氣候變化時(shí)代視角下的文化景觀保護(hù)

作者：羅伯特Z. 梅爾尼克

翻譯：肖遙 葛韻宇

氣候變化時(shí)代視角下的文化景觀保護(hù)

作者：羅伯特Z. 梅爾尼克

翻譯：肖遙 葛韻宇

在全球生態(tài)系統(tǒng)中，氣候變化已被看作一種新興的影響力。在這樣的背景下，氣候變化也成為文化景觀研究領(lǐng)域的新興發(fā)展方向。本文記敘了3個(gè)仍在進(jìn)行中的美國(guó)國(guó)家公園的研究案例。這3個(gè)案例顯示了當(dāng)氣候變量改變文化景觀時(shí)不同的預(yù)期影響，景觀反映，及應(yīng)當(dāng)采取怎樣的措施去保護(hù)文化景觀。氣候的長(zhǎng)期變化和大型氣候事件之間的差異表明必須監(jiān)控氣候。同時(shí)，在面對(duì)動(dòng)態(tài)的氣候系統(tǒng)時(shí)，研究還應(yīng)當(dāng)采用多樣的方法并且接受未知的變量。

文化景觀；氣候變化；景觀保護(hù)

氣候變化對(duì)重要文化景觀的影響研究是一個(gè)持續(xù)發(fā)展并且逐漸壯大的研究領(lǐng)域（海格斯，2003）。在該領(lǐng)域中還存在許多未知和亟待研究的部分（維斯特靈等，2011）。本文闡述了一個(gè)由俄勒岡大學(xué)文化景觀研究團(tuán)隊(duì)進(jìn)行，并由美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局支持的項(xiàng)目（圖1）。這個(gè)項(xiàng)目均持續(xù)了數(shù)年，并且仍在進(jìn)行中，并沒(méi)有結(jié)題。本項(xiàng)目的目的是揭示美國(guó)國(guó)家公園西太平洋區(qū)域早期景觀記錄中潛在的景觀應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化的薄弱點(diǎn)，特別是曝光度和敏感度。本項(xiàng)目主要包含了以下幾個(gè)部分：搜集研究西太平洋區(qū)域國(guó)家公園的氣候變化項(xiàng)目的數(shù)據(jù)；識(shí)別出公園文化景觀應(yīng)對(duì)預(yù)期氣候變化的薄弱點(diǎn)；識(shí)別預(yù)先定義的特征性地物景觀所受到的影響；探尋一種持續(xù)穩(wěn)定的方法來(lái)加速地物景觀在氣候事件或氣候變化趨勢(shì)影響下的恢復(fù)。該領(lǐng)域的早期研究多關(guān)注美國(guó)東部（梅爾尼克，2015）。本文的案例部分會(huì)對(duì)其中的一個(gè)研究進(jìn)行論述（圖2）。

本文中涉及的主要定義和說(shuō)明如下：

本文中的氣候變化項(xiàng)目致力于研究氣候變化視角下的文化景觀，這些研究建立在文化景觀研究團(tuán)隊(duì)（CLGR）①和其他機(jī)構(gòu)的早期研究基礎(chǔ)之上。這些早期研究既有與國(guó)家公園管理局相關(guān)的，也有毫不相關(guān)的（梅爾尼克，2009; 2015時(shí)代的變化 ）。本項(xiàng)目和NPS的氣候變化反應(yīng)課題有著緊密的聯(lián)系。這種聯(lián)系能夠確保本項(xiàng)目能夠持續(xù)地在國(guó)家公園其他的區(qū)域長(zhǎng)期開(kāi)展（斯古譜等，2015）。鑒于本項(xiàng)目所具有的資源保護(hù)和游人使用的雙重屬性，美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局在其中起到了國(guó)際性的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)作用。

本項(xiàng)目還包括了一些在其他國(guó)家或地區(qū)進(jìn)行的研究，例如英格蘭、意大利、荷蘭和其他一些地方，這些研究也都正在進(jìn)行當(dāng)中（英國(guó)遺產(chǎn)，卡薩爾 2005）。研究中的氣候數(shù)據(jù)和分析過(guò)程主要來(lái)源于氣候變化專(zhuān)門(mén)委員會(huì)（IPCC）的最新版綜述。另一些數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源于美國(guó)國(guó)家或地方。

本研究中的文化景觀，包括美國(guó)東部和西部，都是通過(guò)3條顯著的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)篩選出來(lái)的。

首先，非常重要的一點(diǎn)，文化景觀的歷史重要性和客觀物質(zhì)的完整性必須是得到肯定和公認(rèn)的。在這樣的視野下，文化景觀研究團(tuán)隊(duì)并不是一個(gè)確立、發(fā)現(xiàn)或申辯景觀意義的工作單位。在所有的案例中，景觀的意義都是通過(guò)美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局程序所確定的，包括不斷更新的文化景觀清單（CLI）。一些案例中，這些信息來(lái)自文化景觀報(bào)告（CLR）。

其次，將景觀分區(qū)和生態(tài)分區(qū)相互融合是十分重要的。雖然氣候變化是全球性現(xiàn)象（de Melo 2015），但基于動(dòng)態(tài)的變量時(shí)，氣候?qū)Σ煌鷳B(tài)區(qū)域的影響方式是多種多樣的。對(duì)多種生態(tài)區(qū)域的研究使得研究團(tuán)隊(duì)能夠提出不同的案例，便于不同的公園使用其中的經(jīng)驗(yàn)或從中學(xué)習(xí)借鑒。在美國(guó)西部地區(qū)的國(guó)家公園系統(tǒng)中，生態(tài)分區(qū)是依據(jù)既定的美國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)部分區(qū)確定的（美國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)部 2016）。這些生態(tài)區(qū)域被描述為“網(wǎng)絡(luò)”結(jié)構(gòu)（圖3）。

第三，將景觀類(lèi)型和美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局既定編制的分類(lèi)系統(tǒng)（美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局，2016）融合起來(lái)是十分有益的。當(dāng)一處文化景觀被世界遺產(chǎn)委員會(huì)（世界遺產(chǎn)委員會(huì)2016）認(rèn)定時(shí)，即表示該文化景觀代表了人工與自然的完美結(jié)合。美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理局為了管理這樣的景觀，會(huì)將它分為以下4種類(lèi)型中的一種（盡管一個(gè)景觀有時(shí)會(huì)具有多種性質(zhì)）：歷史遺跡、歷史性的設(shè)計(jì)景觀、歷史鄉(xiāng)土景觀和人類(lèi)學(xué)景觀（美國(guó)國(guó)家公園管理處，2016）。

這3條顯著的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——?dú)v史價(jià)值、生態(tài)價(jià)值和文化景觀的多樣性，使得文化景觀研究團(tuán)隊(duì)能夠?yàn)楣珗@土地管理者提供一套能夠參考的案例。研究團(tuán)隊(duì)還希望，即便公園的典型文化景觀并沒(méi)有被包含在這些案例中，公園土地管理者仍然能夠獨(dú)立地依據(jù)案例中提出的模型進(jìn)行資源保護(hù)（梅爾尼克等， 2015）（圖4）。

在研究的第一階段，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)首先對(duì)國(guó)家公園管理認(rèn)定的西部國(guó)家公園中的重要?dú)v史性景觀進(jìn)行篩選。正如前文中提到的，研究團(tuán)隊(duì)依據(jù)跨越行政邊界（例如州或縣）的生態(tài)特征，將西部國(guó)家公園區(qū)域劃分為“網(wǎng)絡(luò)”結(jié)構(gòu)。本研究中所有的文化景觀都經(jīng)過(guò)了這樣的分類(lèi)鑒定和研究。研究團(tuán)隊(duì)利用的信息來(lái)源于歷史數(shù)據(jù)、文檔和已經(jīng)完成的價(jià)值評(píng)估。

盡管該研究主要針對(duì)人為引起的氣候變化，但氣候變化本身卻不是研究的主要焦點(diǎn)。本研究并不要求工作團(tuán)隊(duì)去判斷一種氣候變化是否由人類(lèi)活動(dòng)所造成，而是重點(diǎn)關(guān)注氣候變化對(duì)那些具有重要文化遺產(chǎn)價(jià)值的區(qū)域造成的影響。

該項(xiàng)目重點(diǎn)研究了文化景觀在受氣候變量的影響程度及其敏感度，以便更好地了解這些區(qū)域的應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化的薄弱點(diǎn)。事實(shí)上，景觀的彈性和適應(yīng)性這兩者的相互作用，在一定程度上導(dǎo)致了薄弱點(diǎn)的產(chǎn)生（岡薩雷斯，2015）。我們也可以換一種方式來(lái)描述這個(gè)問(wèn)題：當(dāng)景觀暴露在環(huán)境變量的影響下時(shí)，若增強(qiáng)或剝奪景觀抵御環(huán)境變化的能力，經(jīng)歷了一定時(shí)間后，景觀會(huì)出現(xiàn)怎樣的變化呢？以及最重要的，景觀有多少可能失去它典型的特性和特征，或者這些特性和特征會(huì)有怎樣的衰退呢？最后，通過(guò)這些評(píng)估，能夠明晰土地管理者需要做些什么來(lái)應(yīng)對(duì)這些薄弱點(diǎn)，以及在面對(duì)氣候變量時(shí)如何增強(qiáng)景觀的彈性（梅爾尼克等，2015. 本安根和多嵐，2015）（圖5）。

對(duì)于氣候變化而言，無(wú)論它是否由人類(lèi)活動(dòng)引起的，都已經(jīng)對(duì)全球范圍內(nèi)極具價(jià)值的文化景觀造成了直接的影響（本頓，2015）。我們正在目睹著文化景觀的變化，這些變化已經(jīng)威脅到景觀的歷史狀況，甚至影響著景觀的存續(xù)（波恩菲爾德，2015）。雖然氣候變換已經(jīng)是文化景觀的理論研究界和實(shí)踐界都不能阻止的趨勢(shì)，但是我們?nèi)匀荒軌蛱剿饕恍┓椒ê凸ぞ邅?lái)減弱氣候變化對(duì)重要景觀造成的影響。本研究的主要關(guān)注點(diǎn)在于通過(guò)發(fā)展工具，使文化景觀分析、管理和氣候?qū)W科技相結(jié)合。

正如大家公認(rèn)的那樣，氣候變化已被看作一個(gè)全球化的、日益嚴(yán)重的問(wèn)題（斯托克斯，2015）。例如，荷蘭已經(jīng)采取了許多關(guān)鍵措施來(lái)減緩氣候變化和氣候瞬時(shí)事件所帶來(lái)的影響（基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施與環(huán)境部，2013）。目前該領(lǐng)域的研究成果以美國(guó)的案例為主，但也汲取了不同國(guó)家和文化形態(tài)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。

在氣候變化和文化景觀的研究領(lǐng)域中，有許多正在進(jìn)行的重要探索和研究。本文介紹了這些研究中的主要階段性工作（圖6）。

對(duì)于所有的文化景觀研究而言，最核心的問(wèn)題如下：究竟是什么因素使得文化景觀成為一種特殊的、獨(dú)特的景觀呢？我們應(yīng)當(dāng)賦予文化景觀的特征特性怎樣的權(quán)重以便合理地指導(dǎo)景觀保護(hù)呢（布拉貝茨和奇爾頓，2015）？

從研究文獻(xiàn)中可以總結(jié)出，文化景觀并不是一種靜態(tài)的物體、構(gòu)筑或者建筑物。而是一種應(yīng)當(dāng)通過(guò)記錄、分析和充分理解保護(hù)下來(lái)的復(fù)雜的動(dòng)態(tài)系統(tǒng)。我們使用“保護(hù)”而非“保存”（或保留）一詞來(lái)描述這個(gè)過(guò)程，是要強(qiáng)調(diào)這種過(guò)程并不是抵制和停止變化的。文化景觀的動(dòng)態(tài)變化應(yīng)當(dāng)處于良好的管理之下，而非完全抵制變化。依靠對(duì)可接受的變化速率和變化程度的明確識(shí)別，使景觀的顯著特征不至于消失。

要達(dá)成上述目的，首先，我們需要找出古往今來(lái)造就景觀典型特征的因子。并在深入了解的基礎(chǔ)上，將這些因子依據(jù)其含義、貢獻(xiàn)和重要性進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)分類(lèi)。值得注意的是，盡管在目前的研究中傾向以定量數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)指引法律和政治上的決策，但定性數(shù)據(jù)和專(zhuān)業(yè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)評(píng)估仍然需要得到重視。

其次，在鑒定氣候變量對(duì)典型文化景觀造成的歷史影響時(shí)，工具的確定是十分重要的。同時(shí)，要就還必須明晰究竟哪種氣候變量起到了最關(guān)鍵的作用。我們需要學(xué)會(huì)區(qū)分長(zhǎng)期的氣候變化趨勢(shì)和重要的氣候變化之間的區(qū)別（格拉斯伯格，2014）。氣候變化趨勢(shì)指那些可能不太明顯的持續(xù)性變化。其中最為公眾熟悉的就是氣溫的持續(xù)升高、降水量減少和海平面上升等問(wèn)題。另外還有一些其他的變量，例如風(fēng)暴強(qiáng)度、風(fēng)暴的發(fā)生、風(fēng)的侵蝕、海岸侵蝕、洪水、森林火災(zāi)、入侵物種的增加、本地物種的減少等等。這些變量提示我們，研究中需要放寬眼界，進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的觀測(cè)，而不是局限于某一天、某一月或某一年。

典型的氣候重大事件包括颶風(fēng)、不同尋常的風(fēng)暴、強(qiáng)降雨、突發(fā)的急劇侵蝕、溫度變化引起的雪崩和干旱等。

當(dāng)一處文化景觀不同時(shí)期的狀況被動(dòng)態(tài)評(píng)估后，我們就能梳理出關(guān)鍵因素：已知的影響（過(guò)去）、現(xiàn)狀（現(xiàn)在）和文化景觀的薄弱點(diǎn)（未來(lái)）。簡(jiǎn)單地說(shuō)，“已知的影響”就是文化景觀因?yàn)闅夂蜃兞恳饩嘲l(fā)生的改變及其變化的方式。例如一座果園的健康因?yàn)橥寥谰o實(shí)度增高發(fā)生了變化，而土壤緊實(shí)的原因是降雨的減少和溫度的升高。這整個(gè)過(guò)程就可以被看做是已知的影響。接下來(lái)，我們可以進(jìn)一步探討和記錄果園的現(xiàn)狀（多嵐，2009） 。

第三步是評(píng)估景觀應(yīng)對(duì)未來(lái)氣候變量的薄弱點(diǎn)。這一步與前兩部相比較是十分困難的，因?yàn)槲覀冃枰_定（而非預(yù)測(cè)）主要?dú)夂蜃兞浚ㄈ鐨鉁?、降水和海平面高度）的變化概率，同時(shí)還需要評(píng)估被研究的景觀在這些變量中的暴露程度以及景觀的敏感度（艾根博德等，2015）。

舉個(gè)例子來(lái)描述在這一步進(jìn)行的研究。在前文中提到了果園的案例，那么可以繼續(xù)思考：如果氣溫緩慢上升，降水量緩慢下降，會(huì)發(fā)生什么呢？這些變化會(huì)怎樣影響果園的健康和持續(xù)性，又會(huì)對(duì)果園中的植株個(gè)體和灌溉系統(tǒng)造成怎樣的影響呢？

若要確定和分析文化景觀在氣候變量影響下的變化程度，需要明確以下幾個(gè)方面：文化景觀在氣候變量下的暴露程度及敏感程度，文化景觀的適應(yīng)能力，并且需要明確面對(duì)可能的氣候變化，文化景觀的薄弱點(diǎn)在哪里。眾多的變量使得這樣的調(diào)研十分困難，而一系列的“未知數(shù)”也可能導(dǎo)致調(diào)研結(jié)果的變化。

下文說(shuō)明了進(jìn)行該研究的基本思路：

當(dāng)文化景觀暴露在環(huán)境變量中時(shí)，由于景觀特征的敏感程度不同，文化景觀將受到不同的潛在影響。這種影響由于景觀特征的適應(yīng)能力的不同而進(jìn)一步改變，最終確定了景觀的對(duì)應(yīng)氣候變化的不同的弱點(diǎn)（格里克等，2011）。

從另一個(gè)視角看，研究需要經(jīng)歷4個(gè)基本的步驟：確定預(yù)期目標(biāo)，評(píng)估景觀的薄弱點(diǎn)（正如前文所述），確定管理決策和實(shí)施管理決策。正如下文中第3個(gè)例子描述的一樣。確定和實(shí)施管理決策本身就是十分復(fù)雜和冗長(zhǎng)的任務(wù)。

1 案例

這個(gè)研究項(xiàng)目包含的3個(gè)文化景觀的案例更詳盡而具體地闡釋了這個(gè)想法。不同的是，這幾個(gè)案例突出了面臨氣候變化文化景觀的敏感性，包括許多預(yù)期以及未知的環(huán)境。綜上所述，每個(gè)案例與上文討論的基本公式均不同。

1.1 紅杉樹(shù)國(guó)家公園的里昂牧場(chǎng)

里昂牧場(chǎng)是一個(gè)歷史悠久的鄉(xiāng)村地區(qū)重要文化景觀，坐落在加利福尼亞州紅杉樹(shù)國(guó)家公園里的禿山上。（國(guó)家公園服務(wù)指南2004）這面積為2 290hm2到地區(qū)內(nèi)最有趣和最受挑戰(zhàn)的文化景觀元素大概是8片之間間隔不超過(guò)1.6km的大草原。這些自然產(chǎn)生的草原橫跨禿山的山脊，并且隨著時(shí)間的流逝而改變。最初的改變是由于1869年到1959年之間本土美國(guó)人在此牧羊（圖7）。

牧場(chǎng)以及相關(guān)的草原的重要性在于它們反映了禿山作為羊的放牧區(qū)域的歷史及變遷，此地并沒(méi)有遵循這一歷史時(shí)期的發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。因此，自然景觀和人類(lèi)活動(dòng)之間的相互作用作為文化景觀的一種表達(dá)很容易理解。雖然，在紅杉樹(shù)國(guó)家公園里游覽這個(gè)區(qū)域的人數(shù)最少（梅茲等，2013）。

除了草原，牧場(chǎng)所保留的其他文化景觀特征包括：圍墻、建筑物和構(gòu)筑物、土路、果園，以及這個(gè)區(qū)域內(nèi)一些景點(diǎn)的總體空間布局。大家在觀察中很容易將其理解為文化景觀，并能解釋這90年來(lái)綿羊牧場(chǎng)活動(dòng)的蓬勃發(fā)展?fàn)顩r。

如里昂牧場(chǎng)一般的大草原的重要性還在于其能夠反映影響景觀發(fā)展趨勢(shì)中的氣候變量。根據(jù)4個(gè)氣候模型，降水量將保持在一個(gè)正常的變化范圍內(nèi)。然而，在下一個(gè)世紀(jì)，大氣溫度能夠上升1.4℃到4℃。岡薩雷斯和其他人已經(jīng)確定了這一景觀面臨氣候變化所具有的弱點(diǎn)，根據(jù)這些大氣溫度波動(dòng)的推測(cè)以及趨勢(shì)的預(yù)測(cè)，這些弱點(diǎn)包括：

（1）持續(xù)加熱的氣候變化可能導(dǎo)致沿海霧的減少以及海岸紅杉（Sequoia sempervirens）面臨更加嚴(yán)峻的干旱威脅。

（2）在最高碳排放的情況下，到公元2085年，氣候變化可能會(huì)導(dǎo)致野火燒毀的面積是現(xiàn)在的2倍。

（3）火災(zāi)頻率的增加以及突發(fā)的橡樹(shù)病結(jié)合起來(lái)會(huì)導(dǎo)致海岸紅杉的死亡率增加。

（4）由于氣候變化以及棲息地破碎化的加劇，公園的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)很容易轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橐葬樔~闊葉林樹(shù)種為主。

從文化景觀的角度來(lái)看，禿山這一區(qū)域，由于它是從海岸紅杉林發(fā)展而來(lái)，潛在的最顯著的影響是從闊葉樹(shù)種向針葉樹(shù)種的轉(zhuǎn)變。根據(jù)尚未發(fā)表的場(chǎng)地調(diào)查結(jié)果也顯示，轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榫哂袣v史意義的草原以及草原和森林之間的界限都很模糊。大草原如果疏于管理，就會(huì)慢慢變得稀疏，然后變?yōu)槊芗穆淙~林（約翰斯和道森，2010）（圖8）。

關(guān)于管理的反饋以及遺產(chǎn)景觀的保護(hù)提出了重要的問(wèn)題。未來(lái)這類(lèi)草原遺產(chǎn)景觀將更多地依賴(lài)于歷史照片、口述歷史以及記憶，而不是可見(jiàn)的展示以及游賞么？保護(hù)這一類(lèi)文化景觀需要綜合考慮文化和自然特征的整合、資金限制、人員的可用性以及公園總體管理的優(yōu)先性等諸多因素。氣候的變化只是其中一方面（CLRG 2016）。

1.2 死亡谷國(guó)家公園的斯科蒂城堡

第2個(gè)例子同樣位于加利福尼亞，是死亡谷國(guó)家公園中的斯科蒂城堡。斯科蒂城堡經(jīng)歷了2015年10月的一場(chǎng)極不尋常的戲劇性風(fēng)暴之后面臨另外一類(lèi)不同的問(wèn)題。該區(qū)域與一個(gè)最著名的美國(guó)礦業(yè)開(kāi)拓的先驅(qū)人物沃特·斯科蒂（Walter Scott） 又被稱(chēng)謂“死亡谷斯科蒂”緊密相關(guān)。斯科蒂城堡占地121hm2，位于死亡谷中葡萄峽谷一個(gè)海拔3 915m高的山頂。幾處特色建筑以及小牧場(chǎng)被保留了下來(lái)，包括斯科蒂城堡及其附屬建筑、發(fā)電房、鐘塔、客房、馬廄、車(chē)庫(kù)及酒店、大門(mén)、碎石機(jī)，以及道路、植被、和整體空間布局。其建筑的復(fù)雜性在于空間組織、流通系統(tǒng)以及設(shè)計(jì)的細(xì)節(jié)，與西班牙中的小村落有相似之處。

2015年10月，此地經(jīng)歷了一場(chǎng)時(shí)間短但極強(qiáng)烈的風(fēng)暴，造成巨大損失。路層隆起，樹(shù)木被連根拔起，所有的電力和水供應(yīng)中斷。景觀里碎片散落，許多較小的建筑物和結(jié)構(gòu)經(jīng)歷了中度甚至重度損傷（圖9）。

風(fēng)暴后一些景點(diǎn)被關(guān)閉，NPS機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行了包括文化景觀系統(tǒng)修復(fù)以及景點(diǎn)內(nèi)特種資源損失在內(nèi)的評(píng)估（格爾馬諾2015）。評(píng)估主要集中在一系列關(guān)鍵問(wèn)題：自然系統(tǒng)和功能的損壞、循環(huán)系統(tǒng)的損耗、空間組織及植被的損壞。所有的建議都集中在現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的修復(fù)及穩(wěn)定化上，但并沒(méi)有長(zhǎng)期的規(guī)劃及緩解干預(yù)計(jì)劃。該報(bào)告還強(qiáng)烈建議未來(lái)設(shè)置現(xiàn)場(chǎng)監(jiān)測(cè)機(jī)制，識(shí)別可能進(jìn)一步造成破壞的危險(xiǎn)樹(shù)種，并重新將山坡分級(jí)，以便輔助穩(wěn)定結(jié)構(gòu)和路基。

這一場(chǎng)非常罕見(jiàn)的風(fēng)暴事故后，給這一地區(qū)留下了持久的影響。因?yàn)榇颂幍木包c(diǎn)不但歷史悠久，且非常受歡迎，每年能吸引約100 000人來(lái)此參觀。此外，風(fēng)暴的力量提出了關(guān)于文化景觀能否承受未來(lái)不遵從氣候變化趨勢(shì)的風(fēng)暴影響這一重要的問(wèn)題。風(fēng)暴的影響可能無(wú)法在它發(fā)生之前緩解。在許多方面均可以看出，未來(lái)這種文化景觀的破壞也將成為文化遺產(chǎn)的一部分（CLRG 2016a）（圖10-11）。

1.3 仙南渡國(guó)家公園中的祝營(yíng)

最后的案例是弗吉尼亞州仙南渡國(guó)家公園中祝營(yíng)，此研究展示了文化景觀遺產(chǎn)如何隨固有的氣候變化下變化，以及我們將會(huì)如何對(duì)待這一景觀。即使我們力圖保留這些提醒我們存在的記憶，但其終將成為“新”的遺產(chǎn)（哈蒙德2014）。祝營(yíng)，坐落在拉皮丹河河畔仙南渡國(guó)家公園中心的一個(gè)山谷中，是胡佛總統(tǒng)的“夏季白宮”，占地面積66hm2。1929胡佛總統(tǒng)將其購(gòu)買(mǎi)為私人土地，并于1933年卸任時(shí)將其捐贈(zèng)給弗吉尼亞州聯(lián)邦政府，最終祝營(yíng)成為仙南渡國(guó)家公園的一部分。這也成為胡佛總統(tǒng)退位來(lái)到戴維營(yíng)的前兆。祝營(yíng)保留著一些鄉(xiāng)村的結(jié)構(gòu)，標(biāo)志性的茂密樹(shù)冠層、石子道，以及除了工作和家庭外胡佛總統(tǒng)最?lèi)?ài)的消遣——去釣鱒魚(yú)的水塘。胡佛總統(tǒng)總是在拉皮丹河接待外交客人，在炎熱的夏季此地成為華盛頓之外的避暑勝地。

胡佛堅(jiān)持保留場(chǎng)地自然風(fēng)景和鄉(xiāng)村結(jié)構(gòu)的原有特性，并禁止用樹(shù)木，煤和油烹調(diào)或取暖。無(wú)論是胡佛總統(tǒng)和夫人都很喜歡花園里的原生植物和色彩（哈蒙德2014）。

祝營(yíng)現(xiàn)在作為仙南渡國(guó)家公園中一個(gè)現(xiàn)場(chǎng)解說(shuō)地點(diǎn)，其中有3個(gè)主要建筑——總統(tǒng)府邸、首相府邸以及釣魚(yú)處向公眾開(kāi)放。游客直到近來(lái)才可以通過(guò)游覽這些景點(diǎn)來(lái)近距離體驗(yàn)胡佛總統(tǒng)和夫人在這里的時(shí)光。

作為一個(gè)記錄在NPS文化景觀報(bào)告里的優(yōu)秀案例（哈蒙德2014）這個(gè)國(guó)家標(biāo)志性的歷史建筑現(xiàn)在正面臨著保護(hù)和挑戰(zhàn)問(wèn)題。作為仙南渡國(guó)家公園重要的文化資源，它正被國(guó)家公園管理局保護(hù)，但也正面臨著所在環(huán)境不斷變化的挑戰(zhàn)。

祝營(yíng)提供給國(guó)家和人民多樣的親近方式。當(dāng)然，胡佛總統(tǒng)夏天的白宮雖是一個(gè)舉辦過(guò)很多重要會(huì)議及發(fā)生過(guò)重大歷史事件的地方，但作為總統(tǒng)度假場(chǎng)所，那里絕大部分設(shè)計(jì)決策都是由胡佛總統(tǒng)和夫人制定的。

祝營(yíng)也反映了美國(guó)歷史景觀保護(hù)的現(xiàn)狀，其被譽(yù)為文化遺產(chǎn)不是因?yàn)樗昝赖脑O(shè)計(jì)屬性，而是以其鄉(xiāng)村景觀的特性以及與美國(guó)歷史上重要人物相關(guān)而著名。祝營(yíng)對(duì)于展示時(shí)間推移變化資源的保存處理方式，到現(xiàn)在來(lái)看都是智慧且直接有效的。

如今，祝營(yíng)也被認(rèn)為是反映了氣候變化影響的文化遺產(chǎn)。正如在文化景觀報(bào)告中提到的和現(xiàn)場(chǎng)觀察到的情形，胡佛時(shí)代鐵杉樹(shù)營(yíng)造的涼棚，絕大多數(shù)現(xiàn)如今已死亡或枯萎。鐵杉毛球蚜引起的鐵杉樹(shù)大量死亡導(dǎo)致森林的郁閉度降低，射入森林的陽(yáng)光使得灌木更加茂密也有助于樹(shù)苗的生長(zhǎng)，這極大程度上改變了祝營(yíng)的特點(diǎn)。該計(jì)劃的目標(biāo)是恢復(fù)高冠樹(shù)木，使祝營(yíng)恢復(fù)林蔭。增加的樹(shù)蔭也將有助于抑制不良植物種類(lèi)的入侵（圖12）。

處理這一文化景觀的計(jì)劃是需要具有創(chuàng)造性和獨(dú)特性的。它以觀察和理解胡佛時(shí)期的這一景觀為長(zhǎng)期目標(biāo)。然而同樣重要的是，它將氣候變化帶來(lái)的影響作為景觀遺產(chǎn)的一個(gè)重要且關(guān)鍵的組成部分。通過(guò)幾十年努力重建鐵杉林冠，這件事本身也是對(duì)氣候變化的隱性響應(yīng)。

該計(jì)劃制定了一個(gè)精準(zhǔn)而復(fù)雜的過(guò)程，它為如何解決這些問(wèn)題與兩代或更多代人的利益之間的關(guān)系建立了一個(gè)新的參照，當(dāng)然它也很可能被視為我們景觀遺產(chǎn)的一部分。

2 結(jié)論與意見(jiàn)

3個(gè)案例的研究揭示了在未知和不可預(yù)見(jiàn)的未來(lái)面前，試圖保護(hù)文化景觀所面臨的復(fù)雜問(wèn)題和注意事項(xiàng)。目前的氣候科學(xué)已經(jīng)能夠幫助我們更好地理解全球氣候變化的各種可能，但變化的氣候變量仍然存在不可預(yù)見(jiàn)性（特納2010）。我們需要明白，1℃或2.5℃的溫度變化，將會(huì)對(duì)景觀應(yīng)對(duì)變化的適應(yīng)能力造成顯著的影響。降水變化、海平面升高以及伴隨這些變化出現(xiàn)的趨勢(shì)和時(shí)間也會(huì)造成和溫度變化相同的影響。

在現(xiàn)在這個(gè)氣候變化的新時(shí)代，上述發(fā)現(xiàn)促進(jìn)人們得出了一些關(guān)于文化景觀保護(hù)發(fā)展方向的結(jié)論性想法。正如上文討論過(guò)的，研究關(guān)鍵點(diǎn)在于定義和評(píng)估文化景觀應(yīng)對(duì)氣候變化的脆弱程度，我們可以通過(guò)單項(xiàng)主要的事實(shí)來(lái)進(jìn)行判斷：文化景觀在氣候變量中的暴露程度（例如氣溫上升），文化景觀對(duì)變量的敏感度（氣候變量在多大程度上影響了景觀資源），文化景觀的適應(yīng)能力（景觀怎樣回應(yīng)氣候變量）。文中的案例分別討論了不同的暴露度（事件或趨勢(shì)），應(yīng)對(duì)不同暴露度的不同敏感度，以及適應(yīng)能力的范圍。

這里并沒(méi)有簡(jiǎn)單的辦法能夠預(yù)測(cè)未來(lái)會(huì)發(fā)生什么（庫(kù)恩1962），因?yàn)樽兞康臍v史范圍可能不在適用于今天的氣候變量以及環(huán)境的反映和彈性（岡薩雷斯2015）。也許，隨著文化景觀保護(hù)的目標(biāo)不斷發(fā)展，敏銳的監(jiān)控和適當(dāng)并及時(shí)的應(yīng)對(duì)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)

注釋Note：

①文化景觀研究團(tuán)隊(duì)名單：羅伯特Z. 梅爾尼克，維羅妮卡·馬利娜， 諾里·克爾和艾莉森·劉易斯。

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.

更正說(shuō)明

本刊2016年第7期第80頁(yè)的文章《山地城鎮(zhèn)景觀的復(fù)雜性與應(yīng)對(duì)策略研究——以巴渝城鎮(zhèn)為例》由國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金面上項(xiàng)目“后三峽時(shí)代庫(kù)區(qū)‘在地景觀’的戀地效應(yīng)及空間干預(yù)研究”資助，由于作者疏忽寫(xiě)錯(cuò)項(xiàng)目編號(hào)，現(xiàn)將文中項(xiàng)目編號(hào)51278505更正為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

羅伯特Z. 梅爾尼克，美國(guó)風(fēng)景園林師協(xié)會(huì)會(huì)員，俄勒岡大學(xué)風(fēng)景園林系的退休教授。他長(zhǎng)期研究文化景觀的定義、分析和保護(hù)。本文中所闡釋的研究是羅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.

譯者簡(jiǎn)介：

肖遙/1989年生/女/博士/北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)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)

葛韻宇/1992年生/女/碩士生/北京林業(yè)大學(xué)園林學(xué)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