Strategies for meaningful engagement: A commentary on collaboration in archaeological climate adaptation planning

Abstract

There are calls from cultural resources professionals, academics, and diverse stakeholders for multivocality, co-creation of knowledge, and inclusion of local and traditional input in the management of cultural resources situated on public lands. Yet, associated communities often have little control or influence on management of their heritage sites beyond mandated consultation, particularly for archaeological sites. In a US National Park Service (NPS) context, managers are guided by standardized criteria, existing data management systems, and policy-and eligibility-based funding streams. The influences of these criteria, systems, and policies are particularly powerful when managers are prioritizing action for climate adaptation, as policy guidance focuses attention to cultural resources that are both significant and vulnerable to climate stressors. The results of a variety of engagement activities with Tribal Nations and NPS staff show that the co-creation of knowledge requires meaningful engagements, the valuing of Traditional Knowledges, and bridging the culture-nature divide. This paper highlights successful examples of such meaningful engagements and offers strategies for collaboration between NPS and citizens and staff of Tribal Nations in climate change adaptation planning for cultural resources on public lands.Scholars are increasingly documenting the exposure of archaeological sites to climate change stressors (e.g., Rockman 2015; Anderson et al. 2017;Sesana et al. 2021). The impacts of these stressors to sites are also being documented with more frequency, such as the deterioration of materials from increasingly salinized soils and extreme fires (Gruber 2011), and the displacement and loss of materials and physical context from erosion caused by riverine flooding (Howard et al. 2016), storm surge (Pollard-Belsheim et al. 2014), and sea level rise (Papadopoulos et al. 2021). On federal lands, climate adaptation guidance for archaeological sites typically focuses on minimizing physical deterioration or loss given management agencies' mandate of responsible cultural heritage stewardship (Rockman et al. 2016;Venture et al. 2021). Yet, many archaeological sites require unique climate adaptation planning and management because of their connection to sovereign Tribal Nations 1 and the consequential sensitivity of data and locational information associated with pre-contact sites (Wildcat 2013). In this commentary, we explore the challenges of climate change adaptation planning for archaeology sites and the opportunities for agency staff and the citizens and staff of Tribal Nations to steward cultural heritage sites located on public lands.

A Systematic Literature Review on Climate Change Adaptation Planning for Archaeological Site Management and the Prevalence of Stakeholder Engagement

“…Archaeological site stewardship and climate change adaptation planning must include local and Traditional stakeholders' values, perspectives, and preferences, but recent literature is slow to document stakeholder engagement and relevancy in research and management suggestions. Meaningful engagement and collaboration give more authority to local and Traditional stakeholders over their cultural heritage and address the specific adaptation needs for archaeological sites (Hotchkiss et al 2022). Low prevalence of stakeholder input does not mean it is not happening; academic literature may not accurately represent current efforts-or efforts that do not necessarily include researchers with expectations to publish in refereed journals.…”

“…As climate change impacts worsen and adaptation planning becomes more urgent, resource managers must find ways to effectively and more meaningfully collaborate with local and Traditional stakeholders to plan for the protection, documenting, or loss of sites. When considering funding requests for adaptation and mitigation, meaningful collaboration will also help archaeological-site stewards prioritize sites based on the values of local and Traditional stakeholders (Hotchkiss et al 2022).…”

“…Management recommendations happening now and for the future must include opportunities for co-creation, collaboration, and comanagement. Creating opportunities for collaboration, participatory research, and relationship building are strategies that managers of heritage sites and protected areas can implement to increase meaningful engagement with local and Traditional stakeholders (Hotchkiss et al 2022).…”

“…To enhance the value and contribution of ITEK in heritage and archaeological site management, it has been suggested to weave or braid ITEK and Western science approaches to site stewardship, which can lead to adaptation planning that is more holistic (Andrade et al 2022; Hotchkiss et al 2022). Holistic site stewardship, in this case, refers to the integration of cultural and natural resource management (Helmer et al 2020), as well as the coproduction of approaches found in Western science and cultural values and perspectives (Wu et al 2017).…”