：文化景观在气候变量下的暴露程度及敏感程度，文化景观的适应能力，并且需要明确面对可能的气候变化，文化景观的薄弱点在哪里。众多的变量使得这样的调研十分困难，而一系列的“未知数”也可能导致调研结果的变化。

下文说明了进行该研究的基本思路：

当文化景观暴露在环境变量中时，由于景观特征的敏感程度不同，文化景观将受到不同的潜在影响。这种影响由于景观特征的适应能力的不同而进一步改变，最终确定了景观的对应气候变化的不同的弱点（格里克等，2011）。

从另一个视角看，研究需要经历4个基本的步骤：确定预期目标，评估景观的薄弱点（正如前文所述），确定管理决策和实施管理决策。正如下文中第3个例子描述的一样。确定和实施管理决策本身就是十分复杂和冗长的任务。

1 案例

这个研究项目包含的3个文化景观的案例更详尽而具体地阐释了这个想法。不同的是，这几个案例突出了面临气候变化文化景观的敏感性，包括许多预期以及未知的环境。综上所述，每个案例与上文讨论的基本公式均不同。

1.1 红杉树国家公园的里昂牧场

里昂牧场是一个历史悠久的乡村地区重要文化景观，坐落在加利福尼亚州红杉树国家公园里的秃山上。（国家公园服务指南2004）这面积为2 290hm2到地区内最有趣和最受挑战的文化景观元素大概是8片之间间隔不超过1.6km的大草原。这些自然产生的草原横跨秃山的山脊，并且随着时间的流逝而改变。最初的改变是由于1869年到1959年之间本土美国人在此牧羊（图7）。

牧场以及相关的草原的重要性在于它们反映了秃山作为羊的放牧区域的历史及变迁，此地并没有遵循这一历史时期的发展趋势。因此，自然景观和人类活动之间的相互作用作为文化景观的一种表达很容易理解。虽然，在红杉树国家公园里游览这个区域的人数最少（梅兹等，2013）。

除了草原，牧场所保留的其他文化景观特征包括：围墙、建筑物和构筑物、土路、果园，以及这个区域内一些景点的总体空间布局。大家在观察中很容易将其理解为文化景观，并能解释这90年来绵羊牧场活动的蓬勃发展状况。

如里昂牧场一般的大草原的重要性还在于其能够反映影响景观发展趋势中的气候变量。根据4个气候模型，降水量将保持在一个正常的变化范围内。然而，在下一个世纪，大气温度能够上升1.4℃到4℃。冈萨雷斯和其他人已经确定了这一景观面临气候变化所具有的弱点，根据这些大气温度波动的推测以及趋势的预测，这些弱点包括：

（1）持续加热的气候变化可能导致沿海雾的减少以及海岸红杉（Sequoia sempervirens）面临更加严峻的干旱威胁。

（2）在最高碳排放的情况下，到公元2085年，气候变化可能会导致野火烧毁的面积是现在的2倍。

（3）火灾频率的增加以及突发的橡树病结合起来会导致海岸红杉的死亡率增加。

（4）由于气候变化以及栖息地破碎化的加剧，公园的生态系统很容易转变为以针叶阔叶林树种为主。

从文化景观的角度来看，秃山这一区域，由于它是从海岸红杉林发展而来，潜在的最显著的影响是从阔叶树种向针叶树种的转变。根据尚未发表的场地调查结果也显示，转变为具有历史意义的草原以及草原和森林之间的界限都很模糊。大草原如果疏于管理，就会慢慢变得稀疏，然后变为密集的落叶林（约翰斯和道森，2010）（图8）。

关于管理的反馈以及遗产景观的保护提出了重要的问题。未来这类草原遗产景观将更多地依赖于历史照片、口述历史以及记忆，而不是可见的展示以及游赏么？保护这一类文化景观需要综合考虑文化和自然特征的整合、资金限制、人员的可用性以及公园总体管理的优先性等诸多因素。气候的变化只是其中一方面（CLRG 2016）。

1.2 死亡谷国家公园的斯科蒂城堡

第2个例子同样位于加利福尼亚，是死亡谷国家公园中的斯科蒂城堡。斯科蒂城堡经历了2015年10月的一场极不寻常的戏剧性风暴之后面临另外一类不同的问题。该区域与一个最著名的美国矿业开拓的先驱人物沃特·斯科蒂（Walter Scott） 又被称谓“死亡谷斯科蒂”紧密相关。斯科蒂城堡占地121hm2，位于死亡谷中葡萄峡谷一个海拔3 915m高的山顶。几处特色建筑以及小牧场被保留了下来，包括斯科蒂城堡及其附属建筑、发电房、钟塔、客房、马厩、车库及酒店、大门、碎石机，以及道路、植被、和整体空间布局。其建筑的复杂性在于空间组织、流通系统以及设计的细节，与西班牙中的小村落有相似之处。

2015年10月，此地经历了一场时间短但极强烈的风暴，造成巨大损失。路层隆起，树木被连根拔起，所有的电力和水供应中断。景观里碎片散落，许多较小的建筑物和结构经历了中度甚至重度损伤（图9）。

风暴后一些景点被关闭，NPS机构进行了包括文化景观系统修复以及景点内特种资源损失在内的评估（格尔马诺2015）。评估主要集中在一系列关键问题：自然系统和功能的损坏、循环系统的损耗、空间组织及植被的损坏。所有的建议都集中在现场的修复及稳定化上，但并没有长期的规划及缓解干预计划。该报告还强烈建议未来设置现场监测机制，识别可能进一步造成破坏的危险树种，并重新将山坡分级，以便辅助稳定结构和路基。

这一场非常罕见的风暴事故后，给这一地区留下了持久的影响。因为此处的景点不但历史悠久，且非常受欢迎，每年能吸引约100 000人来此参观。此外，风暴的力量提出了关于文化景观能否承受未来不遵从气候变化趋势的风暴影响这一重要的问题。风暴的影响可能无法在它发生之前缓解。在许多方面均可以看出，未来这种文化景观的破坏也将成为文化遗产的一部分（CLRG 2016a）（图10-11）。

1.3 仙南渡国家公园中的祝营

最后的案例是弗吉尼亚州仙南渡国家公园中祝营，此研究展示了文化景观遗产如何随固有的气候变化下变化，以及我们将会如何对待这一景观。即使我们力图保留这些提醒我们存在的记忆，但其终将成为“新”的遗产（哈蒙德2014）。祝营，坐落在拉皮丹河河畔仙南渡国家公园中心的一个山谷中，是胡佛总统的“夏季白宫”，占地面积66hm2。1929胡佛总统将其购买为私人土地，并于1933年卸任时将其捐赠给弗吉尼亚州联邦政府，最终祝营成为仙南渡国家公园的一部分。这也成为胡佛总统退位来到戴维营的前兆。祝营保留着一些乡村的结构，标志性的茂密树冠层、石子道，以及除了工作和家庭外胡佛总统最爱的消遣——去钓鳟鱼的水塘。胡佛总统总是在拉皮丹河接待外交客人，在炎热的夏季此地成为华盛顿之外的避暑胜地。

胡佛坚持保留场地自然风景和乡村结构的原有特性，并禁止用树木，煤和油烹调或取暖。无论是胡佛总统和夫人都很喜欢花园里的原生植物和色彩（哈蒙德2014）。

祝营现在作为仙南渡国家公园中一个现场解说地点，其中有3个主要建筑——总统府邸、首相府邸以及钓鱼处向公众开放。游客直到近来才可以通过游览这些景点来近距离体验胡佛总统和夫人在这里的时光。

作为一个记录在NPS文化景观报告里的优秀案例（哈蒙德2014）这个国家标志性的历史建筑现在正面临着保护和挑战问题。作为仙南渡国家公园重要的文化资源，它正被国家公园管理局保护，但也正面临着所在环境不断变化的挑战。

祝营提供给国家和人民多样的亲近方式。当然，胡佛总统夏天的白宫虽是一个举办过很多重要会议及发生过重大历史事件的地方，但作为总统度假场所，那里绝大部分设计决策都是由胡佛总统和夫人制定的。

祝营也反映了美国历史景观保护的现状，其被誉为文化遗产不是因为它完美的设计属性，而是以其乡村景观的特性以及与美国历史上重要人物相关而著名。祝营对于展示时间推移变化资源的保存处理方式，到现在来看都是智慧且直接有效的。

如今，祝营也被认为是反映了气候变化影响的文化遗产。正如在文化景观报告中提到的和现场观察到的情形，胡佛时代铁杉树营造的凉棚，绝大多数现如今已死亡或枯萎。铁杉毛球蚜引起的铁杉树大量死亡导致森林的郁闭度降低，射入森林的阳光使得灌木更加茂密也有助于树苗的生长，这极大程度上改变了祝营的特点。该计划的目标是恢复高冠树木，使祝营恢复林荫。增加的树荫也将有助于抑制不良植物种类的入侵（图12）。

处理这一文化景观的计划是需要具有创造性和独特性的。它以观察和理解胡佛时期的这一景观为长期目标。然而同样重要的是，它将气候变化带来的影响作为景观遗产的一个重要且关键的组成部分。通过几十年努力重建铁杉林冠，这件事本身也是对气候变化的隐性响应。

该计划制定了一个精准而复杂的过程，它为如何解决这些问题与两代或更多代人的利益之间的关系建立了一个新的参照，当然它也很可能被视为我们景观遗产的一部分。

2 结论与意见

3个案例的研究揭示了在未知和不可预见的未来面前，试图保护文化景观所面临的复杂问题和注意事项。目前的气候科学已经能够帮助我们更好地理解全球气候变化的各种可能，但变化的气候变量仍然存在不可预见性（特纳2010）。我们需要明白，1℃或2.5℃的温度变化，将会对景观应对变化的适应能力造成显著的影响。降水变化、海平面升高以及伴随这些变化出现的趋势和时间也会造成和温度变化相同的影响。

在现在这个气候变化的新时代，上述发现促进人们得出了一些关于文化景观保护发展方向的结论性想法。正如上文讨论过的，研究关键点在于定义和评估文化景观应对气候变化的脆弱程度，我们可以通过单项主要的事实来进行判断：文化景观在气候变量中的暴露程度（例如气温上升），文化景观对变量的敏感度（气候变量在多大程度上影响了景观资源），文化景观的适应能力（景观怎样回应气候变量）。文中的案例分别讨论了不同的暴露度（事件或趋势），应对不同暴露度的不同敏感度，以及适应能力的范围。

这里并没有简单的办法能够预测未来会发生什么（库恩1962），因为变量的历史范围可能不在适用于今天的气候变量以及环境的反映和弹性（冈萨雷斯2015）。也许，随着文化景观保护的目标不断发展，敏锐的监控和适当并及时的应对是比什么都重要的（米勒等, 2007）。

The impacts of climate change on signif i cant cultural landscapes is an evolving and expanding area of study. (Higgs 2003) There is much that is unknown, and still much more to be learned. (Westerling et. al., 2011) This article reports on a multi-year, on-going, and not yet completed, project undertaken by the Cultural Landscape Research Group at the University of Oregon, and supported by the US National Park Service. The goal of the project is to identify potential climate change vulnerabilities, especially exposure and sensitivity, for previously documented cultural landscapes in the Pacif i c west region of the national parks. The project is: gathering climate change project data for these parks; identifying anticipated climate change vulnerabilities for these cultural landscapes; identifying character-def i ning features projected to be impacted; and identifying stabilization measures to improve the resilience of those features to climate change events or trends. Previous research focused on parks in the eastern US. (Melnick, et.al. 2015) One of those cultural landscape case studies is included in this article.

A few definitions and explanations are in order:

This climate change project – focused as it is on cultural landscapes - builds on previous work of the Cultural Landscape Research Group (CLRG)①and others, both within and outside of the National Park Service (Melnick 2009; Change Over Time 2015). This project is very closely aligned with the NPS Climate Change Response Program and others to ensure that this project supports long term efforts underway elsewhere in the national parks. (Schupp, et.al. 2015)As part of its dual mandate of resource protection and visitor access, the US National Park Service is providing national leadership in this area.

There is on-going research in other countries, as well, and this project takes lessons from efforts in England, Italy, The Netherlands, and elsewhere. (English Heritage n.d., Cassar 2005)The climate data and analytical processes are largely based on the latest version of the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, (IPCC 2014) although information is also drawn from national and local efforts within the United States.

The cultural landscapes in this study – both in the eastern and western United States – were selected based on three broad criteria.

First, it was important to study cultural landscapes that had already been identified and recognized for their historic importance and physical completeness, or ‘integrity.’ Given the scope of this research, CLRG was not in a position to establish, explore or defend a landscape’s signif i cance. In all cases, the landscape’s signif i cance was determined through a US NPS process that includes the development of a Cultural Landscape Inventory (CLI) and, in some cases, a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR).

Second, it was important to engage landscapes in different ecological zones. Although climate change is a global phenomenon, (de Melo 2015) it affects different ecological regions in diverse ways, based on dynamic climate variables. The different ecological zones allowed the team to present case studies for other parks to use and to learn from. In the western US region of the National Park System, these zones are described as ‘networks,’and are based on established USDA zones.(USDA2016)

Third, it was instructive to engage different types of cultural landscapes, based on the NPS established system of categorization. (National Park Service. 2016)While a cultural landscape, as defined by the World Heritage Committee, (UNESCO 2016) represents the combined works of nature and of man, in the interest of management the US National Park Service categorizes them in one of four ways, although these are not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes (National Park Service. 2016)

These three broad criteria – historic importance, ecological variety, and cultural landscape diversity - enabled the CLRG team to provide case study examples that could be referenced by site managers, even if a park’s particular cultural landscapes were not included in the study. The CLRG team intends to provide a model that site managers can employ in their own efforts at resource protection.(Melnick, et.al. 2015)

In the fi rst phase of this research, in national parks in the eastern US, once landscapes of historic importance were identif i ed by NPS, the team itself developed the other filters. As mentioned, in the parks in the western US, however, the region is divided into ‘networks,’ based on ecological features, that bypass political boundaries, such as states or counties. All of the cultural landscapes in this study were previously identified and studied; the CLRG research team utilized the historic data, documentation and signif i cance evaluation already completed.

While this research project is most interested in anthropogenic climate change, that, in and of itself, is not its direct focus. The team is not supposing to establish that climate change is or is not caused by human activities; only that it is affecting these places that are revered for their cultural heritage value.

The project addresses the exposure of these cultural landscapes to climate variables and their sensitivity to that exposure, leading to a better understanding of the climate vulnerability of these places. Impact, coupled with the landscape’s resilience and adaptive capacity, leads to a measure of vulnerability. (Gonzales 2015) Another way to describe this is to ask: given the landscape’s exposure to projected climate variables, and given the landscape’s inherent ability or lack of ability to withstand those changes, how much is it likely to change over time? And – most importantly –how likely is it to lose its defining characteristics and features, or to have those characteristics and features diminished? Finally, in light of that assessment, what might site managers do to respond to that vulnerability, and to increase the landscape’s resilience in the face of these climate variables? (Melnick et. al. 2015, Beaganand Dolan, 2015)

Climate change, whether or not caused by human activities, is already having a direct impact on valued cultural landscapes globally. (Benton and Bailey 2015) We are witnessing modif i cations to cultural landscapes that threaten their historic condition and possibly their very existence. (Berenfeld 2015)While cultural landscape scholars and practitioners cannot deter climate change, we can explore methods and tools to ameliorate its impact on valued landscapes. This research focuses on evolving tools to integrate climate science knowledge with cultural landscape analysis and management.

As is well established, climate change is recognized as a developing problem across the globe and in many countries. (Stoknes 2015) The Netherlands, for example, has taken major steps to offset the impacts of climate trends and events. (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. 2013) The results presented here draws its context from the lessons of other counties and cultures, but is focused on US examples.

There are a number of major issues currently under exploration. As with most research, this is a work in progress. This article presents a major phase of that work, which will not end soon.

The first question asked in this research is basic to all cultural landscape studies: What is it about a cultural landscape that marks it as special, unique, or simply what it is? And how can we prioritize the characteristics or features that def i ne a cultural landscape, so we can make informed decisions about our conservation actions? (Brabec and Chilton 2015)

As is recognized across the literature, cultural landscapes are not static objects, structures, or buildings. They are dynamic and complex systems that are documented, analyzed, and understood, in order to be protected. We refer to them as‘protected’ because conservation (or in the US‘preservation’) often implies arresting or stopping change. However, the dynamic change in a cultural landscape is best managed, rather than resisted, relying on the explicit recognition of an acceptable rate and range of change, so that the defining characteristics of the landscapes are not lost.

This requires that the character defining features of the landscape – those elements that have historically and currently made it what it is– are not only understood, but clearly stated as a hierarchical system of meaning, contribution and significance. Although there is an understandable inclination to provide quantitative data that can legally and politically support management decisions, it is also important to include qualitative data and professional and experiential evaluations.

Additionally, it is important to def i ne tools to identify the historic impacts of climate variables on these significant cultural landscapes, and what climate variables really matter in this discussion. Necessarily, we also need to differentiate between climate trends and climate events. (Glassberg 2014) Trends are those changes that occur gradually over time, and may not be obvious. The most familiar ones are increased air temperature, reduced precipitation and sea level rise. Of course, there are many other variables, such as storm intensity, storm occurrence, wind erosion, coastal erosion, fl ooding, wildf i re events, increase in invasive species, decrease in native species, and so on. It is necessary to take what we might call the ‘long view’ and not focus on today, this month or even this year.

Typical events include hurricanes, unusual storms, heavy rainfall, precipitous and sudden erosion, avalanches due to temperature change, heat waves, and droughts.

As a cultural landscape is evaluated over time, we can differentiate between known impacts (the past), current conditions (the present), and cultural landscape vulnerabilities (the future). Simply, known impacts are the ways in which a cultural landscape has been altered due to climate variables. For example, if the health of an orchard has been altered by compressed soil due to reduced precipitation and increased air temperature, we can understand this as a known and understood impact. We can then describe and record the orchard’s current condition. (Dolan 2009)

The next step is to evaluate the landscape’s vulnerability to future climate variables. This is more difficult, as in it requires establishing the probability (not predictability) of change in key climate variables (such as air temperature, precipitation and sea level), while also assessing the landscape’s exposure and sensitivity to these variables. (Eigenbrod, et.al. 2015)This requires establishing the probability of low through high variations, and then establishing, to the extent possible, the landscape features’ anticipated responses to those changes.

For example, in the orchard example identif i ed above, what will happen if the air temperature slowly rises and precipitation slowly declines? How will those changes affect the health and stability of the orchards, the individual trees and the irrigation system?

Establishing and analyzing the range of a cultural landscape’s response to climate variables requires understanding its exposure and sensitivity to those changes, its own adaptive capacity and, thus, how vulnerable it is to the probable climate variables. This is a complex exercise since there are many variables and, importantly, a number of “unknowns” that may alter the results of this exercise.

This concept can best be presented as follows:

Exposure to climate variables, modified by a landscape feature’s sensitivity to those variables, results in potential impact on the cultural landscape feature. This impact is then modif i ed by a feature’s adaptive capacity to those variables, resulting in a def i ned level of vulnerability. (Glick et.al. 2011)

From another perspective, the process requires four basic steps: identifying preservation goals, assessing vulnerability (as just described), identifying management options, and implementing management options. As will be described in the third case study, but not the other two, identifying and implementing management options are, themselves, complex and lengthy tasks.

1 Examples

Three examples of cultural landscapes included in this research project explore this idea in greater detail and specificity. Different as they are, they highlight the complex question of cultural landscape vulnerability to climate variables, including many anticipated, as well as unknown, circumstances. As explained, the basic formula discussed above is applied differently to each of the examples.

1.1 Lyons Ranches, Redwood National Park

Lyons Ranches, situated high in the Bald Hills of Redwood National Park, California, is a historic rural district recognized as a significant cultural landscape. (National Park Service 2004) Perhaps the most interesting and challenged cultural landscape elements of this 2290 hectares district are eight prairies, each no more than 1.6 kilometers from the next. These naturally occurring prairies, stretching across the upper ridge of the Bald Hills, have been modif i ed over time, fi rst by native Americans and,from 1869 to 1959, by sheep ranchers.

The ranches and the associated prairies are important because they reflect the history and development of the Bald Hills as a sheep ranching community and because there is no development following this historic period. Thus, as a cultural landscape, the interplay between natural landscape and human activity can be readily understood. Even though the ranches are in Redwood National Park, the district receives minimal visitation. (Metz et. al., 2013)

In addition to the prairies, the ranches retain other cultural landscape features, including: fences, buildings and structures, dirt roads, orchards, and the overall spatial arrangement at a number of sites within the district. As a cultural landscape, it is readily witnessed and understood, and can explain the sheep ranching activities that thrived in the area for 90 years.

Lyons Ranches are also important because they are beginning to reflect trends in climate variables that are impacting this landscape, and especially the prairies. Based upon four climate models, the probability is that precipitation will remain within a normal range of variation. Air temperature, however, could rise anywhere from 1.4C to 4.0C in the coming century. Gonzalez (Gonzalez 2015) and others (Johnstone and Dawson 2010) have identified major climate vulnerabilities of this landscape, in light of these anticipated air temperature fluctuations and precipitation trends. These include:

(1)Continued heating under climate change may continue to reduce coastal fog and increase drought stress in coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens).

(2)Climate change under the highest emissions scenario could double the area burned by wildf i re by 2085 AD.

(3)A combination of increased fire and sudden oak death disease could increase mortality in coast redwoods.

(4)Park ecosystems are vulnerable to shifts of broadleaf species into conifer forest stands due to climate change, exacerbated by habitat fragmentation.

From a cultural landscape perspective, for this area of the Bald Hills, far as it is from the coastal redwood stands, the potentially most significant impact is the shift of broadleaf species into conifer stands. Recent field investigations, as yet unpublished, have also revealed shifts of conifers into the historically significant prairies and the blurring of the historically clear edges between prairie and forest in this landscape. The prairies, if not managed, run the risk of slowly drifting into sparse, and then dense, deciduous woodland. (Johnstone and Dawson 2010)

This raises an important question regarding management response, and the protection of this heritage landscape. Will the future heritage of this landscape rely more on historic photos, oral histories and memories, rather than the visible display and appreciation, of the prairie landscape? Protection of this cultural landscape will require consideration of the integration of cultural and natural features, funding limitations, personnel availability, and overarching park management priorities. Climate change is only one aspect of this effort. (CLRG 2016)

1.2 Scotty’s Castle, Death Valley National Park

The second example, Scotty’s Castle in Death Valley National Park, also in California, presents a very different issue, following a dramatic and highly unusual storm in October 2015. The district is closely associated with one of the best known and most colorful fi gures on the American mining frontier— Walter Scott, aka "Death Valley Scotty." Scotty's Castle, a property covering 121 hectares, is located within the Grapevine Canyon of Death Valley at a 3915 meter elevation. Several characteristic buildings and structures of a small working ranch remain, including Scotty's Castle and annex, the powerhouse, the chimestower, guest house, stables, garage bunkhouse/hotel, entrance gate, and gravel separator, as well as roads, vegetation, and the overall spatial layout of the site. The building complex appears much like a small Spanish village in its spatial organization, circulation system, and design details.

In October, 2015, the site experienced a violent storm, with a short, yet intense torrential downpour that caused significant damage. Road beds were upheaved, trees were uprooted, and all power and water supplies were interrupted. Debris was scattered across the landscape, and many of the smaller buildings and structures experienced moderate to severe damage.

Following the storm and subsequent closure of the site to visitors, NPS conducted a damage assessment that included recommendations for repair of the cultural landscape systems as well as specific resources within the site. (Germano 2015) The assessment focused on a number of key fi ndings, including damage to: natural systems andfeatures, circulation systems, spatial organization, and vegetation. All of the recommendations focused on site repair and stabilization, but not long range planning or mitigation intervention. The report also strongly recommended future site monitoring, identification of hazard trees that might cause further damage, and re-grading of the hillside to help stabilize both the structures and roadbed.

The storm, considered a very rare event, has left a lasting impact on this regionally historic and very popular site, visited by approximately 100,000 people per year. Additionally, the storm’s force raises important questions regarding the ability to withstand the impact of future storms on the cultural landscape, as differentiated from climate trends. The effect of the storm probably could not have been mitigated prior to its occurrence. In many ways, the damage to this cultural landscape is part of the heritage that will be recognized into the future. (CLRG 2016a)

1.3 Rapidan Camp, Shenandoah National Park

Finally, a study of Rapidan Camp, in Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, demonstrates how the inherent and implicit heritage of one cultural landscape is changing under the impact of climate variables, and how we might think about its‘new’ heritage even as we strive to hold on to those features that remind us where we are and how we got here. (Hammond 2014) Rapidan Camp, the 66 hectare ‘summer White House’ for President Herbert Hoover, sits along the Rapidan River in a valley in the heart of Shenandoah National Park. Purchased as private land by President Hoover in 1929, it was donated to the Commonwealth of Virginia when he left office in 1933, and it eventually became part of Shenandoah National Park. It was the precursor to the presidential retreat at Camp David, in Maryland. Rapidan Camp includes a number of rustic structures, and is marked by a lush tree canopy, gravel walkways, and ready access to trout fi shing, one of President Hoover’s favorite pastimes. In addition to staff and family, the President hosted diplomatic guests at Rapidan, and used it as a retreat from the sweltering summer heat of Washington, DC.

The Hoovers insisted that the scenery, and the site’s rustic character, be preserved, and that no living trees, coal or oil could be used for cooking or heating. Both the President and Mrs. Hoover were also very fond of native plants and color in the gardens. (Hammond 2014)

Rapidan Camp is now managed as an interpretive site in Shenandoah National Park and its three main buildings – the President’s cabin, the Prime Minister’s cabin and The Creel – are open to the public. Visitors can wander through this site, experiencing this landscape much as the President and Mrs. Hoover would have during their times here; or at least they could have until recently.

As documented in an outstanding NPS Cultural Landscape Report (Hammond 2014) this National Historic Landmark is now both protected and challenged. It is protected by the National Park Service, as a significant cultural resource in Shenandoah National Park. It is challenged by the changing environment in which it exists.

There are different ways to understand what Rapidan Camp provides us as a nation and as a people. It was, of course the Hoover summer White House, a place where important meetings were held and events occurred. It was a presidential retreat, where many, if not all, of the‘design’ decisions were made by the President and/ or Mrs. Hoover.

Rapidan Camp also reflects the heritage of historic landscape preservation in the United States, a place honored not for its immaculate design attributes, but rather for its rustic qualities and association with signif i cant people in American history. Its preservation treatment till now has been smart and direct, protecting character-defining resources, including the recognition of change over time.

Rapidan Camp can now be understood to also reflect the heritage of the impact of climate change. As noted in the Cultural Landscape Report, and as was observed on site, the hemlock trees that formed a shaded canopy from Hoover’s time to the present day are now mostly dead or dying.

The loss of the hemlock trees, caused by the hemlock wooly adelgid, has dramatically altered the character of Rapidan Camp, by opening the forest floor to sunlight, and encouraging dense shrub and sapling growth. The goal of the plan is to reestablish the high overhead canopy and, thus, the shaded character of the camp. The increased shade will also help to suppress the undesirable invasive understory species.

The plan to treat this cultural landscape is creative and ingenious. It is linked to the long-term goal of seeing and understanding this landscape as it was during the Hoover era. Equally importantly, however, and perhaps without solid intention, it establishes the impacts of climate change asan important and essential component of the landscape’s heritage. The proposed treatment – to reestablish the hemlock canopy through a decadeslong effort – is, in itself, an implicit response to climate change.

That plan sets in motion a refined and complex process that establishes a new benchmark for how to address these concerns long term, with benefits that may not be seen for two or more generations, when it may well be viewed as part of our landscape heritage.

2 Concluding Comments

The three case studies reveal some of the complex issues and considerations engaged when attempting to preserve cultural landscapes in the face of unknown and not always predictable futures. Changing climate variables are not always foreseen, although climate science can now assist us to better understand the probability of various changes to our global climate. (Turner 2010) We need to understand, however, that an increase of 1 degree centigrade, or an increase of 2.5 degrees centigrade, will have dramatically different impacts on a landscape’s capacity to adapt to that change. The same is true for variations in levels of precipitation, sea level rise, and the associated trends and events that accompany these changes.

This leads to some concluding thoughts about where cultural landscape protection is headed in this new era of climate change. As discussed, key in this effort is the need to identify and evaluate a cultural landscape’s vulnerability to climate change, based on three major factors: a cultural landscape’s exposure to climate variables (such as increased air temperature), its sensitivity to those variables (how much will the change affect the landscape’s resources), and its adaptive capacity (how will it respond to the variables). Each of the examples discussed face different degrees of exposure (events or trends), varying sensitivity to that exposure, and a range of adaptive capacity.

There is no easy way to predict what will occur (Kuhn 1962), as historic ranges of variation may no longer apply to climate variables and landscape response and resilience. (Gonzalez 2015) Perhaps, more than anything else, the evolving goal of cultural landscape protection will require keen monitoring and appropriate and timely response. (Millar et.al., 2007)

注释Note：

①文化景观研究团队名单：罗伯特Z. 梅尔尼克，维罗妮卡·马利娜， 诺里·克尔和艾莉森·刘易斯。

CLRG team members: Robert Z. Melnick, Veronica Malinay, Noah Kerr, and Alison Lewis

Beagan, Chris and Susan Dolan. 2015. “Integrating Components of Resilient Systems into Cultural Landscape Management Practices.” Change Over Time, 5.2. Fall 2015. Pp.180-199.

Benton, Tim and Rob Bailey.Extreme Weather and Food Shocks.New York Times. September 8, 2015. http://www. nytimes.com/2015/09/09/opinion/extreme-weather-andfood-shocks.html?emc=edit_ty_20150908&nl=opinion&nl id=51751652. Accessed 9/8/15.

Berenfeld, Michelle L. Planning for Permanent Emergency:“Triage” as a Strategy for Managing Cultural Resources threatened by Climate Change. The George Wright Forum,vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 5–12 (2015).

Brabec, Elizabeth and Elizabeth Chilton. 2015. “Toward An Ecology of Cultural Heritage.” Change Over Time, 5.2. Fall 2015.Pp.266-285.

Cassar, Mary. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: University College London, Centre for Sustainable Heritage.

Change Over Time. Fall, 2015, 5.2.“Climate Change and Landscape Preservation.”Melnick, Robert Z., guest editor. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cultural Landscape Research Group.(CLRG) 2016. University of Oregon.Field notes and photographs, Lyons Ranches, Redwood National Park.Unpublished.

Cultural Landscape Research Group.(CLRG) 2016a. University of Oregon.Field notes and photographs, Scotty’s Castle, Death Valley National Park.Unpublished.

deMelo, Jaime. Climate change and the growing challenges of migration.Brookings Newsletter on Planet Policy.http:// www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2015/08/24-climate-change-migration-challenges-de-melo. Accessed 9/8/15.

Dolan, Susan. 2009. A Fruitful Legacy: A Historic Context of Orchards in the United States, with Technical Information for Registering Orchards in the National Register of Historic Places. Interior Dept., National Park Service, Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Pacific West Regional Office, Cultural Resources; Park Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes Program: Washington, DC.

Eigenbrod, F., P. Gonzalez, J. Dash, and I. Steyl. 2015. Vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change moderated by habitat intactness. Global Change Biology 21: 275-286. English Heritage.n.d., Climate Change and the Historic Environment.

Germano, Vida. 2015. “Preliminary damage assessment of the Scotty’s Castle cultural landscape.” National Park Service. San Francisco, CA. November 10, 2015.

Glassberg, David. 2014. Place, Memory and Climate Change. The Public Historian, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 17–30 (August).

Glassberg, David, 2001. Sense of history: the place of the past in American life. University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst.

Glick, P., B.A. Stein, and N.A. Edelson, editors. 2011. Scanning the Conservation Horizon: A Guide to Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation.

Gonzalez, Patrick. 2015. Climate Change Trends, Vulnerabilities, and Ecosystem Carbon, Redwood National Park, California. Natural Resource Stewardship and Science, U.S. National Park Service, Washington, DC (unpublished document).

Hammond, John. 2014. Cultural Landscape Report for Rapidan Camp, Shenandoah National Park, Madison County, Virginia. Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation

National Park Service, Boston, Massachusetts.

Higgs. Eric. 2003. Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

IPCC.Summary for Policymakers.Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to theFifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)] (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 1-32.

Johnstone, J.A. and T.E. Dawson. 2010. Climatic context and ecological implications of summer fog decline in the coast redwood region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 4533-4538.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1996 (1962).The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd Ed. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Melnick, R.Z., Malinay, V., and Burry-Trice, O. 2015.Climate Change and Cultural Landscapes: Research, Planning and Stewardship. Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon: Eugene. Unpublished report.

Melnick, Robert Z. 2009. Climate Change and Landscape Preservation: A Twenty-First-Century Conundrum. APT Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology. 40:3-4, pp. 35-42.

Metz, M.R., J.M. Varner, K.M. Frangioso, R.K. Meentemeyer, and D.M. Rizzo. 2013.

Unexpected redwood mortality from synergies between wildfire and an emerging infectious disease. Ecology 94: 2152-2159.

Millar, C.I, N.L. Stephenson, S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forest in the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8), 2007, pp. 2145–2151.

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, The Netherlands. 2013. Climate Agenda: Resilient, Prosperous and Green. The Hague.

National Park Service.US Department of the Interior. 2004. Lyons Ranches Historic District, Redwood National Park. Cultural Landscape Inventory. Oakland, CA.

National Park Service.US Department of the Interior. 2005. Scotty’s Castle, Death Valley National Park. Cultural Landscape Inventory. San Francisco, CA.

National Park Service.US Department of the Interior. 2012. Bonnie Claire Road, Death Valley National Park. Cultural Landscape Inventory. San Francisco, CA.

National Park Service.(2016) US Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties + Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/ four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/index.htm. Accessed 05 February 2016 .

National Park Service (US). 2010. National Park Service. Climate Change Response Strategy.National Park Service Climate Change Response Program, Fort Collins, Colorado. NW Climate Magazine. May 2015. Northwest Climate Science Center, University of Washington, Seattle.

Odum, H.T. 1983. Systems Ecology: An Introduction. John Wiley and Sons: New York.

Safina, Carl, 2011. The View From Lazy Point. Henry Holt and Co.: New York .

Scarpino, Philip V. Planning for Preservation: A Look at the Federal-State Historic Preservation Program, 1966-1986. The Public Historian. Vol. 14, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 49-66 .

Schupp, C.A., R.L. Beavers, and M.A. Caffrey [eds.]. 2015. Coastal Adaptation Strategies: Case Studies. NPS 999/129700.National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Stoknes, Per Espen. 2015. What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming. Chelsea Green Publishing: White River Junction, Vermont.

Turner, Monica G. Disturbance and landscape dynamics in a changing world.Ecology 91(10):2833-49 · September 2010.

UNESCO.World Heritage Committee.Cultural Landscapes. http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape. Accessed 8/27/16.

USDA Plant Hardiness Zones. http://planthardiness.ars. usda.gov/PHZMWeb/. Accessed 8/27/16.

Westerling, A.L., B.P. Bryant, H.K. Preisler, T.P. Holmes, H.G. Hidalgo, T. Das, and S.R. Shrestha. 2011. Climate change and growth scenarios for California wildfire. Climatic Change 109: S445-463.

更正说明

本刊2016年第7期第80页的文章《山地城镇景观的复杂性与应对策略研究——以巴渝城镇为例》由国家自然科学基金面上项目“后三峡时代库区‘在地景观’的恋地效应及空间干预研究”资助，由于作者疏忽写错项目编号，现将文中项目编号51278505更正为51578085。特此更正。

Protecting Cultural Landscapes in the Era of Climate Change

Text：Robert Z. Melnick
Translator：XIAO Yao and GE Yun-yu

The study of the impacts of climate change on valued cultural landscapes is a new and evolving field, as climate change is understood as an emerging force on global ecological systems. This on-going study of three cultural landscapes in US national parks reflects different anticipated impacts, responses and approaches to protecting cultural landscapes as they are altered by climate variables. Differentiation between climate trend and climate events reveals the need for monitoring, various approaches and the acceptance of unknown variables in the face of dynamic climate systems.

Cultural Landscapes; Climate Change; Landscape Preservation

TU986

A

1673-1530（2016）11-0079-16

10.14085/j.fjyl.2016.11.0079.16

2016-08-25

罗伯特Z. 梅尔尼克，美国风景园林师协会会员，俄勒冈大学风景园林系的退休教授。他长期研究文化景观的定义、分析和保护。本文中所阐释的研究是罗伯特最近和正在研究的成果。

Robert Z. Melnick, FASLA, is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Landscape Architecture at the University of Oregon. He has spent his career on the identification, analysis, and protection of cultural landscapes. Theresearch described in this article reflects recent and ongoing efforts.

译者简介：

肖遥/1989年生/女/博士/北京林业大学园林学院（北京100083）

XIAO Yao, who was born in 1989, holds a PhD degree in College of Landscape Architecture, Beijing ForestryUniversity, Beijing, China (Beijing 100083)

葛韵宇/1992年生/女/硕士生/北京林业大学园林学院（北京 100083）

GE Yun-yu, who was born in 1992, as a Master studentin College of Landscape Architecture, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China (Beijing 100083)

修回日期：2016-09-28