Climate Change and Coastal Cultural Heritage: Insights from Three National Parks

Global climate change is expected to contribute to between 30 and 122 centimeters of sea-level rise by 2100, as well as increase the frequency and intensity storm surge, flooding, and erosion in coastal systems (IPCC 2014; Melillo, Richmond and Yohe 2014; Moser, Williams and Boesch 2012). Consequently, coastal cultural resources including archaeological sites, historic structures, and cultural landscapes will face increasing damages from salt water inundation, storm erosion, that comprise the frequency and intensity of the negative impacts of these coastal climate changes on cultural heritage resources, sites, and landscapes will also increase (Daly 2011b; WHC 2006; Cassar 2005). Current research on the climate change impacts on coastal heritage takes an ahistorical perspective, examining how these resources will be impacted by climate change moving forward. However, cultural resources hold both modern values and represent past uses of coastal landscapes. This research employs a historical perspective, examining long term relationship between people and climate or environment in a specific location, how past responses to environmental change, alteration of the environment, and other decision-making continue to affect current practices (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018). By examining three case studies in the central Gulf Coast of Florida and Mississippi, Tidewater Virginia, and the northeastern waterfront of San Francisco, California, this research explores how federal managers’ have perceived, created, and responded to environmental change from early European settlement through the present. Based on 20 key informant interviews as well as extensive archival and document research with 29 collections at 6 institutions, this research changes in the reciprocal relationship between the built and natural environment overtime. This study employed qualitative content analysis and document coding (Creswell 2014; Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989). As current managers address climate change, this historical perspective explores how local environmental relationships, traces key themes of landscape change and management responses through the American period of each site. Since the early period of American management, modification and environmental engineering, rather than retreat, has been the dominant response to coastal erosion, storm surge, flooding, and sea level rise. Overtime, federal manager’s metrics of coastal threat and risk have changed as the use of the sites has transitioned. At each of the three sites, local climate patterns and responses that developed overtime continue to manifest in the environmental perceptions and decisions made by managers. And while the patterns at each site are location specific, the challenges faced by managers at Pensacola and the Mississippi Barrier Islands, San Francisco, and the Virginia Peninsula may have applications for transitional military, urban, and commemorative landscapes adapting to climate change, respectively.

. management goals, ideas of permanence, rationales for creating change and responses to change in Pensacola and the Mississippi Barrier Islands overtime. ...... 210 Table 10. Management goals, expectations of permanence, rationale for creating change, and response to environmental change overtime in San Francisco' However, these natural processes are not the only causes of coastal change. People have been using and modifying the coastal environment to suit their perceptions of the space, for the span of human history. The coastal environment is distinct from inland locations because the multiplicity of human uses, the intersection of cultures, and the volatile weather and environment (Westerdahl 1992). The water-land boundary along coastlines has long been subject to human modification, both to create additional coastal land through infill, to shape existing shorelines into more productive formations, and to protect valuable coastal land from disappearing through inundation and erosion (Goudie 2013;Charlier, Chaineux, and Morcos 2005;Rippon 2000).
Today, coastal spaces retain unique environmental, social, industrial, and other features that create and support human livelihoods (McGranahan, Balk, and Anderson 2007). And approximately 27% of the global population resides within 100 kilometers of the coast, at an elevation lower than 100 meters (Kummu et al. 2016).
Both public policies and technological developments have contributed to patterns of human-induced change in coastal spaces. For instance, in the United States, the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and subsequent legislation encouraged the modification of waterways for commercial purposes, which led to the containerization of ports and shipping, thereby changing the space requirements and use patterns of coastal ports. As a result of the industrial revolution, technological advancements, and spiritual, and personal enjoyment they provide, and the tourism and economic value they generate (Claesson 2011). And people seek to preserve these resources for the value they provide for present and future generations. As both a valuable resource themselves, and a record of human use and manipulation of the coastline overtime, cultural resources are uniquely situated to serve as a focal point of a critical examination of the human dimensions of 'change' in coastal climate change.
Historical sites and structures are records of human use, interpretive aids for the history of human and environmental interactions along the coastline, and important resources in and of themselves. Cultural resources are evidence of past environmental management practices in the coastal area (Whitney 1996). The study of these resources offers instructive lessons on the successes and failures of past management (Jarvis 2016;Rockman et al. 2016;Erlandson 2012;Gillis 2012). The importance of protecting cultural resources (Claesson 2011;A. J. McIntosh and Prentice 1999) and the idea that these resources are evidence of past social and management adaptations to environmental change Jarvis 2016) are both well-represented in the literature. But scholars have separated the history of change embodied and represented by cultural resources from the process of changing taking place today with the changing climate (Carey et al. 2014).
This research takes a temporally broad and methodologically-diverse perspective, first asking what barriers exist that prevent managers from developing and utilizing adaptation strategies for cultural resources for climate change impacts.
This research then examines how federal and state managers in the U.S. have created and responded to change in the coastal environment from the period of early European settlement in the modern United States through the present. Finally, this research asks how these national and local priorities have manifest in the coastal historical built environment. This research addresses the questions: 1. What unique barriers exist today that prevent the adaptation of cultural resources for projected climate change impacts?
2. How have federal manager's perceived, responded to and created change in three coastal spaces from the period of early European settlement through current management of climate change?
3. How have American national and local priorities manifested and interacted in the management of the coastal historical built environment overtime?
By coupling a historical approach with key informant interviews, this research explores both current climate change barriers for cultural resource adaptation and the historical roots of frameworks, understandings, and responses to change in the area.
This extended temporal perspective allows a long-term look at how federal and state managers have addressed and created change in coastal spaces by examining the interplay between the built and natural environment in three coastal national parks.
The National Park Service (NPS) preserves and interprets the most extensive collection of cultural resources in the United States. Founded in 1916, NPS was established by Congress to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historical objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (United States Congress 1916). The projected impacts of coastal climate change on the cultural resources and education programs of NPS are beginning to challenge managers' existing goals, priorities, and techniques of resources preservation (Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016).
This research focuses on three coastal case study sites within NPS to compare how the distinct local environments, contexts, and histories of these sites manifest in the responses to and creation of coastal built and environmental change overtime. This outcome is relevant for the current and ongoing management of coastal cultural resources, but also contributes to a broader historical understanding of climate adaptation in the coastal environment overtime. The following section outlines the current disciplinary contributions to the historical study of climate change responses and climate change adaptation specific to cultural resources. The remaining four sections in this chapter outline the work in the social science, risk-perception and planning, current NPS, and historical approaches to climate change, and discuss how each approach informs climate change adaptation for cultural resources.

Historical Approaches to Climate and Human Interactions in the Social Sciences
Climate is changing and this change is occurring alongside management, social, environmental, industrial, technological, and cultural change. Existing environmental perceptions, management patterns, and social priorities influence the climate change management and adaptation planning along the coastlines of the United States (Fussel 2007). Research on the human dimensions of climate change is taking place in academic, governmental, organizational, and private settings, and making use of various disciplinary and pragmatic approaches (Fatoric and Seekamp 2017). These varying approaches to climate change often differ in their temporal scale and point of focus (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018). As such, numerous scholars in the social sciences and humanities have called for these fields to take a larger role in framing and identifying climate change challenges (Hulme 2011), suggesting that these fields of study can illuminate the social, cultural, and ethical relationship between people and the environment (Bird 1987;Palsson et al. 2013), clarify and challenge assumptions about historical climate data and the declension narrative (Carey et al. 2014), examine how environmental risks are perceived (Hulme 2008), and investigate how environmental decisions are made (Roncoli, Crane, and Orlove 2009). These questions are addressed across and between disciplines.

Geography, the Environment, and the Shaping of Culture
Geographers include cultural resources in their studies of the longstanding interaction between people, the environment, cultural change and movement, linking past environmental change with cultural customs, migrations, or other events. During the late 19 th century, geographers developed the theory of environmental determinism, which speculated that the natural climate and context provided limits to and informed the range of cultural development that could take place in a given setting (Peterson and Broad 2009;Coombes and Barber 2005;Meggers 1954). This theory was extended and used to justify imperialism and racist ideas, such as Social Darwinism.
Starting in the early 20 th century, the theory of historical possibilism, first introduced by Boas argued that regional climate and environment were amongst many explanatory factors in the development of culture (Peterson and Broad 2009).
In addition to the environment as an explanatory factor in culture, geographers have explored the idea that cultural world views, sometimes expressed through religion, may shape perceptions of the environment and the environment itself (Glacken 1967). For instance, Christianity placed humans in an exalted position over the wild, framing how man was to interact with nature. The construction of churches directly impacted the natural world through the removal of stone and other materials (Glacken 1967). The first wide-scale changes to Earth, on a global scale, were wrought at least 2.6 million years ago with hunting and gathering and, in many cases, may be impossible to separate human from natural change (Goudie 2013). Other geographers have focused directly on climate change adaptation practices. However, the importance of place and heritage are often underrepresented in climate change adaptation planning (Adger et al. 2012). By examining concepts of climate, change, and adaptation on a broad scale, geographical work on climate change situates modern climate change in a long-term pattern of human effects on the natural environment.

Lessons on Climate Fluctuation and Cultural Adaptation from the Deep Past
Many environmental anthropologists and archaeologists studying climate change have examined the changing relationships between people and nature shown through symbolism and stories that explain environmental conditions, and how people generate ecological knowledge, among other ideas. Broader theories employed by geographers and others on responses to climate and weather in the historical past, as well as data on the impacts of these weather patterns, come from archaeological studies of prehistorical and historical sites. Archaeological work on past environmental fluctuation has focused on social collapse in prehistorical societies and change with colonization or imperial presence, with some studies linking these past conditions to more recent evidence of the social impacts of environmental change.
Archaeologists, have studied cultural collapse in past societies related to historical periods of climate fluctuation or human-induced climate change (Diamond 2011;Hunt and Lipo 2011;Orlove 2005;Demonocal 2001;Wigley, Ingram, and Farmer 1981). They have correlated many periods of climatic change with cultural dislocations, collapses, and population declines (Coombes and Barber 2005). The collapse of the Akkadian, Mayan, Mochican, Tiwanaku and other empires can be directly linked to periods of persistent drought; however, these cultures were able to reduce social complexity, shift to different subsistence levels or different locations, and reorganize supply systems in order to adapt to climate changes (Demonocal 2001).
Along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the southern United States, during periods of sea level regression, societies adjusted their occupation to be more sedentary and their construction to be more modest. Past adaptation to climate fluctuations suggest that social change is possible, but not universally successful and requires social adjustment (Thompson and Worth 2011). Anthropologist Ben Orlove (2005) hypothesizes that the impact of climate fluctuations on different societies may be dependent on how tolerant each society is of environmental manipulation. It may be difficult to distinguish between social adaptation to climate alone and social adaptation to a combination of climate and cultural stressors (Orlove 2005).

Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the Modern Interpretation of Climate
Another anthropological approach to understanding cultural interactions with climate change focuses on traditional ecological knowledge, studying how people view, interpret and symbolize changes in the environment and weather (Crate 2011;Mergen 2008). Anthropologists examining the cultural interpretation and presentation of weather and climate in the present often focus on indigenous communities living in the Arctic and Oceania, that will be disproportionately affected by climate change (Roncoli, Crane, and Orlove 2009). Climate fluctuations and changes alter the timing, and potentially threaten the value of cultural practices such as baling hay when longer or wetter rainy seasons will cause bales to mold (Crate 2011(Crate , 2008. In addition to changes in the seasonality of hay gathering and harvest, the cultural interpretation of seasons through stories, folklore, and tradition may also change (Crate 2008).
Environmental learning is a key part of the process for emigrants to adapt to a new environment and becoming fluent in and familiar with the climate, floral, faunal, topographical, cultural, or other features of a new location may take over a generation, or around 35 years (Rockman 2003). With this argument, if the climate is changing, even if people are not moving, they may be less able to predict or understand the weather and environmental patterns around them.
Additionally, anthropologists have engaged with questions of modern social responses to climate change by examining how the problem is presented and understood by society. Anthropologists have critiqued the presentation of climate change data, arguing that describing weather patterns only through degrees of temperature, percentage humidity, and centimeters of rainfall, removes or deemphasizes the sensory experience of weather as an experience (Hulme 2008).
Climate is both a cultural construct and an experiential one. Understanding attitudes may be key to motivating climate change action, as people attempting to enact change were most successful when the information they provided confirmed or utilized, rather than clashed with existing beliefs and social structures (Chess and Johnson 2007). In addition to illuminating how cultures understand and symbolize change in the environment, understanding the social interpretation of climate, environment, and change may be vital to understanding adaptation options. Climate fluctuations may change weather patterns, growing seasons, appropriate construction materials, or a number of other factors, changing the sensory experience of living in a particular environment. This information may in turn be valuable in identifying how communities construct climate problems and therefore, determining solutions that are culturally acceptable and appropriate (Crate 2011).

Risk Perception, Policy, and Planning
Change becomes risk if the resulting condition is perceived as problematic (Moses and Rosenhaft 2015). What society considers an environmental or climate risk depends on both experiential factors such has personal experience with the hazard and demographic factors, including age, gender, and social network. However, there is little consensus in the risk perception literature on which of these factors are most influential in determining environmental risk perception (Dake 1992;Jasanoff 1987).
People do not perceive risks quantitatively, but through a mixed of information and experience (Luhmann 2008). The perception of risk is influenced by complex social, political, and cultural processes including personal observation, perceptions of one's social network, ability to take action, and level of trust in institutions (Bickerstaff 2004). While some studies found demographic variables to be important, others found that experience with environmental hazards is more influential on risk perceptions (Carlton and Jacobson 2013;Raymond and Brown 2011). Personal experience with hazardous weather scenarios affected individuals risk perceptions; however, simply living in a high-risk area did not (Lujala, Lein, and Rod 2015). However, risk perception does not necessarily corelate with preparation or action. People who have had personal experience with a hazardous weather condition such as a hurricane may be less likely to act to reduce their risk because they have survived the situation before (Peacock, Brody, and Highfield 2005). In addition to the influence of demographic and experiential factors, the context or cause of the hazard may influence how people perceive risk. The perception of the hazard as natural, quasi-natural, or technological may affect how active people are in responding, planning or managing for the hazard.
Risks from technological hazards may be seen as avoidable, and therefore, less risky, than threats derived from natural hazards including climate and weather (Bostrom and Lashof 2007;Axelrod, Mcdaniels, and Slovic 1999). This suggests that managers may respond differently if they perceive environmental change to be related to climate change rather than as an expected, seasonal range of environmental volatility.
Perceptions of risk frame and define the problems that may be addressed through public policies and actions (Moses and Rosenhaft 2015). Therefore, the various demographic and contextual factors affect how people perceive risks may also contribute to the framing of problems, policies, and solutions. However, additional factors are at play in problem definition. Not all voices carry equal weight in the process of public problem definition. Individuals, agencies, and organizations can influence how public problems are defined (Flader 1998) and the way in which a problem is framed can limit or control the decision-making and possible outcomes (de coastline, and space. And increased coastal erosion may directly compromise cultural resources or expose unknown or undocumented sites to increased risk of destruction or looting. The potential changes to cultural resources resulting from projected climate change may change both the physical condition of archaeological sites, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and museum collections, as well as the uses of these spaces by traditional and local communities and park visitors. NPS frames risks to cultural resources from climate change as additional or more variable damage than existing weather and climate risk factors ). Sea level rise, storm surge, coastal flooding, and increased coastal erosion may alter the condition of, access to, or use of the tangible remains of the past, for descendant communities, tourists, researchers, and the National Park Service. Sea level rise may cause the loss of sites through submersion, loss of access to traditional and culturally important sites, and the dislocation of traditional knowledge associated with existing coastal sites, such as local knowledge of the timing of fishing runs being rendered inaccurate due to climate change (Adger et al. 2012;Lazrus 2012).
NPS frames the response to climate change as a planning challenge (NPS 2015(NPS , 2013(NPS , 2012(NPS , 2010. If managers can predict the impacts of climate change, planners and others can focus limited financial, personnel, and engineering resources to protect the sites and spaces deemed most valuable, while documenting other sites that may be allowed to succumb to weathering and erosion. Rooted in the natural hazards and food security literature of the 1970s and 1980s and popularized by the Environmental Protection Agency, vulnerability or risk assessment procedures gather information on the projected climate conditions, as well as the projected exposure of a resource to these conditions and the likely result of this exposure on the materials that comprise the resource to determine a relative vulnerability of different sites, artifacts, and landscape components to environmental hazards (Bassett and Fogelman 2013). In light of climate change, NPS recommends this information gathering approach to climate change risks for natural and cultural resources (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011). Various projects within NPS are working to assess how cultural resources will be impacted by climate change and which resources will be affected, in order to use this information to make plans to protect, remove, interpret, or ignore the impacts of climate change on cultural resources in the future Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016).
In response to climate change risks to cultural resources, archaeologists recommend different methods of resource prioritization and preservation. NPS documents assert that the loss of sites may be unavoidable or necessary, but do not prescribe a methodology for prioritization across the parks, instead suggesting that decisions about the protection of sites will take place at the park-level . Cultural resources need to be evaluated and considered in the context of the local or broader community in order to determine both the value, and relative risk to these resources from climate change (Tengberg et al. 2012). One method of prioritization would be the "rational prioritization" of protecting the oldest known sites first (Erlandson 2012), consistent with traditional disciplinary procedures, the oldest known site may not always be the rarest or most at risk from inundation or coastal erosion.

Applying Historical Perspectives to Modern Climate Change: Methodological Approach
Research that takes a historical perspective can illuminate the long-term relationship between people and climate or environment in a specific location, can uncover path dependencies to explain how past decisions continue to constrain current practices, and can examine the groups participating in climate change adaptation to understand if and how current practices are perpetuating historical power imbalances (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018). Influential climate change thinker and historian Dipesh Chakrabarty (2012Chakrabarty ( , 2009 argues that climate change represents a divergence from historical climate conditions as well as historical climate perceptions because climate change shows that humans have themselves become one of the geologic forces and factors to which cultures and societies must adjust. While societies have historically responded to both environmental volatility and man-made changes to the environment on a local and regional scale, societies must now respond to natural and manmade environmental change on a global scale as well (Palsson et al. 2013;Chakrabarty 2009). However, even if climate change represents a departure from the paradigm of a give and take between humans and the environment to a multidirectional feedback human and environmental alteration, cultural perceptions of environment, manipulation of environment, and responses to environmental change have not developed in a vacuum but are rooted in historical interpretations of and interactions with environment and change (Carey et al. 2014;von Storch and Stehr 2006;Bird 1987).
Environmental changes made by humans have been motivated by connections to broader capitalist, global trade economies and networks, physical displays of cultural values, and racially or socially discriminatory policies, amongst other causes (Kahrl 2014;McKenzie 2010;Cronon 2003a;Grove 1996). Historically, people have engineered solutions with specific social intentions or motivations; however, the environmental outcome of these experiments has not always had the intended or expected affect (von Storch and Stehr 2006). For example, early European settlers in North America responded to the unpredictable environmental damages wrought by storms by creating policies that today might be labeled as precautionary such as forbidding grazing on dunes where the plants held sand in place during wind or storm events (Kawashima and Tone 1983). Not only did settlers create change in the American environment, but they expected that their alterations of environment would alter the local climate, as well as unify them as a group of people with strong physical and mental character (Kupperman 1982). Thus, the effect of environmental change was to change both the environment and those making the alteration.
While people perceive some alterations of environment as hidden due to cultural biases and expectations. For instance, fishing and fish drying, undertaken by minority communities in Monterey, California was viewed as a nuisance and health risk while large tourist establishments, with waste running directly into the ocean were viewed as (Chiang 2005). Similarly, in Desolation Sound, British Columbia, yachts are perceived as environmentally benign while Native American groups using the area in traditional ways, but with modern technologies such as chainsaws, park visitors believed Native American park uses were incompatible with the wilderness designation of the park (Clapperton 2012). Each group changes the environment; however, the way in which people create this change, rather than the outcome, affects local perceptions of how these changes are occurring.
In her extensive study of the historical adaptability of New Orleans from early French settlement through Hurricane Katrina in 2005, historian Eleonora Rohland (2017,2015) found that knowledge as a precondition for adaptation, path dependent decision-making, political vulnerability, and the interplay of social and economic factors all contributed to the original positioning of New Orleans at a site known to be vulnerable to storms and flooding. Following Hurricane Katrina, the early, imported French engineering of waterways surrounding the city, the continuation of these policies by the American government, and other historically rooted social questions continue to plague adaptation efforts in the city, both leading up to the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and during the subsequent and ongoing recovery (Rohland 2017).
Historical preconceptions about how to contain and move water within an urban setting, as well as historical planning decisions on how to site and locate housing and public works within that setting have continued to influence community vulnerability to modern storm events and climate change (Rohland 2017(Rohland , 2015. The fixation of landscapes, including the restoration of nature halts the natural flow of culture and the patterns of continuous adaptation on the landscape (Groenewoudt 2012). This is because as societies change and modernize, they adapt and change the landscape to suit new and updating systems and needs. The management of cultural landscapes requires the maintenance of past conditions, which is itself produces a specific pattern use (Melnick 2016;Cronon 2003cCronon , 1995. Even outside of the context of climate change, the modern management of coastal spaces represents a continuation of response to and creation of environmental change by current managers. This distinction further divides the scholarly consideration of cultural resources as both factors for preservation and instructive indicators of past environmental adaptations. This research bridges this divide by building on cultural landscape studies, which reveal local drivers of environmental and social change and applied work on historical and continuing patterns of adaptation to look at change overtime, continuing through modern climate adaptation. Rather than interpret the past as stationary and the present as a deviation from an extant state, this research takes the approach that the past, much like the present is a series of changes (DeSilvey 2012).

Historical Case Studies
Borrowing from the approaches of geographers, anthropologists, and historians in addressing climate change, this research examines how and why colonial leaders, government agencies, and state officials have responded to and generated environmental change in three sites overtime. Cultural resources are a proxy record of the long-standing, human interaction with the environment, evidencing how managers have understood and utilized coastal spaces overtime. and adjust their own construction patterns to the environment, this research contextualizes current management actions in a longer time span (Carey et al. 2014;Melosi 2000), considers climate change as an accelerating feature in the trajectory of coastal environmental volatility (Goudie 2013;Cronon 1995), and sees built responses to climate change as the newest features in the pattern of human shoreline engineering (Rohland 2017;Groenewoudt 2012).
While this examination of historical environmental perspectives did not start with a hypothesis, it did start with two assumptions. First, the environment is socially constructed, as evidenced by the declining agency afforded to the environment in different periods of human history, as well as the intrusion of social phenomenon such as cultural differences and social prejudices into environmental perspectives. For instance, early European explorers in the Caribbean understood hurricanes through a combination of basic natural science observations and religion, sharply contrasting with current scientific understandings of hurricanes (Schwartz 2015). The social construction of environment is also evident through the changing cultural and temporal understandings of the environment. Over time, different societies, peoples, trade patterns, and resource needs have changed public perceptions and understandings of the ocean (Steinberg 2001). For example, early European settlers perceived the landscape of North America to be a wild landscape despite intensive cultivation, modification, and alteration by Native Americans (Clapperton 2012;Cronon 2003b). The inability of European settlers to recognize changes to the landscape that both did not match their cultural understandings of land modification and were hard to read in a landscape that differed ecologically from their cultural norms suggests that society's view of nature is culturally constructed. Similarly, scientific policies have changed overtime, governing our use of the environment in different ways with goals (Finley and Oreskes 2013).
The second assumption made in this research is that human perceptions of the environment control how people choose to build and spatially organize their communities (Schwartz 2015;Cronon 2003b;Whitney 1996). People design and arrange structures and spaces for specific purposes. For instance, the Caribbean world of the colonial period became a stopover point for European shipping (Schwartz 2015). As such, populations moved closer to the water and built extensive coastal infrastructure such as wharves, docks, and other port facilities. The design of modern capital cities such as Brasilia and Ankara to have wide boulevards and planned streets presents a new, modern image to the world (Wakild 2011;Scott 1998). As resource needs, political motivations, scientific assumptions or understandings, cultural viewpoints, and other changes in society occur, cultural constructs of the environment change to suit or fit these changing needs. People construct their environment and changes in this built environment overtime occur as resource needs and perceptions of nature change. Therefore, changes in the built environment evidence shifting perceptions.
This research uses textual and photographic evidence of these changes to interpret perceptions of environment and environmental volatility to outline a longer story of human response to climate change. The "cultural landscape approach" is method of analyzing a landscape that draws on historical, archaeological, and the natural sciences to understand the relationship between culture and nature (Jensen and Hartmeyer 2014). Borrowing from this approach, this research employs a long-term perspective, identifies key drivers of environmental and cultural change, and traces the development and evolution of industries, patterns of use, and responses to the environment overtime (Jensen and Hartmeyer 2014;Mather andJensen 2011, 2010).
Understanding the historical patterns of environmental use may serve to indicate where cultural resources are located, but also contribute to an understanding of the modern use of the space (Mather and Jensen 2010).

Evidence, Sources, and Limitations
In order to examine manager's perspectives on the coastal environment overtime, this research examined texts that discussed the coastline and coastal environment in the three case study locations, as well as texts that described the construction undertaken at these sites, any environmental factors that influenced the  (Cronon 2004;Smith and Lux 1993;Grigg 1991).
The outcomes of the historical research approach differ from other fields of study in validation and generalizability (Cronon 2004). Historical research examines context dependent events and evidence. As such, the rigor and validity of the research comes from the fact that the subject of study is not removed from the complexity of a real-world situation (Cronon 2000(Cronon , 1993

Introduction
Cultural resources are the "sites, things, and practices a society regards as old, important, or worthy of conservation (Brumann 2015, 414)." Coastal communities value cultural resources for the tourist economies, sense of place, cultural or religious significance, educational facets, and the potential of these resources to contribute to research and understanding of coastal history (Green 2015;Tengberg et al. 2012;Claesson 2011). The materials, spatial contexts, and geographic arrangements of cultural sites are constantly threatened by weathering, erosion, and looting. Builders and designers constructed structures and sites for specific local climate and climate risks (IPCC 2014;WHC 2006). Coastal climate change factors including shifting species assemblages, changes in fog and wind patterns, temperature fluctuations, more intense storms and accompanying surges, sea level rise, and enhanced coastal erosion, increasingly threaten these sites Green 2015;Brimblecombe 2014;Sabbioni and Bonazza 2009;Sabbioni et al. 2008;Brimblecombe, Grossi, and Harris 2006;Cassar 2005). The damaging impacts of climate change on cultural resources will alter the look, feel, function, and meaning of coastal landscapes.
The National Park Service (NPS) manages the largest collection of cultural resources in the United States and provides guidance to numerous state, regional, and local preservation agencies through state historic preservation offices, the National Register of Historic Places, and other programs. NPS defines tangible cultural resources as archaeological sites, historic structures, cultural landscapes, ethnographic resources, and collections materials (NPS 2006). The Organic Act mandates that NPS preserve the natural and historic resources of the national parks "by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations, (United States Congress 1916)." Projected climate change impacts on resources will require managers to take adaptive actions to protect resources since the status quo may no longer represent a static resource condition (Colwell et al. 2012).
To determine the risk, select resources to preserve and address these changing preservation needs given projected climate change impacts, management agencies with cultural resource responsibilities have started developing climate change adaptation plans. Climate change adaptation planning may take many forms. However different planning processes often share the steps of identifying goals or targets to be protected, using scientific projects to estimate the impact on this goal or target resource or condition, and identifying and implementing management options to reduce the exposure or sensitivity of resources to climate change impacts or increase their ability to adapt and withstand these impacts Bierbaum et al. 2013;Sheridan and Sheridan 2013;Amberg et al. 2012;Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011;Sabbioni, Brimblecombe, and Cassar 2010;Baron et al. 2009;Fussel 2007;Fussel and Klein 2006;Toscano 2004).
The threat of climate change to cultural heritage properties is well established in the literature Brimblecombe 2014;Sabbioni, Brimblecombe, and Cassar 2010;Sabbioni et al. 2008;Brimblecombe, Grossi, and Harris 2006).
Preservationists, cultural resource, and climate change experts have issued calls to action around the topic of climate change and cultural heritage management (Markham and Wiser 2015;Holtz et al. 2014;NPS 2010;Cassar 2005). And guidance is available for assessing resource vulnerability to climate change (Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016). However, as climate change adaptation planning has gotten underway, cultural resources have been underrepresented in climate change vulnerability assessments (Thompson, Staudinger, and Carter 2015) and the implementation of climate change adaptation measures, for both natural and cultural resources, has been slow (Fatoric and Seekamp 2017b;Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010;Baron et al. 2009).
Researchers have examined barriers to climate change adaptation planning and action to determine what is stalling implementation in federal agencies including NPS (Fatoric and Seekamp 2017b;Ellenwood, Dilling, and Milford 2012;Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010;Baron et al. 2009), as well as state agencies (Archie et al. 2012) and local governments (Amundsen, Berglund, and Westskog 2010). In land management agencies, climate change adaptation planning for natural resources may not consistently or frequently represent the top planning priority (Archie et al. 2012;Ellenwood, Dilling, and Milford 2012;Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010). If the agency is interested in climate change adaptation planning or action, the lack of support from agency leadership, either directly, or indicated through a lack of designated funding, personnel, training, time, or incentive can serve as a barrier to action (Kemp et al. 2015;Lemieux et al. 2013;Archie et al. 2012;Amundsen, Berglund, and Westskog 2010;Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010). And a lack of clarity on agency priorities, goals, or intended outcomes, can also bar climate adaptation action at the agency level (Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010;Smith and Travis 2010;Baron et al. 2009). In a study specifically examining barriers to climate change adaptation for cultural resources, Fatorić and Seekamp (2017a) identified sixteen barriers specific to decision-making for cultural resources and climate change within the broader categories of institutional (guidance, policies and strategies), technical (historic preservation-based knowledge), and financial barriers.
Building on previous studies on barriers to climate change adaptation, this study explores barriers specific to cultural resource adaptation planning in coastal spaces and contextualizes barriers to management in the climate change adaptation process of three coastal national parks. We hypothesized that the lack of representation of cultural resources in climate change adaptation planning was caused by challenges associated with the unique uses, features, and functions of cultural resources and the policies that have historically governed the uses of these objects, sites, and places.
Qualitative interviews (n=20) with cultural resource managers, archaeologists, historians, historical preservationists, and interpretive staff from three NPS units in the Northeast, Southeast and Pacific-West NPS regions, revealed that the challenges managers are facing have roots in the institutional structures and conceptual frameworks that guide NPS cultural resource management. After identifying the roots of these challenges, we present opportunities for managers overcome barriers and move forward with adaptation planning for these critical resource components of coastal heritage, recreation, and research.

Methods
NPS management priorities, as well as climate change vulnerabilities, are sitespecific and dependent upon the resources in each park (Smith and Travis 2010;Schroter, Polsky, and Patt 2005). Therefore, we undertook a case study approaching, examining Colonial National Historical Park, Gulf Islands National Seashore, and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park. These three sites were selected through an information-oriented process that sought maximum-variation between sites (Yin 2003;Flyvbjerg 2006). Each site was selected from a pool of coastal NPS units (n=97) in which the literature identified a climate change risk to the cultural landscapes, structures, or other tangible landscape features (Peek et al. 2015). From coastal sites with an established climate change risk to cultural resources, we selected sites for maximum variation in coastal location, morphology, timing in the vulnerability assessment process, and the cultural resources represented at the site. Table 1 shows the selection criteria and case study sites. For a 10-month period beginning in 2016, we conducted research interviews with 20 key informants from the three National Parks and the corresponding regional offices. At each case study site, we contacted the Chief of Cultural Resources, the Chief of Interpretation, staff responsible for climate change initiatives, members of the curatorial staff, and Natural Resource Chiefs for interviews. We conducted three focus group interviews with a total of 8 informants, while the remainder of informants were interviewed individually, either in person or over the phone. The semi-structured interview format allowed key informants considerable leeway to broach topics they believed to be most important and encouraged informants to discuss their observations of situations that arise in their daily work.
The framework questions for the semi-structured interview were divided into three categories, as follows (see Appendix for a complete guide to interview questions):

1.
Observed changes or stability of condition of cultural resources 2.
Use and value of cultural resources in the park

3.
Decision-making and prioritization procedures for cultural resources When given permission (n=19), we voice recorded interviews then transcribed, coded and analyzed these interviews for content and themes. Statements made during the interviews were systematically grouped, according to topic, and analyzed to determine overarching themes and patterns (Babbie 2013;Toulmin 2003;Attride-Stirling 2001;Neuman 1997). We used an open coding framework, and identified themes that arose in the transcripts, while looking for emergent frameworks within the three thematic sections of questions. Nvivo coding software expedited the data analysis process by making key words, terms, and themes easily searchable (Richards and Richards 1994). We validated and contextualized interview transcripts by reviewing NPS publications, documents, reports, and events (McDowell 2010).

Results: Conceptual and Institutional Barriers to Cultural Resource Adaptation
The barriers that key informants identified to adapting cultural resources to climate change fell into two categories: institutional and conceptual. We define institutional barriers as challenges that result from the existing structures and frameworks within NPS. Institutional barriers include problems in prioritizing adaptation action, and issues in distinguishing, and therefore responding to, normal climate conditions versus climate change. We define conceptual barriers as challenges that result from features specific to the features, uses, or research requirements of cultural resources. Conceptual barriers include problems in prioritizing which resources to protect or adapt and challenges in managing the same resources for both interpretive and research uses. Table 2 shows the type of barrier and example statements of how the barrier may appear in a coastal management context. "…somebody will put a project in 5, 6 years ago and by the time it gets funded, they're not even here anymore and…there's no project history." (3.1) Climate Change is Compounding Other Maintenance or Management Challenges "And then as sea level rise or more frequent storms start bombarding [the fort] because it's exposed out there, the maintenance that we do now will be even more important for keeping it intact." (3.1) "It's sometimes difficult to detect the incremental changes that climate change is bringing. We're in such a dynamic system to begin with." (1. "…we identify a really high priority location or fortification or road or something that needed to be prioritized because of an imminent impact…" (3.1) "Well, most of our resources are National Historic Landmarks, so they get high points for anything that they need." (3.2) Research and Interpretive Uses Require Different Management Actions "The only way to do it right and open it is you've got to document it…document it, photograph it, put up an exhibit out of that, but then remove the stuff that's going to kill somebody…then you can have a battery that can be enjoyed." (1.4) "It's really interesting because again, for many decades, this park had the perspective that climate change had had a huge effect on you know, the disappearance of Jamestown Fort. Now that, since '94 that's changed, people…never understand that that was the perspective." (2.5)

Institutional Barriers
Informants discussed many barriers to climate change adaptation that stemmed from institutional factors including limited institutional support through both financial and staffing resources and policies that govern cultural resource management, organizational partnerships, and project planning. As managers discussed the situations in which they were unable to take management actions to address climate change, these various challenges fell into two categories of barriers to planning and action: decisions that are dependent on other management priorities and climate change compounding existing maintenance challenges.

Decisions are Dependent on other Management Actions
Managers are aware of and concerned about climate change impacts on cultural resources; however, in many cases, managers identified other projects in their schedules that took priority or prevented consistent and ongoing staff time for climate change adaptation. Projects that concern historic structures but are tied to infrastructure such as the adaptive reuse of a historic building for concessions, may garner more attention, affecting the ability of staff to focus on climate adaptation projects within the park, or obligating staff capacity and financial resources on sites and structures that are not the most at risk to climate change pressures or the highest priority resources for protection based on historic significance. In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and with friends' groups, GUIS and SAFR managers discussed how partnership projects can arise, sometimes quickly, and affect the amount of time staff can devote to other and long-term projects, including climate change adaptation planning. Additionally, informants from the Pacific-West Region suggested that adaptation was hindered by the lack of a dedicated person on staff to address climate change adaptation.
In addition to difficulties managers face in prioritizing staff time for climate change adaptation, the long-term nature of climate change adaptation efforts directly conflicts with existing institutional management pattern based of 5-year funding cycles. In between the time staff apply for and receive project funding, park staff my transfer to other locations, the key issues to address in the park may change, or environmental changes may enhance the speed of resource deterioration, challenging staff to implement a project that they did not design, that may no longer be a top priority, or which may no longer be adequately funded. This funding cycle presents a barrier to addressing climate change questions as quickly as they may become problematic, or to addressing the most pressing current issue rather than the most important issue at the time the request was written.

Climate Change is Compounding Other Maintenance or Management Challenges
Many managers identified insufficient routine maintenance as the biggest threat to cultural resources in their parks or regions, a concern echoed both in the field of historic preservation, and in coastal and environmental conservation (IPCC 2014;Haugen and Mattsson 2011;Sabbioni et al. 2008;Cassar 2005 Most managers were unable to determine a preservation issue was related to routine weathering, climate change, or a combination of the two. One manager at SAFR suggested, "[The Fort] is old and needs a needs work to just keep it intact as it is. And then as sea-level rise or more frequent storms start bombarding it because it's sort of exposed out there, the maintenance that we do now will be even more important for [keeping] it intact. It's above most of the sea-level rise projections, but definitely being exposed out there and the projections of more intense storms, definitely important to fortify it as much as possible (Personal Communication 2016)." Climate change impacts may appear as incremental changes in daily maintenance tasks, such as installing dehumidifiers in the basements of historic structures or clearing boring organisms and algae from ship hulls more often. However, if managers address problems that are both persistent and increasing in intensity with short-term fixes, these management actions may be ineffective or may result in staff and financial resources being applied to stop-gap measures rather than a longer-term preservation strategy.

Conceptual Barriers
In addition to challenges posed by existing policies and programs in leveraging management time, technical, and financial resources to address climate change adaptation, informants expressed challenges stemming from how managers use cultural resources. These challenges include determining what information can contribute to prioritization and addressing conflicting park management goals that may be siloed between different employees or organizational divisions. As managers discussed the situations in which they were unable to take management actions to address climate change, these various challenges fell into two categories of barriers caused by conceptual features of cultural resources: intentional prioritization of which resources to protect is largely unprecedented and research and interpretive uses of the same resource require different management actions.

Intentional Prioritization of which Resources to Protect is Largely Unprecedented
NPS staff will be faced with deciding which cultural resources to prioritize for protection through adaptive measures, and which resources to allow to be altered, submerged, or destroyed by climate change factors. Currently, managers protect cultural resources as dictated by NPS and park legislation. At each location, managers were unanimously worried about the coastal artifacts outlined in this legislation, citing both location and material type as key factors in site vulnerability to climate change.
Managers in San Francisco expressed the greatest concern over large metal armament, accompanying coastal fortifications and bunkers. GUIS managers also expressed concern about metal artifacts, as well as coastal military fortifications, citing the movement of sand in barrier island systems as an ongoing threat to the resources.
Managers at COLO believed buried archaeological deposits to be the most vulnerable resources in their park, citing ongoing coastal erosion, sea level rise, and salt water intrusion as important considerations. Each of the resource types of greatest concern to managers aligned closely with park preservation legislation specifying which cultural resources the park interprets and protects. In addition, informants said National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) 1 receive the most attention and are maintained to the highest standard.
However, within the categories of resources for which managers expressed concern, they completely disagreed on how to prioritize these resources for protection and adaptation. Informants in the Pacific-West Region found public input through a public process on climate change helpful as they begin to think about climate change adaptation. However, informants in the Southeast Region suggested that the public interest may be particularly focused on certain resources, suggesting that lighthouses, forts, and Civil War sites have contingencies of public support, thus leaving other resources such as prehistoric buried archaeological sites, more exposed to damages.
Additionally, managers disagreed on whether the most or least vulnerable resources should be prioritized for adaptation and protection. Some managers believed priority should go to sites that are considered most vulnerable to climate change, while others believed priority should go to sites that are in better condition and have a better chance of withstanding climate hazards, even though these sites may not be as vulnerable to sea level rise or increasing coastal erosion. Finally, when asked about whether especially rare sites would receive priority consideration for climate change impacts, informant's responses were mixed. Many informants felt that rare sites would rise to the top through competitive funding reviews. However, outside of this review process, 1 National Historic Landmarks are a subset of resources listed on the National Historic Register. National Historic Landmarks represent approximately .03% of sites listed on the National Historic Register and are held to higher standards of historic integrity, which refers to the condition or preservation of the site or structure. While National Register properties may represent sites of local or regional significance, National Historic Landmarks are significant to the history of the nation overall. and existing designation procedures such as NHLs, there is not a system to prioritize rare sites or check for regional or national site diversity.

Research and Interpretive Uses Require Different Management Actions
Much like the multiple and interacting uses of coastal spaces, coastal cultural resources are used both for academic research and for the enjoyment and education of locals and tourists. These uses have different preservation requirements. All but one informant indicated that park visitors accept the interpretation of sites without the presence of physical artifacts or structures, making this use renewable. However, archaeological work and the study of the site require the physical preservation of artifacts, making this use non-renewable. In San Francisco, NPS interprets the Panama Pacific Exposition without any physical remains of the event. At COLO, "up until 1994, the assumption had always been that James Fort was completely washed away.
If you had come here in say 1976 or 1950...it was the fort is completely washed away, period." However, in 1994, archaeological investigations found the partial remains of James Fort onshore. While interpreters were able to tell the story of James Fort both in the river and now that it has been found on land, the rediscovery of the fort on land has allowed for extensive research at the site. Park managers who focus on resource preservation may have different ideas on climate change adaptation or prioritization than managers who focus on educational or visitor programs.

Adaptation
As coastal managers begin to plan for and undertake climate change adaptation actions, institutional management structures that focus on daily rather than long-term maintenance and prioritize dual-use or other specific projects may create barriers to effective climate change adaptation action. Conceptual barriers stem from the complexity of prioritizing cultural resources for preservation with little historic precedent, as well as changing patterns of which histories within complex and overlapping coastal landscapes are of interests to locals and visitors that may prescribe different uses of the landscape. Climate change represents an unprecedented challenge for management agencies and institutions. Historical institutional structures and conceptual understandings and goals of management need to be examined to determine how these structures and ideas are creating barriers to coastal climate change adaptation (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018). The remainder of this section will address this question and present opportunities for managers to overcome barriers to climate change adaptation planning and action for cultural resources.

Guidance for Resource Prioritization
Difficulties in prioritizing resources were a top concern for key informants from all three case studies. Prioritization requires managers to select which resources will be protected from climate change, and which ones will not. Managers have historically faced decisions about which resources to research, preserve, or display as heritage (Ashworth 2013;Lowenthal 1996). However, because climate change impacts are predicted, this form of slow disaster provides an opportunity to plan for wide-scale impacts, allowing managers and stakeholders to strategize their adaptation actions. NPS defines resource priority as a combination of vulnerability and significance . Resource significance can be defined by listing or potential listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or through factors such as research potential, visitor use and access, or adaptive reuse potential. In addition to the challenge of determining present resource significance, the meaning of different cultural sites and landscapes changes relative to the time-period and audience.
Recently, NPS has expanded to include urban, industrial sites that may not have been considered important just decades ago. The sites and structures that are selected for preservation, interpretation, and presentation were selected through a political process, and are not necessarily representative of the diversity of the past (Lowenthal 2015;de Groot 2009). Climate change and associated decision-making will add another layer of political complexity to the preservation of cultural heritage. Sites omitted from park legislation in the past may require special consideration to work towards a collection of American cultural heritage that is as representative as possible of a diverse American history.
In addition to association with important people or events in the past, the condition of the resource, or resource integrity, contributes to whether it is considered significant using National Register criteria. Resources that have begun slowly eroding or experiencing damage that may be exacerbated by climate change may be at a disadvantage for significance assessment. Existing institutional requirements for resource condition need to be reconsidered given climate change realities. In NPS, Gateway National Recreation Area prioritized each of their park resources starting before and continuing after Hurricane Sandy as part of their General Management Plan update (Mahan 2015;NPS 2014). The process that Gateway National Recreation Area conducted to prioritize cultural resources was specific to the resources of that location; however, other parks may find lessons in the challenges and outcomes of this process.

Balancing Renewable and Non-Renewable Uses
Cultural resources have three unique management requirements: first, some cultural resources require maintenance or interference to persist in a stable condition.
Second, cultural resources may be constructed and degraded at a faster time scale than some natural features. Third, quantitative means of preservation (i.e. preserving at least a set number of acres or a specific number of representative sites) may not be valid for unique cultural resources. These challenges are compounded by the fact that cultural resources may include living resources such as key plant species and have both renewable and non-renewable uses. Archaeological sites are irreplaceable; however, the living features that contribute to cultural landscapes and ethnographic resources are renewable (Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016). While the materials and spatial context that form an archaeological site are non-renewable, the history of the area, as informed by archaeological and historical research can be told to visitors repeatedly, without additional resource inputs. However, the loss of the non-renewable qualities of the resources may limit future research, which can clarify, improve, or correct past academic understandings. DOI preservation requirements for historic structures may not allow for continuous replacement of certain features due to weather conditions or certain modernizations for changing weather patterns or combinations (Grimmer 2017).
Manmade sites and structures were once dynamic places that were updated as needs changed (Guerrini and Dugan 2010). Once these sites become historic structures, they are preserved in a more static situation. Many informants in this study discussed a conflict between the updates to sites and structures in the past and the preservation practices of today. Because sites and structures are now used to display past conditions, the adherence to past building materials is of greater importance. NPS is actively working to develop guidance for the assessment of both natural and cultural systems in the face of climate change and has put forward a series of documents to that end (Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016;Jarvis 2016;Morgan et al. 2016;Rockman et al. 2016;Jarvis 2014). However, because many climate change adaptation procedures start by identifying, rather than questioning, the preservation goals of the park, given climate change projections, managers may not be able or encouraged to rethink whether more adaptive historic preservation standards, in terms of material, condition, and appearance, could free staff capacity and financial resources to focus on more vulnerable coastal cultural resources, such as archaeological sites, which may not be able to be protected with more adaptive construction measures.

Adaptation Opportunities for Cultural Resources
In addition to barriers, discussions with key informants highlighted potential opportunities for overcoming these barriers. As cultural resource management organizations develop methods for climate change adaptation for resources, opportunities to document actions, as well as changes to rethink best practices may enhance management moving forward. Some key informants suggested input from the public was helpful in the prioritization of action and preservation in the adaptation process. This coordination with the community to help inform priorities may also represent an opportunity to update the preservation priorities of the park to be more representative of the priorities of a diverse and modern public. The lack of established prioritization methods could allow for increased public input or community consultation during the prioritization process. Preservation has always necessitated choices. Sites and structures have been lost due to development and other pressures, but climate change affords an opportunity to explain the reasons for priority setting and contemporary thought behind preserving one site over another. standards on historic preservation that govern day-to-day maintenance, as well as the National Historic Preservation Act and National Environmental Policy Act have yet to be updated. The new management paradigm represented by these documents presents an opportunity to update historic preservation guidelines to include ongoing climate maintenance as an authentic, integral feature of site preservation. This may allow sites to adapt to climate change while retaining their integrity.
Finally, all but one informant in this study believed that the interpretation of cultural heritage sites for visitors could continue without the tangible presence of cultural artifacts. However, the ability to maintain some interpretive functionality of a site, without the preservation of corresponding artifacts is not currently an explicit tool for the prioritization of adaptation resources given climate change. If these objects are not required for interpretation and site education, prioritization of cultural resources in the face of climate change may instead focus on the research potential of sites, structures, and artifacts. Focusing on the research potential presents challenges because it is difficult to determine which sites will be important in the future.
However, this more targeted preservation strategy may aid managers in making decisions. And improving and developing technologies may provide better opportunities for preserving images, dimensions, and spatial information from sites that cannot be researched or recovered before they are lost to climate change, either due to a lack of time, financial resources, or staff capacity. Table 3 summarizes the barriers and corresponding opportunities as integrated climate change adaptation planning progresses.

Conclusion: Next Steps for Cultural Resources and Climate Change Adaptation
The institutional and conceptual barriers identified through semi-structured interviews with cultural resource managers at three coastal national parks are hindering coastal managers efforts in developing and implementing climate change adaptation plans to protect coastal cultural heritage. In addition to institutional barriers to climate change adaptation (Fatoric and Seekamp 2017b;Archie et al. 2012;Ellenwood, Dilling, and Milford 2012;Amundsen, Berglund, and Westskog 2010;Jantarasami, Lawler, and Thomas 2010), conceptual barriers specific to the historically-rooted management patterns and functions of cultural resources (Eisenack et al. 2014) are affecting managers ability to undertake adaptation planning and action.
Understanding these barriers can help managers overcome these challenges before undertaking vulnerability assessment, prioritization, or adaptation planning processes (Moser and Ekstrom 2010). More research is needed to determine how to ensure that resources chosen for preservation are representative of diverse histories at regional, national, and potentially international scales. Research and development of new technologies to preserve the research potential of archaeological sites, even without the presence of artifacts, could contribute to cultural heritage preservation in the face of coastal climate change. Policies that reduce the adaptability of budgets, staff time, and historic preservation regulations need to be reconsidered for climate change realities. managers have worked to preserve and present overtime in this 'Birthplace of America' make a statement as to the meaning or origin of what is means to be American. More than the events of the past, managers have focused on the preservation of the landscape and the coastline itself, both to protect the archaeological resources, but also to maintain the perceived character of the area at the time of English settlement. Changes in the cultures, stories, and landscapes that managers work to preserve represent changes in the perception of this facet of American identity.
In the last few decades, anthropogenic climate change has started affecting the Chesapeake Bay area, including the Virginia Peninsula. As sea level rises, the lowlying coastal areas including Jamestown Island and the Yorktown waterfront face faster rates of coastal erosion, inundation, salt water intrusion, and storm impacts, As national and local park managers work to address the impacts of climate change on COLO cultural landscapes, preservation decisions reflect current perceptions of American identity. As managers interpret and prepare for the projected impacts of climate change, modern values and institutional priorities will continue manifest on this landscape.
Despite the additional challenges from climate change, the coastal erosion remains the driving environmental process behind the deterioration of archaeological sites, historic structures, and cultural landscapes in the James and York River systems.
Early managers moved and adjusted their construction around this ongoing erosion; however, since the site has become a commemorative location, managers have elected to hold the coastline in place, both to preserve archaeological resources and the landscape character. Between climate change and limited adaptation resources, managers may no longer be able to control the presentation and location of the shoreline through engineering. As managers preserve and interpret the cultural resources that represent American history on a landscape of climate change, the choices managers make today will impact the preservation and character of the area for future generations. However, a longer history of this landscape shows that preservation values, as well as coastlines, have changed overtime.

Landscape Context: Pre-Contact and Early Colonial Tidewater Virginia
Tidewater Virginia encompasses the eastern portion of Virginia, bordering the Chesapeake Bay. Numerous rivers, sounds, and swamps divide the land into a series of peninsulas. The Virginia Peninsula is the southernmost of these fingers of land, north of modern Norfolk, Virginia and is bounded by the York River to the north and the James River to the south. Within this area, Yorktown, on the York River, Jamestown Island in the James River, and Williamsburg between the two, each hosted, documented, and memorialized now-famous events in early American history. This  Native Americans managed the Virginia Peninsula since at least 9500BCE, with some of the oldest evidence of occupation coming from the area just south of the James River. 11 Historian Stephen Adams expresses concerns about discussing the perspectives of Native American managers on the Virginia landscape because perceptions include sensory inputs and these may be culturally relevant to the experience of the observer. 12  harvest conditions. 13 Oral recollections suggest that storms were framed as sentient, and could be convinced to leave the area. 14 During the early 17 th century, Powhatan led a 30-tribe unit in of Algonquian villages in and around the Virginia peninsula, with each village consisting of approximately ten structures built on burned and cleared land. 15 However, rather than perceiving a coastal landscape manipulated by human hands, early British settlers saw the landscape as both a wild to be tamed and a set of resources to contribute to a broader global system of trade centered. Early European accounts of Virginia generously describe an Eden and focus on either commodities that might encourage investment because they are lacking in Europe or commodities that could help to sustain a colony, such as lumber and fish. 16 Historian Karen Kupperman argues that the settlers believed that by organizing and arranging spaces in the New World into familiar, European agricultural systems, settlers believed the climate itself would also become more temperate; they could tame the wilderness as well as the harsh weather. 17 However, labor shortages from disease, both in the European and Native American populations affected settler's ability to implement their ideas. To address this issue, English settlers began to import indentured servants 13 Ibid., 38. 14 Ibid., 41. 15  and African slaves. 18 From the early colonial period, English settlers organized the environment around a perceived ideal and constructed this environment as supplies, resources, and coastal processes would allow.
After early environmental hardship caused both by a drought as well as the settler's environmental unfamiliarity and misplaced priorities, in 1619 settlers formed the Jamestown democratic body. 19 This body met yearly to establish, regulate, and update rules of the colony. Some of the regulations of this governmental body focused on changes in the Virginia environment. The first approvals for the draining of coastal marshes in Virginia passed as early as 1672. 20 As Jamestown transitioned from a company to crown-owned colony, new settlers purchased land, women emigrated to the area, and the population grew. 21 New English arrivals to Jamestown increasingly came into conflict with Native Americans, as settlers purchased agricultural plots that began to sprawl onto more land area on the Virginia Peninsula. Starting in 1621, settlers mapped streets, built a town, and settled in New Town adjacent to James Fort.
They expanded to Williamsburg, settling there in 1632 and in Yorktown in 1691.
As English settlers took over larger areas of land on the Virginia Peninsula, their agricultural and residential development began to alter the ecological assemblages of the Peninsula. Longleaf pine populations declined and loblolly pine grew in the wake. 22 Governor William Berkeley aimed to make the colony less dependent on tobacco, importing mulberry trees and trying to grow silk worms in the area. 23 Settlers used construction techniques tailored to the Virginia environment, with the first residents in New Town including depressions in the bricks around their house foundations to help guide water away from the walls. 24 With plentiful land, settlers built large, low houses for summer ventilation. 25 However, the early settlement was plagued by intense storms. In 1667, a hurricane caused the loss of woods, cattle and crops. 26 A comparison with the 1670 map of Virginia completed by Augustine Herrman shows a continual change in the shape of the shoreline due to winter storms and summer hurricanes. 27 These observations, construction techniques, and maps show that colonists responded to environmental changes by adjusting their construction and engineering techniques.
As the natural changes from coastal erosion, as well as the man-made changes from tobacco crops leaching soils and fires in the structures affected the early colonial settlement, managers responded to these changes by relocating or rebuilding structures 22 Adams, The Best and Worst Country in the World: Perspectives on the Early Virginia Landscape, 227. 23 Geiter and Speck, Colonial America from Jamestown to Yorktown. 24 Philip N. Stern, "Architectural Remains, Unit A, Sub-Unit 39, Jamestown Island, Virginia" (Historic American Buildings Survey, n.d.), Historic American Buildings Survey, Virginia, Volume 122, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 25 Robert Beverly, "Virginia," in The Colonial Image: Origins of American Culture, ed. John C. Miller and Louis B. Wright (New York City, New York: George Braziller, 1962), 295. Written in 1705 and republished as an excerpt in 1962 by Miller and Wright, Robert Beverly was born in Jamestown in 1667. As an early observer and historian of the Virginia Colony, he commented on the structures in Williamsburg, "The Private Buildings are of late very much improved; several Gentleman there, having built themselves large Brick Houses of many Rooms on a Floor, and several Stories high, as also some Stone-Houses: but they don't covet to make them lofty, having extent enough of Ground to build upon; and now and then they are visited by high Winds, which wou'd incommode atowering Fabrick. The always contrive to have large Rooms, that they may be cool in Summer." 26  and fortifications. During the late 16 th and early 17 th centuries, British officials built batteries at Gloucester Point and Yorktown; however, the batteries eroded due to wave action and in 1736, British officials moved the Yorktown battery from the beach to the bluffs to prevent further erosion. 28 In 1699, the legislature voted to leave Jamestown in favor of Williamsburg both due to a destructive fire in Jamestown and because the population growth of inland Virginia made Williamsburg a more central location.
With the move to Williamsburg, the port city of Yorktown grew in importance.
Yorktown had a deep harbor and tidewater plantation owners shipped tobacco crops to the small port, where they could be transferred to larger, ocean-going vessels. 29 Merchant families built wharves and warehouses along the Yorktown waterfront to support their businesses. 30 As tobacco leached the soil, farmers moved west for more land and instead transported their products on the longer James River, causing a decline in maritime Yorktown, growth of Richmond, on the James River, and soon, dredging on the James River to enhance commerce. 31 During the American Revolution and the following century, colonial and The Corps calculated the need and depth for dredging projects based on the expected longevity of the project given the bottom sediment conditions and the value and number of beneficiaries from the increased commercial activity in the area. 39 Congress authorized a lighthouse on Bell's Rock Bar and in 1894 introduced a bill to provide lights on the York River, improving the safety of commercial activities in the area. 40 On the James River, Congress continued to remove rock formations and sunken Civil War vessels near Richmond to encourage commerce in the area. 41 A subsequent Army Corps report on dredge projects in the area labeled the James River as a very changeable system, identifying Goose Hill as a landform that may have once been a part of Jamestown Island. 42 Despite this recognition of long term change, by the end of the 19 th century, federal managers would define and attempt to recreate an "original" shoreline of Jamestown Island and land cover of Yorktown Battlefield.

Developing the Historic Triangle as a Commemorative Landscape
Collectively known as the historic triangle, Jamestown Island, Williamsburg, and Yorktown, hosted the first English democratic governmental body, the first permanent English settlement, the first African slave in the United States, and a key 39  battle at the end of the American Revolution. In memorializing these events, the managers of the Virginia Peninsula responded to and created environmental change inline with their priorities for the creation of a landscape to commemorate events in early American history and unify the country around a national story. Managers built commemorative installations and made changes to the James and York rivers and shorelines to protect the archaeological sites on Jamestown Island and enhance commercial activity in the area. The Corps viewed environmental changes wrought by storms and coastal erosion in the area as a potential threat to the monuments and sites and prepared for these changes by fortifying monuments and constructing seawalls.
Not only the places, but the renderings and descriptions of changes such as Jamestown ruins and the addition of a monument at Yorktown Battlefield had symbolic value, emphasizing the growth and development of the American nation since the 17 th century.
Virginians first went to Congress to request a commemorative marker at Yorktown Battlefield in 1781. Congress approved the request, but construction on the Yorktown Victory Monument would not begin for a century. In the meantime, Virginians began erecting their own commemorative structures to designate Yorktown Battlefield, the first of which planted in 1800 with a stand of four poplar trees surrounding a small coffin to honor the aging early American leaders. 43   conservation of the navigation of James River." 57 This early discrepancy in priorities and conservation needs would foreshadow later disagreements between preservationoriented APVA, and later NPS, and the navigation and commerce-focused Army Corps.
Already a commemorative site at the turn of the 20 th century, the Jamestown Exposition in 1907 refined and emphasized the status of Jamestown Island as the 'birthplace of the nation.' Hampton Roads, in Norfolk, Virginia, 50-kilometers southeast of Jamestown Island on the James River, won the bid to host the 1907 Jamestown Exposition. In preparation for the exposition, Congress provided $65,000 for dredging at Hampton Roads and additional funding for the construction of structures and facilities, including $400,000 for a set of parallel piers with protected berths in the center. 58 Three-hundred years after English settlers landed at Jamestown Island, the exposition advertised American commercial development in Norfolk and introduced American manufacturers to world markets. 59 Although the 300 th anniversary of the English landing at Jamestown was the cause for celebration, due to confusion over landing permissions and borrowing existing wharfs, the planned landing pier to allow exposition visitors access to Jamestown Island was never built. 60 While the natural setting of Jamestown Island served a symbolic role for the event, the physical environment of the island was not on display.  where the country began, emphasized the long history of the country, displaying the United States as a developed, established country.
Around the time of the Jamestown Exposition, national expectations of historic preservation were changing. The Antiquities Act of 1906 allowed the president to declare historic landmarks and permit qualified agencies to carry out archaeological investigations thereof. Ten years later, the Organic Act created and authorized the National Park Service to "conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for future generations." 62

Constructing a Modern Park for a Modern America
With a growing American interest in historical preservation and historic sites,  bridge design. 75 Peterson gave directions to prepare the grounds in the colonial style and spend any remaining funds to "to hire common labor to dig exploratory trenches to recover whatever archaeological evidence remains." 76 As monument managers continued to design the area and prepare for the Yorktown Sesquicentennial of 1931, they added roads and trails to the Yorktown area of the monument, repaired pipes and culverts in order to "obviate unsightly ditches," designed walls to make sure quarters at the Naval Weapons Station were not visible from the park, and insured viewsheds to the York River were clear. 77  Jamestown was historically, not a pleasant place, but a site riddled with disease, Indian attacks, fire, and political discord. 81 The 1607 date, the initial founding of the Jamestown colony was the best date to memorialize because it eliminated both the "minor" history before the arrival of the English, as well as the distasteful next few years of colonial reality. To recreate Jamestown in 1607, Peterson recommended the extension of the seawall to the Neck of Land area that historically connected Jamestown Island to the mainland and hydraulic backfill within the seawall. 82 These physical changes to the environment were made to tell the colonial story as preferred and understood at the time.
When the United States plunged into the Great Depression, the face of COLO was changed by CCC labor, which allowed park managers to create their vision of a modern park landscape, and conduct archaeological investigations. CCC labor enabled managers to implement their designs for the creation of an American landscape to 80  Although managers were aware of the ongoing erosion of the shoreline, they did not accept natural change as authentic. While Peterson worked to restore the shoreline at Jamestown to the 1607 extent, Director Albright simultaneously requested that any fill at Yorktown maintain the sandy spits that protrude into the river, claiming these are a key part of the vista. 87 Hence, the shoreline did not need to be natural, but 83

Recreational Spaces and the Golden Age of Capitalism
In 1953, the Superintendent of COLO observed in his annual report that the park was receiving many visitors, but "this visitation is not closely related to the high purposes for which the Park was established but rather to recreational opportunities, particularly at the park beach and the parkway drive." 100 Just a few years earlier, in a 96  NPS managers at COLO continued to alter shorelines of the park through "stabilization" processes, which suggests that the original state is both fragile and in need of correction. In 1986, the superintendent determined that the breakwaters along the York River were holding drift sand and "no additional soil loss between the breakwaters was seen, indicating this project is a success, at least until now." Not only did the shoreline require stabilization, but the projects to alter this process could be successes or failures based on their ability to retain soil, as opposed to earlier projects which aimed to recreate a historic shoreline. 119 Previously, agricultural use of the island was a part of the means of establishing an authentic environment as would have existed in the area during the early years of English settlement. Rather than concern with the visual impact, managers preferred to protect Revolutionary War earthworks encouraging grass growth and started focusing on the species of grass to plant on the earthworks, preferring to return to native grass. 120 This construction protected recreation in the area, the use of the area, and the artifacts in the area rather than the story of the park as laid out in park interpretive documents. Emblematic of this shift, the cypress tree that stood in the James River that was believed to mark the site of James Fort was felled during a storm in 1993. 123 Over the next three years, APVA archaeological investigations on Jamestown Island began and the fort was rediscovered to be only partially submerged, with the majority of the structure remaining on land. Researchers and park managers long operated under the assumption that James Fort eroded into the James River. 124 The discovery of this fort on land presented an opportunity for archaeological research into the habits and conditions of this early English settlement and contributed to park goals of a more "accurate" interpretation of these places.

Representing the 'Birthplace' of America on a Climate Change Landscape
The ongoing erosion of the banks of the York and James Rivers has flavored the relationship between people and their environment in this area throughout American history. Early English settlers saw a "wholesome" climate and a defensible military position, relocating forts as they were affected by coastal erosion. 133 As the use of the landscape changed, the ongoing coastal erosion was seen as a threat to the preservation of a historic shoreline and setting. The "hand of time," was listed amongst the threats from which the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Early American military managers engineered "permanent" structures on the coastline.
As these structures began to decay and coastal fortifications became obsolete, managers began to manipulate the environment to make the coastline, as well as the

Landscapes of Early Spanish, English, and French Pensacola and Gulf Islands
The Gulf of Mexico formed approximately 300 million years ago, with five subsequent, major periods of sediment deposition and movement forming the structure of the Gulf as seen today. 142 The oldest amongst the chain of barrier islands that stretch  to examine the area for the construction of coastal fortifications did not express concern over hurricanes, but rather, the difficulty and expense of removing sand from  protection, having been of a tentative character, are perishable, and must be promptly strengthened, or they will be destroyed, with the resulting loss of every advantage gained hitherto. These works are exposed to the action of violent storms from the Gulf, the waves which break upon the shore at this point having great destructive power." 176  locations. In addition to placing sand, NPS also installed dune fences to encourage sand build up following hurricanes. During the 1980 GUIS Advisory Committee Meeting, "Mr. Mitchell asked regarding the dunesif they are rebuilt by "Mother Nature," what are the fences for?" 227 The response indicated that these fences allowed nature to repair herself. During some years, the Army Corps' sand-moving efforts focused on Perdido Key, which was losing sand more quickly than anticipated due to dredging in the Pensacola Bay channel and creating a sand management plan for Santa Rosa Island. Documents from this period describe the process of placing sand at a site as "stabilizing" the site, which suggests they are trying to hold or maintain a previous or preferred condition. In each of these places, the sand fill is both used directly for beach recreation and to protect historic structures from erosion. Thus, this environmental modification defends two key NPS management priorities.
However, during this period, another management priority emerging from growing ecological research, a focus on natural systems, and the desire to return the environment to a more "pristine," "original," or "natural" state following the industrial development of the mid-20 th century. 228

Shifting Sands for Climate Change Protection
In the last two centuries, and most dramatically over the last few decades, Because the primary use of these spaces is recreational, visitor access to sites, in addition to site condition, is of concern to managers. Under military management, will be repurposed for recreational purposes. Although managers do not see the road as permanent, the ferry system will continue to allow access to the beach and fort area at Fort Pickens. While a built road structure may not be permanent, managers are working to change a pattern of access to preserve the recreational use of the area.
In addition to retaining recreational access, federal managers continue to engineer to maintain islands in a stationary location. In addition to the continuing The Corps asserts that this sand fill will protect cultural resources and restore landforms disturbed by humans. 247    confusing the boundaries between land and water, decades to come. 250 Pacheco, "Pueblo of San Francisco," Pub. L. No. 1699, § Committee on Private Land Claims, 1 (1880), 2, 9. 251 Pacheco, Pueblo of San Francisco. 252 Pacheco. 253 Pacheco,9. The difficulty Stratton and the Committee on Private Land Claims faced in finding the boundary between land and water or natural and urban in San Francisco is not a one-time issue, but part of a longer pattern in the history of the city. Obscured by fog, muddied by salt marshes, eroded by the sea, altered by mining runoff, and filledin by people, the line between natural and urban in San Francisco has  Over the past few decades, climate change has increasingly become a management concern in the Bay Area, as well as within NPS.

Fixing-up a Rocky Bay and a Foggy Peninsula in a Great Location
While early Spanish observers were pleased with the sheltered expanse of San  San Francisco and Denver (New York City, New York: Oxford University Press, 1975). 293  The rainy season was not at its height--that ever-to-be-remembered fall and winter of 1849-1850--and the streets were simply awful! Awful is a mild term, but I ain't just now call to mind a more expressive adjective. They ran rivers of mud, and swallowed up every living thing that attempted to cross them. Waterproof suits and cavalry or long boots were in great demand, and commanded Munchausenistic prices. It was no uncommon occurrence to see at the same time a mule stalled in the middle of the street with only his head above the mud, and an unfortunate pedestrian who had slipped off the plank sidewalk, being fished out by a companion. Some good Samaritan, with a heart overflowing with the milk of human kindness, erected at the corner of Clay and Kearney streets the following warning to the unwary: This street is impassable, not even jackassable!"

Figure 8. Map of San Francisco in 1851 showing the original shoreline and the water-covered lots sold by city officials. 297
While San Franciscans added space to their growing city by building into the Bay, complicating the boundary between water and land, this ongoing cultural negotiation with the environment was not the only factor that contributed to the constant environmental change of the city. Ships entering the harbor often delayed by the foggy conditions. Much like the technological developments that were changing the shoreline, federal managers added pilots, fog guns, and eventually bell boats, to the harbor to aid navigation in foggy conditions. 298 Additionally, the city frequently 297  In 1853, the City of San Francisco passed an ordinance to sell lots that were covered in up to 7.5 meters of water at low tide along the eastern shore of the city. 306 This project was considered "a wise and proper one" because as the wharves on Sacramento, Commercial, and Clay streets were built out, San Franciscans would have filled the lots anyways, had the city not sold them. 307 Observers who witnessed the town in 1849 and 1850, and returned in the 1870s noted that the "much of the city, now handsomely built over, has that old marsh lying below it, buried deep beneath the sand. The sand hills were removed and cast into and upon that marsh." 308 Many of the original wooden and cloth buildings were rebuilt in stone. 309 In 1878, an observer who first visited the city in 1847 documented the many streets that used to be covered in  Wagoner and Heuer,[36][37][38][39][40][41] While this was a justification for the decision, the bulk of the recorded discussion in Congress centered on the fact that the residents of San Francisco had raised more than twice as much money to be put towards the exposition than had the residents of New Orleans. While some members of Congress were concerned with access for citizens of the United States, arguing that major population centers were much closer to New Orleans than they were to San Francisco, others argued that past expositions weren't that well attended by people from these population centers anyways and that an exposition in San Francisco would be a great reason for Americans to visit the Pacific Coast where they could learn about the "almost inexhaustible" resources of the American west. raising an initial $5,000,000 to host the event, and eventually committing a total of $17,500,000 towards construction and hosting. 331 PPIE provided an opportunity to emphasize the power and vigor of the American nation, which had created an imperial city in the stark western wilderness. 332 Surrounded by landscapes like Yosemite, San Aquatic Park. 341 The new pier area as planned also encroached on the grounds of Fort Mason, but the War Department did not object to this change. 342 When the city got WPA money to work on Aquatic Park between 1936 and 1938, it became clear that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors wasn't reserving a space for recreation, but creating one. To create Aquatic Park, workers extended seaward Van Ness Avenue to meet the new pier, the seawall was extended and backfilled extensively, and the entire area was cobbled. 343 After the space had been created, workers brought excavated sand from other construction sites in the city to create a beach. However, the borrowed sand did not stay put during storms and later the city installed breakwaters to keep the sand in place. Although the uses and goals for this area of the shoreline were changing, the ways of accomplishing them remain the same. As with the construction of Golden Gate Park, which started 50 years earlier, San Francisco would design, construct, and build a planned and intentional natural space. 344 Between World Wars I and II, Congress granted permission to build both the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges as long as they did not interfere with navigation and naval anchorage in the Bay. 345 The construction of these bridges led to another commemorative event of the growth and development of the San Francisco area in 1939, which was held on the newly built Treasure Island. 346   commercial fishermen and fish processing, the Army Corps of Engineers chose to address the tourist industry by constructing a space for a different industry.
As the Army Corps was building fishing infrastructure for tourism, managers of Golden Gate National Recreation Area were addressing small scale fishing from the piers in the park. Despite the historic use of the area for fishing and the desire to encourage tourism with the industrial fishing seen from fishermen's wharf, recreational, subsistence, and small-scale fishing of approximately 40,000 fishermen annually, from the pier conflicted with the special events hosted by the park. 366 Later, when conservation measures for Dungeness crab were introduced, people fishing on the pier realized NPS staff were not able to regulate their activities and this became a management issue. The fishing occurring in the area was changing in form; however, despite trying to preserve the historic fishing in the area, and manager's concerns that commercial fishing is no longer visible on the landscape, the ongoing, local shore fishing was not consistent with the Army Corps and NPS vision of the space.
In 1987, NPS responsibility for the historic fleet changed from preserving the fleet in "seaworthy condition" to protecting the vessels from "prevailing winds, winter storms, tides, and wave action." 367 The historic fleet at SAFR are large, outdoor 366 "Annual Report of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1983," 1984 Records of the National Park Service, Superintendent's Annual Narrative Reports, 1980-2001, Box 25, National Archives, College Park, Maryland; Similarly, while the National Wildlife Refuge established in the Bay addressed the concerns of rising environmental groups about managing the environment as a whole, the initial legislation for the National Wildlife Refuge emphasized the human value of the space for recreation and education. The legislation that established the wildlife refuge focused on mud flats as feeding areas for wildlife, but not for humans. In selecting lands for the wildlife refuge, they focused on areas that are "relatively unspoiled and not marred by developments," and worked with the Leslie Salt Company to acquire former salt ponds, in addition to other areas. However, in the same document, wrote allowances for boat tours, interpretation, group train, and some hunting blinds. For more information, see Jones, "Enlargement of the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge," Pub. L. No. 971, § Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 1 (1988). 367 Udall, "National Maritime Museum Act of 1987," Pub. L. No. 13800, § Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 1 (1987). museum pieces that are important in themselves and as part of the landscape of the park and city. As the waterfront of North Beach transitioned from a working space to a recreational space, the vessels would similarly transition from working vessels to floating museum pieces. Similarly, structures such as the Haslett Warehouse, which meets National Register criteria for local, not national, significance, but was welllocated, available, and appropriate for a museum space became a part of national park. 368 In an urban setting of overlapping uses, national NPS priorities worked alongside local priorities to negotiate a space. The other major space owned by the In 1989, the Loma Prieta earthquake registered as a 6.9 on the Richter scale in San Francisco, killing 67 people and causing six-billion dollars' worth of damage. 369 At SAFR, the earthquake damaged Hyde Street Pier, splitting and cracking timber piles. 370 In 1990, an architectural survey of the pier in expressed concern about the impacts of currents, tides, winds, load, and tsunamis on the pier structure. 371 The Army Corps prediction for the longevity of timber piles in the harsh marine environment is 25-45 years. 372 The Environmental Assessment of the Amphitheater Structure suggested that environmental deterioration due to both the age of the structure and the damaging salt environment had caused the deterioration, and in the plans for renewal, preferred to return the area to the look it had in the 1938 plan. 373 The fog and salt environment, an early concern for Spanish settlers in the area, again became a concern as national priorities grew to include the preservation of structures in the space in addition to the industrial use of the waterfront.

Climate Change, Sea Level Rise, and a New Direction for Land Reclamation
On the national stage, as recreation grew in importance during the 20 th century, coastal fringes, once dominated by military fortresses and active port facilities have given way to recreational spaces. During this transition, national priorities in the area have expanded to include an NPS vision for the space. As NPS managers begin to address the impacts of climate change on the cultural landscapes of SAFR, the ongoing negotiation between different priorities for space along the waterfront, as well as the ongoing negotiation with the foggy bay environment will continue to influence adaptation and development in the area. And the rising sea levels in the bay will To work towards the preservation of the heritage priorities the site now represents, federal managers will work with city, state, and local groups to determine how to engineer the space. The options provided by NPS for management including allowing a built structure to weather, engineering a change to reduce the weathering impact on the structure, relocating the structure, or documenting the structure before it erodes In the 1970s, the Corps suggested that the fishing infrastructure would contribute to tourism, and today, NPS manages piers that are owned by the City of San Francisco, commuter walkways, and tells the history of fishing along the waterfront, but upholds fishing bans on endangered species within the park area. NPS managers see climate change as a question of working with neighbors to improve and elevate the seawall or construct higher piers, continuing the local relationship with environment.
However, climate change may challenge San Francisco to transition this trajectory of change to a discussion of unbuilding rather than building the coastline.

Abstract
For the past 250 years, the United States, represented by the Army Corps of Engineers, state agencies, and more recently the National Park Service, have managed coastal fringes around the country. During this period, American uses, goals, and priorities in coastal spaces have changed. As coastal managers have integrated American priorities into the management of coastal spaces, these ideas have been recorded, preserved, and in some cases perpetuated through the legislation, policy, environmental manipulations, human expectations, and human uses of the environment. Within the last few decades, climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of coastal erosion, storm surge, sea level rise, and flooding along coastlines, threatening the natural resources and cultural resources managed by the U.S. National Park Service. Human responses to these changes are part of an ongoing process in these landscapes. Using a combination of document analysis and key informant interviews, I outline how national management priorities in coastal spaces have changed overtime. Then I focus on three national park sites selected for maximum variation and examine how the local environment, perceptions of regional and local managers, and local priorities have aligned or conflicted with broader national management trends in three coastal locations overtime. Using a framework developed from landscape studies in each of the three locations, I identify how managers have perceived change in the landscape overtime by assessing their management goals, the expectations of permanence, their rationale for generating environmental change, and their response to environmental change.

Introduction
Cultural resources are the tangible remains of how individuals and groups perceived and used local environments overtime (Brumann 2015;Whitney 1996). The goals of natural and cultural resource management have changed overtime as national priorities, scientific understandings, historic preservation developments, and public preferences have shifted (Hays 1980;Nash 1968). The fields of archaeology and historical preservation developed alongside a growing fear that modernity would erase past objects and lifeways (Hosmer, Jr. 1981a). Today, cultural resources contribute to a valuable tourist and recreation economy, as well as academic research and cultural and aesthetic community values (Claesson 2011 As management changes, the way in which managers value and preserve the resources will also change. And these preservation decisions and priorities contribute to and affect the entire system moving forward. While the move to ecosystem-based management is present in the literature, the management of cultural resources within this broader transition is less well-documented. Cultural resources are part of broader landscapes and ecosystems (Tengberg et al. 2012). Climate change impacts vary by location (IPCC 2014). Cultural resources similarly vary by location, as these resources were originally built for local climate conditions or are innately connected with the local environment (Graham, Ashworth, and Tunbridge 2000 Ideas of cultural resource conservation started in the early 20 th century. The Progressive politics and accompanying conservation movement of the early 20 th century, was rooted in the efficient use of resources and management of those resources by scientific expertise rather than political or legislative rational (Dorsey 1995;Hays 1999 (Hosmer, Jr. 1981a). And historically significant battlefields, initially managed by the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Corps, transferred to the purview of the National Park Service.
The conservation of natural and cultural resources through parks with government oversight, that managed to maintain both "wild" America as well as the "past" America continued and during the Great Depression (Hosmer, Jr. 1981a (Andrews 1999). By the 1950s, NPS began to work on the National Survey of Historic Buildings and Sites, the National Register of Historic Places and eventually the founding of the National Trust which would record and preserve historic structures (Hosmer, Jr. 1981b). This legislation focused on the uses of natural and historic spaces and sites for recreational and educational purposes.
In the 1950s, NPS policy was transformed by the Leopold Report which pushed for national parks to represent "vignettes of primitive America," by restoring the environment to a condition as defined by the perceived status of nature "when it was first visited by the white man (Leopold et al. 1963, 32)." Although the idea of restoring nature to the state it was in at the time of European contact has been discredited for failing to acknowledge Native American management, and wilderness as a culturally defined space (Cronon 1995), the idea of restoring nature to a specific standard has not disappeared from the management plans of NPS, but changed form.
Congress enacted laws during the 1960s and early 1970s that represented the first legal protections both human and natural systems simultaneously. Although the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) targeted the protection of the environment, the act also aims to "preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our national heritage." Three years prior to the enactment of NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) stated that historic properties are both irreplaceable and being lost with increased frequency. To combat this, NHPA took a multi-prong approach aimed at both increasing the number of historic buildings nominated by extra-governmental bodies, and better protecting designated structures through Section 106. Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to determine that their proposed courses of action will not harm or destroy archaeological or historical sites.
These consistency determinations recognized that a growing American population was using the same spaces for different purposes.
Following the rash of legislation over these two decades, the 1980s and 1990s focused on efficiency-based reform, trying to integrate economic and environmental goals into one policy. In NPS, managers moved towards increasingly scientific approaches to management in the 1980s and 1990s, emphasizing monitoring programs, species and ecological restoration, and historic preservation measures.
During this same period, global climate change, known by one of its many names, has become the next and dominant risk to the preservation of natural and cultural resources (Jarvis 2009 In 2012, a committee of 12 park experts recommended a shift in the management of park resources in their publication, Revisiting Leopold. The committee recommended that goal of NPS in managing their parks should be "to steward NPS resources for continuous change that is not yet fully understood, to preserve ecological integrity and cultural and historical authenticity... (Colwell et al. 2012, 11)." However, historical authenticity is a slippery concept, which describes a complex if not impossible standard for reconstruction. Sites change overtime, as do the meaning those sites hold and the environment that hosts them. Authenticity as perceived by a tourist is very different than authenticity as perceived by a manager or another site user (Tunbridge and Ashworth 1996). And the modern tourist uses of the site may mean that the current and authentic features at a historic site are those that make tourists comfortable such as benches (2015).
In 2014, Director Jarvis of NPS released a policy memorandum that declared that the management of cultural resources in the face of climate change will require hard decisions, such as which cultural sites will be allowed to descend into the sea due to extreme coastal erosion (Jarvis 2014  .

Materials and Methods
Within this broader pattern of changing management priorities, managers in individual parks work with both the national directives and the environmental features, cultural resources, and regional contexts of their individual parks. This research examines how park managers apply national priorities in local park contexts overtime and uncovers how climate change adaptation directives for cultural resources are or aren't manifesting in these spaces. The three national parks in this study are Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia, Gulf Islands National Seashore in Florida and Mississippi, and San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park in California. I selected sites using an information-oriented process, based on the potential research outcomes at the site (Yin 2003;Flyvbjerg 2006). I selected three case study sites from a pool of coastal sites managed by the National Park Service. Within this pool, I used a maximum-variation approach because this approach can yield valuable information about patterns that manifest despite the contrasting features of the sites (Flyvbjerg 2006). I selected case sites that represented different NPS regions, coastal characteristics, climate change adaptation work previously undertaken, and artifacts and historical themes. Table 5 shows the location and description of the case study selection criteria and how each site adheres to the criteria. Conservation Corps reports, management photographs, and annual reports (Creswell 2014;Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989). U.S. Army Corps and Congressional records are published annually, showing change in the perspectives over time. I collected and systematically analyzed historic documents and secondary on each of the parks. I analyzed this information for both content and thematic connections (Attride-Stirling 2001;Krippendorf 1996). I also systematically grouped, or coded, according to topic and claim and analyzed to determine important themes and causal patterns in interviews (Babbie 2013;Toulmin 2003;Attride-Stirling 2001;Neuman 1997). Table   6 shows the archives visited and collections used in this study. In addition to document analysis, I conducted interviews with key informants because the experiences and knowledge of current cultural resource managers is not yet represented in the public textual record. Key informant interviews can provide quality information, that is very specific to the situation in question (Marshall 1996b).
At each case study site, I contacted the Chief of Cultural and/or Natural Resources, the Chief of Interpretation, staff responsible for running climate change initiatives within the park, and members of the curatorial staff, for interviews (Guest 2015;Johnson and Hruschka 2015;Babbie 2013;Marshall 1996a). Table 7  This question allowed respondents to fill in any perceived gaps in our conversation. I then grouped the totality of the information and looked for patterns and trends (Creswell 2014;Babbie 2013;Ritchie and Spencer 2002). While the discussions surrounding climate perspectives and continuing discussions of climate change at individual case study sites is specific to these geographic locales, the broader national and international patterns that influenced the shifting perspectives and management of climate volatility and change overtime mirror or share drivers with other communities.
As broad patterns of national management of cultural resources change in response to shifting priorities and accompanying policies, these changes manifest differently in various locations. Critics of case study research question whether the results of such projects translate to other sites (Herbert 2010). The cases are illustrative rather than representative in nature and the differences between the cases represent the differences in the individual contexts of the sites.

Results: Perceptions of Landscape and Change in Three National Parks
Management goals on the landscape are associated with the local context as well as broader national uses and priorities. as wilderness and managers in COLO removed structures on the landscape that were newer than the time period deemed significant, while also constructing buildings that would serve park needs.

Colonial National Historical Park, Virginia
Bordered by the York River to the northeast and the James River to the south, Colonial National Historical Park (COLO) includes Jamestown Island, Yorktown, and a 23-mile scenic road corridor that connects the two, shown in Figure 10. The landscape of coastal Virginia is defined by ongoing sand and sediment accretion and erosion along the numerous rivers, creeks, and tributaries and these processes both shape the patterns of human construction, navigation, and use in the area (Hardaway, Jr. and Byrne 1999;Byrne and Anderson 1977). Both ongoing and storm-related wind and wave action contribute to patterns of sediment movement. However, man-made features on the rivers such as bulkheads and revetments and anthropogenic climate change also impact the patterns of shoreline change along both the James and York rivers (Hardaway, Jr. and Byrne 1999). Jamestown Island, Yorktown Battlefield, and Williamsburg, Virginia hosted the first permanent English settlement in the modern United States, an important battle in the resolution of the American Revolution, and the capital of the colonies, respectively. As such, these locations each played an important role in American history, as well as a role in the intentional curation of both the American and Virginian origin stories (Kiracofe 2002).  (Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016).

Corps of Engineers, 1881-1930
The Corps' management goals for the Yorktown and Jamestown area were to  (Peterson 1931b(Peterson , 1931aAlbright 1930 (Toms 1931). The shoreline engineering of Jamestown Island during this time served to both protect archaeological sites in some locations, as well as preserve the physical extent of the shoreline that managers believed existed when English settlers first arrived in the area. They led Civilian Conservation Corps members in sloping shorelines in order to both prevent erosion and create a modern, clean park shoreline.
Although NPS managers recognized that shoreline erosion along the James and York rivers was an ongoing process, these engineering projects indicate that managers believed they could reject shoreline change and establish more permanent boundaries between land and water through engineering. In addition to this idea of creating more permanent shorelines, when hurricanes and storms affected the park, the goal of the Civilian Conservation Corps workers was to remove evidence of the storms from the park, similarly suggesting that park managers wanted to present a stable and consistent environment, rather than one of change and fluctuation. Always a focus at COLO, at the national level, the Historic Sites Act of 1935 encouraged the study and excavation of archaeological sites. As archaeologists and Civilian Conservation Corps members worked to recover archaeological materials, park managers capped and sealed brick remains of colonial structures and display them for the public (Cotter 1955). Similarly, the park continued a program of shoreline stabilization which aimed to maintain the boundary between land and water in place. All of these views contributed the place, with the shoreline location, as well as the landscaping of Yorktown Battlefield and the "approximate virginal aspect" of Jamestown Island retained qualities indicative of the unique characteristics of the location and an intentional representation thereof. More than just preserving archaeological sites and Yorktown Battlefield, managers were creating a park space by manicuring shorelines, erasing storm damages, and engineering shorelines to their projected extent in 1607 and the tree-line at Yorktown Battlefield to its projected extent in 1781 (Peterson 1931b (Webb 1987). NPS managers began to examine the ecosystem processes and interactions of natural resources in addition to monitoring individual species (Dallas, Berry, and Ruggiero 2013 Park managers recently conducted and participated in a climate change vulnerability assessment process to gather information required to begin planning adaptation strategies to address climate change impacts (Ricci et al. in review). At COLO, managers were most concerned with buried artifacts eroding away on Jamestown Island and along the Yorktown waterfront. In response to the effects of climate change, in addition to the ongoing threats to cultural resources, managers sometimes elect to alter both the park and these resources by excavating at risk sites.
The process of document and release or mitigating archaeological sites represents a shift from protecting the shoreline to protecting the learning and research potential of specific sites within the park. Similarly, a 2016 report published by NPS recommends the removal of certain coastal protection structures along Jamestown Island to allow for the continuation of coastal erosion and accretion processes as a climate adaptation strategy (Nordstrom and Jackson 2016). However, this report suggests that managers retain shoreline protections in areas that protect significant cultural resources. In interviews, COLO managers articulated that the shorelines of the York and James rivers were never permanent, but always shifting systems. However, this management approach of protecting certain areas but not others suggests that managers continue to see shoreline engineering as an option for making portions of the shoreline permanent to meet management preservation goals (Army Corps 2013   (Albright 1930, 2) GOAL: "If Colonial is to yield its maximum in inspiration, … the proper environment is required. This includes a return to the original scene that marked the areas period of maximum greatness." (National Park Service 1954, 3) RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: "Restore and maintain the primitive "wild" character of Jamestown Island outside those areas containing physical remains of the settlement." (National Park Service 1969) EXPECTATION OF PERMANENCE: "No additional soil loss between the breakwaters was seen, indicating this project is a success, at least until now." (Sullivan 1981) RATIONALE FOR CHANGE: "These structures were designed to stabilize the shoreline to protect cultural resources and have been mostly successful…However, the coastal engineering structures have also likely altered the natural sediment transport processes in the region." (Dallas, Berry, and Ruggiero 2013, 27) EXPECTATION OF PERMANENCE: "At the moment 24 [Jamestown Island archaeological] sites are currently in the process of being destroyed or transferred out of NPS jurisdiction through submergence." (Bassett 2016, 11) RESPONSE TO CHANGE: "The historical significance of the location of the original Jamestown and the archaeological value of the artifacts known to be in the ground, limit the potential for allowing portions of that site to revert to natural processes." (Nordstrom and Jackson 2016, 77) GOAL: "Excavate sites that cannot be saved…Conduct further investigation into at-risk but poorly understood sites." (Ricci et al. 2017 in preparation, 5) Erosion of the shorelines of COLO has been the dominant feature of environmental change in the park and climate change will continue along this vector, likely increasing the speed and intensity of coastal erosion. Army Corps and early NPS managers at COLO believed erosion changed the character of the landscape and affected both the archaeological resources and the ability of the public to experience a landscape that was authentic to that experienced by early English settlers and Revolutionary War soldiers. As NPS management became increasingly scientific, with monitoring programs and species restorations, COLO managers today see archaeological sites as units of research potential, the loss of which removes the possibility of generating and enhancing historical understanding. Table 8 shows illustrative quotes from the historic Army Corps management documents through quotes from interviews with current managers of COLO.
In the face of climate change, managers are focusing on preserving archaeological sites. Current managers of COLO indicated that one of the most acute issues faced by the park in terms of cultural resource preservation is a lack of staff. This suggests that managers view the response to climate change as an impact that requires human maintenance, work, and intervention. While managers indicated that the park landscape was never permanent, they also agreed that change was difficult to see and perceive because it was almost imperceptible, taking place a little at a time. In addition, many of the cultural resources at COLO are buried, making a change in resource conditions difficult to see or detect. While NPS management for natural resources favors the restoration of coastal processes such as erosion, in order to allow natural landscapes to migrate and exercise resilient and adaptive behaviors towards changing environmental conditions, managers concede that hardened shorelines may still be important to protect cultural resources. This suggests that while managers are working to adjust to climate change and believe the Tidewater coastlines have never been permanent, the approach to the climate change protection of cultural resources is still reliant on familiar management techniques and beliefs that portions of the shoreline can be made permanent.

Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi
The landscape of the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico is characterized by a system of sandy barrier islands, that fringe the coastal mainland and move and change with predominant currents, wave and storm activity. These processes shape both the natural landscape and the patterns of human settlement and activity along the Gulf Coast. In addition to the natural motion of these islands, man-made dredge channels, groins, and other alterations can alter patterns of sand accretion and erosion. These Later, the military modified these shifting islands to accommodate new military technology before the area was transitioned to the purview of NPS to meet expanding recreational needs and demands. As the uses and needs in the area have changed, federal managers' goals, expectations of permanence, rationales for environmental change, and responses to change have shifted. The legacy of construction in the area, first for military purposes and later for recreational uses, is documented through both historic texts relating to the area and the artifacts and landscapes themselves. In addition to documenting the changes in management goals and perceptions, visitors to GUIS, as well as researchers, enjoy and use the cultural resources at the site. The archaeological site, historic structures and cultural landscapes in the park were all built on a substrate that moves with waves, winds, and hurricanes. In addition to these factors, anthropogenic climate change is beginning to impact the system. At GUIS, the management goals for the system have changed as the primary uses of the area have transitioned from military and defensive purposes to recreational and preservation-oriented outcomes. Originally focused on creating permanent military fortresses, current managers focus on preserving these fortresses, but also preserving access for park visitors to the historic structures and recreational spaces in the park. As managers are confronted with climate change, both the ongoing change in the barrier island setting and the management focus on recreational opportunities and preserving access is influencing how managers perceive the climate change risk on the landscape. Despite climate change, managers perceive preservation and daily maintenance as the biggest issues facing the park, the seasonal change in the system obscuring and overwhelming potential climate change impacts.

Recreational Beaches and Fishing Spaces, National Park Service, 1960-present
As the area that is currently GUIS transitioned to a primarily recreational space, management alterations of the environment to construct and preserve the forts and structures shifted and managers began to alter the landscape to create national park. During the 1960s and 1970s, policies such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act both encouraged the managing, monitoring and protecting of species as components of the environment and other ecological features.
At GUIS, NPS managers worked to reintroduce wolves, the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, and remove feral pig populations from the island (Pridemore 1984;"Gulf Islands National Seashore 1990 Annual Narrative Report" 1990). These changes all worked to create or recreate a place or setting on the island perceived to be more akin to the setting before human manipulation. Although these management practices affected species, they contributed to the recreational setting of the park. While NPS managers resisted the historic changes that caused the loss of these species in these areas, they accepted the alteration of the ecosystem resulting from the reintroduction of the species. While NPS managers accepted changes such as the reintroduction of species that aligned with the new management goals in the area, managers resisted the motion of the barrier islands, replacing sand around the base of Fort Massachusetts and other portions of the park.
The new management goals of preserving the fort structures changed the expectations of permanence in the environment from a focus on maintaining the land area surrounding the fort as needed for updating military technologies to maintaining the fort itself as a historic structure. While the Army Corps could construct new batteries to serve defensive purposes at the site of a fort that eroded away, NPS managers working to preserve a historic fort had to maintain the land in place. And NPS management goals for the cultural resources in the park established that they would "stabilize or reverse deterioration of natural and historical resources" ("Purpose of the National Seashore" 1973). This response to environmental change focused on maintaining the features of the place, including the beaches and forts for the new recreational uses in the area. As NPS managers worked to create a park environment, their preservation efforts focused on the forts as these sites were designated in the enabling legislation for the park. Some historic structures including Fort McRee and the Ship Island Quarantine Station had already deteriorated with NPS took over the area and managers allowed these structures to further disintegrate.

Separating Barrier Island Turnover from Climate Change, 2009-present
National level climate change policies for cultural resources in NPS encourage managers to plan for the impacts of climate change on these resources. Managers perceived climate change as an "existential" threat to the park, where sea level rise could threaten the very existence of the park. Managers spoke to the nature of the forts protected by the park, highlighting that they cannot move forts and the management options include higher seawalls or snorkel tours. GUIS has recently acquired ferries that will transport visitors from Pensacola Beach to Fort Pickens if Fort Pickens road is not rebuilt after future hurricane damages. Both the ferry service and the suggesting of a change in how NPS presents the park to visitors suggests that GUIS managers are thinking about changing use patterns in the park in the face of climate change.
Managers are thinking about climate change in terms of resource presentation and changes to visitor experience rather than a built solution or prioritizing and selecting resources loss or abandonment. Congress designated GUIS for recreation, amongst other purposes and the access to coupled recreational and historical sites such as Fort Although there is a long history of man-made structures and sand fill in the Mississippi Islands to protect from hurricanes, this project creates protective barriers for the Mississippi coastline, rather than for specific forts or other cultural resources.
The MsCIP discusses climate change as an accelerating force in the loss of barrier island chains and suggests that given this forcing as well as channel dredging, the MsCIP outcomes will mimic a natural state. Unlike earlier projects that restored sand around only Fort Massachusetts or on Perdido Key ("GUIS Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes" 1980;Pridemore 1983), the Corps does not propose this project as a return to an earlier state but does suggest that correcting the natural motion of barrier islands, based on the location of static shipping channels, is a restoration effort rather than a modification to an unprecedented state. While the motivation for this environmental modification is enhancing protection of the shoreline that is more vulnerable to increasing storm trends with climate change, the creation of islands and the artificial fill of a hurricane breach indicates that allowing the natural rollover of the islands is less important than the function of the islands. This project shows that the Army Corps of Engineers views the park land as part of a broader coastal system and process, rather than tied only to the recreational uses of the park.  Seashore" 1973) MANAGEMENT GOAL: "The purpose of Gulf Islands National Seashore is to preserve and interpret its Gulf Coast barrier island and bayou ecosystem and its system of coastal defense fortifications, while providing for the public use and enjoyment of these resources." (NPS 2014, 14) EXPECTATION OF PERMANENCE: Protect cultural resources "unless it is determined through a formal process that disturbance or natural deterioration is unavoidable." (NPS 2014, 40) RESPONSE TO CHANGE: "…providing an alternative means of accessing the park and maintaining island access when the road is rendered impassable by storm events or other unfavorable conditions." (Brown 2015 In GUIS, managers perceived change as the daily norm rather than an event or occurrence and this expectation of constant change makes it difficult to detect the impacts of climate change. All of the managers at GUIS indicated that ongoing, daily tasks associated with preserving historic structures and the accompanying visitor infrastructure were the biggest challenges in the park. Between managing the daily impacts of salt water, long growing seasons, sand movement causing sinkholes, flooding from rain, and occasional hurricane or storm impacts, managers perceive changes in the environment to be both normal as well as potentially sudden. Managers do not discuss the ongoing maintenance to address these weather patterns as changes but do see the introduction of the ferry system to maintain visitor access to Fort Pickens as a change in the way in which visitors will use the park. Additionally, managers perceive the MsCIP project as a change. The MsCIP project will recreate a system through which the mainland Mississippi shoreline may be more protected from hurricanes; however, due to the dynamic nature of sand in the area, while this project is an artificial fix in the system, there is a possibility that sand could have naturally moved to the locations where it will be placed. Rather than a strict outline of human and environmental change, statements made by managers in GUIS suggest that they view change as a call and response between people and the environment, with the manipulation of shorelines being part of that call and response.

San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, California
The San Francisco waterfront is a complex urban system of hardened shoreline and overlapping uses of coastal space, where the ongoing development and changing uses of the waterfront have shaped land-water interface as well as human patterns of fishing, travel, and recreation in the area. The environmental patterns in the Bay Area are dominated by the fog and pervasive damp conditions which affect navigation in the Bay and cause manmade structures on the peninsula to weather Kemble 1978). Within 20 years of American annexation of San Francisco, the city transitioned from a rural hacienda system to an urban center, and as part of this development, residents began building artificial land in the Bay (Barth 1975   Overtime, as the needs and uses of the waterfront have changed, managers have established different management goals, expectations of permanence, rationales for change, and responses to environmental change in the area, as revealed by both the built and natural environment in the area, as well as the records of managers and observers. As NPS managers at SAFR begin to work with their parent park of Golden Gate National Recreation Area, as well as city managers and numerous other interests, managers are faced with new environmental challenges and conditions that will affect the future management decisions in the area. At SAFR, management goals have changed overtime from managing a fleet of vessels in seaworthy condition, to managing a collection of floating museums that illustrate histories of the Bay. As managers begin to address the impacts of climate change at SAFR, park officials are dependent on urban infrastructure and collaboration on seawall structures and roads and are limited in the amount of space for relocation or other options. While managers expect change in both the natural and built environment, the park will have only one of many voices in the urban planning process. Building an Imperial City to Claim a Continent, U.S. Army Corps and City of San Francisco, 1854 When Americans began entering San Francisco in large numbers in the late 1840s, the pace of technological development allowed these settlers to make rapid and massive alterations to the marshes of the San Francisco Peninsula, both directly, and through major modifications of the foothills upstream from the bay. New San Franciscans filled tidal wetlands on the eastern shore of the peninsula to create valuable land in the city. In 1863, the people of San Francisco asked for a commission to manage and regulate the wharves and seawall of the city (Dow 1973). The state appointed a Board of State Harbor Commissioners, a three-member group who were to oversee and maintain the waterfront in good repair, undertake dredging efforts, and construct additional pier and wharf facilities as needed. These management efforts focused on expanding commerce in the growing city. Standards for success of the work were based on the continuation and expansion of commerce in the city. In addition to changing in the waterfront line, San Francisco residents worked to import fish species that were more familiar and pleasing to originally east coast palates (Booker 2006). Changes were made to the city's waterfront for commercial purposes and similarly, residents responded to environmental changes such as storms or wave action carrying away fill by repairing and replacing the artificial shoreline.

1928-present
In the 1930s, after years of public requests and campaigns, city officials installed Aquatic Park. When the area became part of NPS in the 1970s, park managers worked to continue the recreational and urban green space goals that founded the park. In order to maintain Aquatic Park and the small, man-made beach, managers instigated environmental change by replacing the sand as needed following loss during storms. This fixation of sand in place, either through the construction of breakwaters or the direct replacement of the sand shows a static management system, focused on retaining a site and structure in place, and responding to winter storms and changes by recreating the site that was in place before. In 1980, a winter storm damaged the Fort Point seawall, eroded the road that runs along the water, and left 12-18 inches of water in the fort ("Annual Report of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1980Area, " 1980. The following year, winter storms again affected the seawall and managers noticed undercutting. The maintenance division "restored the area to normal ("Annual Report of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, 1980Area, " 1980." Thus, managers attempted to make the uses and features of the landscape permanent on a background of changing conditions.

Overlapping Interests and Waterfront Climate Change, 2009-present
As managers at SAFR begin to address climate change, their management goals include preserving both resources and access to the piers, trails, and ships in the park. Mangers suggested solutions include understanding decision points, conducting surveys to understand loss, rebuilding structures in accordance with climate change projections, and potentially relocating structures that are at inevitable risk if there is room to put them. However, SAFR managers are dependent on partnerships with the city and state in order to manage the potential future change on the waterfront associated with the rebuilding or repair of the seawall. The seafront between San

Francisco's North Beach and Marina districts, where San Francisco Maritime National
Historical Park (SAFR) is located, has been built into the bay overtime. In the park, managers will work with the city to develop next steps and plans for the waterfront.
Preservation priorities will need to work with various neighbors and partners in the urban waterfront system.
SAFR is a small park and works closely with Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GOGA) for scientific needs. GOGA was established as an urban park and works in partnership with the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, a non-profit organization. GOGA was established as an urban green space and as such, focuses on community-based programming (National Park Service 1993). GOGA managers discussed a public process as a part of identifying how to adapt parks for climate change. GOGA received public input on visions for Crissy Field, a low-lying, 20 th -century constructed recreational space along the Bay, in a future where the area is inundated (Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 2016). The identity of SAFR as an urban park is be contributing to how climate change approaches are manifesting in the park. Managers are working with urban systems outside of the park to develop preservation priorities and climate change strategies. Similarly, SAFR identifies their role in climate change as one of teaching the public conservation strategies, placing the park in a broader context or a process-based context for cultural knowledge or awareness of climate change.  (Gonzalez 2015, 2) SAFR managers assessed the change in the environment by observing species changes in the Bay and other shifts in natural phenomena before identifying changes in the built environment such as nuisance flooding on the pier. From its beginnings as an "instant city," to ongoing destruction from earthquake and subsequent fires, the built nature of San Francisco has repeatedly changed. Similarly, early American settlers imported species to the Bay and the nature of the Bay has changed dramatically overtime from mining runoff, fill, and overfishing. While managers are anticipating climate change at SAFR, much of their management action will be dependent on decisions between the various players in the urban landscape rather than park decisions. Managers indicated a certain amount of powerlessness over the timeline of these projects.

Towards a Framework for Changing Cultural Resource Management Priorities
The assessment of management documents and perceptions of change in each of these sites overtime shows that, in each site, as national regulations and local uses of coastal spaces have become more complex, managers responsibilities have increased. Rather than managing for a few uses, managers today are responsible for expanded management goals ranging from preservation and tourism to conservation and regulating fisheries. As management goals have become more complex due to more and more varied coastal patterns of use, cultural shifts have affected the rationale for creating change, appropriate responses to coastal volatility, and managers expectations of permanence (Casey 2018, in preparation). By examining each of these criteria at the national level overtime, a pattern emerges.
As former military, industrial, or multi-use sites become cultural or recreational resources, the management requirements change. As the uses of these places changes, the value of the physical structures on the landscape also changes to reflect new priorities. Since the historical period, managers perceptions of the value of different environmental components have undergone a transition. Where early managers focused on the use of the natural and built environment, for recreational or other purposes, later managers shifted their focus to a broader system of processes.
More recently, the shift in ecological understandings, as evidenced by broader policy movements such as ecosystem-based management, has led managers to focus on system function. The interaction between natural and human has been brought into focus by phenomena such as climate change. Despite a division in NPS between natural and cultural resource management, changes such as the introduction of cultural landscapes as a unit of study and preservation, the updating of the Leopold Report, and Directors Order 100 all reflect a broader approach. More recently, managers are focusing on systems, interactions, and ecological processes, where the function of a process rather than the characteristics of a place have become the goal. For instance, at COLO, a recent study recommends the return to natural coastal processes and at MsCIP, the Army Corps is intentionally recreating portions of the park to contribute to the preservation of the Mississippi coastline.
Overtime, management of the built and natural landscape have focused on commodity and use of the site, where generating change to the natural or built environment was approached in a pragmatic sense. Management efforts focused on the retention of a site or characteristics of that site that were key to the new recreational or educational priorities such as the retention of the 1607 shoreline of Jamestown Island.
During this period, management documents use terms including "beach nourishment," "erosion control," and "dune stabilization" to describe management efforts (Pridemore 1981; "Gulf Islands National Seashore Advisory Committee Meeting" 1973). These phrases emphasize a natural state that is unacceptable and requires a management intervention. These phrases also suggest an adherence to a standard for success that is based on holding the line of an original form. More recently, enhanced ecological understanding as well as increasingly competitive uses in the coastal environment have led to a transition from place-to process-based management. While processbased management adheres to a standard that differs from how the current system or function presents, the emphasis is on a process rather than on a line. Table 11. outlines this pattern of change based on four drivers of change: management goal, expectation of permanence, rationale for creating change, and responses to coastal change. Managers repair inkind, may make some pro-active changes to structures Managers harness natural processes to address impacts (Ex.

Expectation of Permanence
No expectation of permanence Expectation of engineered permanence

Decision on permanence
The nature of the relationship between resource and manager has changed as cultural resources have transitioned from objects or sites of use to objects that are protected for research purposes. As the nature of use of these resources has transitioned, the ways in which the resource can adapt to climate have been confined based on a new perception of the value of the resource. In the face of climate change, NPS is reassessing the value and feasibility of resource preservation. However, changing scientific understandings of human-ecological systems are contributing to this value shift. While Director Jarvis identified climate change as the newest and greatest threat to park resources, and climate change has become a focus at the national and regional levels of the park service, climate change may not be the biggest driver or priority within a park. Managers at GUIS are more concerned about daily maintenance and changes in the barrier island system. Managers at SAFR will need to work with neighbor and partner agencies on climate change measures on the built shoreline.

The Role of Place and Context in Climate Change Perceptions and Actions
As park managers work to address climate change in their parks, the different park priorities and locales are causing this shifting management trend to manifest differently based on both environmental factors, the types of resources the park was created to preserve, and context dependent factors such as champions of causes and park manager priorities. At COLO, the slow pace of erosion and the longstanding interest in archaeological sites at the location is leading managers to focus on the potential climate change loss of these sites and research potential. At GUIS, the daily and seasonal maintenance required on a shifting barrier island system is obscuring the impacts of climate change; however, in a park focused on recreation, managers are most concerned with maintaining safety and access to the forts and beaches. At SAFR, managers identify many biological changes in the bay, as well as erosion and nuisance flooding on land as climate change affects; however, the existence of many features of the park is tied to the decisions of park partners on jointly owned and managed infrastructure including seawalls and piers. At each park location, managers are concerned about the daily changes and risks to resources from weathering and other forces. However, the type of environmental change in the local environment affects managers identification of risk to the cultural resources in their park. The results of this study are context dependent and should be considered illustrative rather than transferable to other locations. As illustrative examples, some of the themes derived from either the features of the location: COLO as a sediment river system, GUIS as a barrier island system, and SAFR as an urban waterfront, or the value assigned to the historical resources in the park: COLO for archaeological sites, GUIS for recreational use, and SAFR for urban green space, may be applicable to other sites.

Management Legacies and Climate Change Actions
Examining the management goals, ideas of permanence, rationale for change, and response to environmental change overtime reveals that the current approach to management is culturally conditioned by modern understanding of cultural resources and landscapes. In the last 40 years, the national focus on biological and ecological understanding has influenced park management and parks began managing the restoration of natural systems. Starting with the inventory and monitoring programs of the 1980s, managers began to focus on the components of site as the foundational blocks that defined the resources. Aided by mapping technologies, this new method of management led to both a focus on components in addition to the whole. The approach to management that involves inventories and the identification of individual sites and artifacts identifies climate change risk as the potential for harm or destruction to historic structures, archaeological sites, and cultural landscapes. As NPS managers work to address the impacts of climate change on the cultural resources in their parks, federal level guidance reflects national priorities of addressing climate change within the existing systems of management in order to address the timeliness of the threat by making "tough choices" about which sites to record and/or allow to deteriorate, versus which sites to engineer protection or resilience measures. This idea reinforces the idea that the components of the system are at risk rather than the use and meaning of place.
This current approach to management does not protect or facilitate the adjustment to losses from climate change nor does it necessarily imply an adaptive management structure given coastal erosion and inundation. NPS lays out seven management strategies for cultural resources, ranging from allowing the resources to succumb to the environment to actively managing and improving the condition of the resource Beavers, Babson, and Schupp 2016). One of the strategies recommends managing the changing resource condition. This adaptive form of management to supervise the transition of the structure possibly to an underwater site or through a process of ruination may require NPS to partner with other agencies in places where NPS does not own submerged lands. If the result of a tough choice is an adaptive management scheme as resources transition from coastal to underwater sites, this tough choice may represent a more adaptive management practice.

Conclusion
The mission of The U.S. National Park Service is to "preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations (NPS 1916)." While the mission of NPS has remained true to its form from 1916 when the organization was founded, the management of the park service has undergone transitions since its inception. As these sites and structures transition from places of military, industrial, or residential uses to places that act as primary sources for research, historical interpretation, and recreation, the legal regimes that govern these places are changing. By comparing the change in perspectives at these three sites overtime, a pattern of shifting values in landscape management emerges. Akin to the management shift in natural resources from species or sectoral management to ecosystem-based managed, the management of cultural resources overtime has transitioned from a focus on the use of the site or structure to the preservation of a place, to a broader look at sites and structures for their contribution to a system.

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION
Focused on climate change adaptation for cultural resources, the sum of this study this study took distinct temporal and methodological approaches to the same topic: interviews with key informants illuminated barriers faced by managers in adapting cultural resource policies and practices to changing climate conditions and cultural landscape assessments of the parks revealed long-term patterns of change that influence cultural resource policies and practices. By taking a historical approach, this work exposed possible roots of adaptation barriers, as well as deeper-seated environmental perceptions and path-dependencies, which may continue flavor current climate change approaches in these settings. These chapters also demonstrate patterns and outcomes of environmental response and alteration overtime and contributes to a more complete understanding of the complex transformation of NPS management overtime and continuing with the advent of climate change. The remaining section highlights emergent themes from the outcomes of each case study, drawing attention to parallels between cases, observations on this methodological approach that could be applied in other places, recommendations for NPS and other cultural resource management agencies moving forward with climate change adaptation plans to preserve cultural resources from this study. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of areas that could be fruitful for further research using a historical research perspective.

Climate Change Threatens Not Only Place but American Identity
To address the climate change impacts on cultural heritage at this site, there is far more to discuss than rising sea levels and storm surge: climate change and shoreline erosion is challenging American identity, both through the destruction of cultural resources that serve as primary sources of data about the past, but also by threatening the ability of federal managers to protect these resources. The direct impacts of climate change on cultural resources may affect the ability of archaeologists and others to use these resources as primary sources of data. As archaeological sites are inundated, they may instead become underwater archaeological properties or may be damaged by storm surge.
Throughout history, federal managers have engineered responses to prevent coastal erosion in these areas, showing a dominance over the ongoing erosion at the site, and holding back both nature and development. Climate change threatens the engineering supremacy of Americans over nature. And in a space with significance and meaning, climate change challenges a legacy of American supremacy on the coastline and the ability to retain and control an American history. While managers can continue to engineer shorelines and sand in these areas, sea level rise represents a different challenge and threatens the ability of managers to retain these long-engineered spaces. Climate change challenges national identity in these places, and the American relationship with the coastal environment, in addition to the physical remains of the resources.

Condition
In the face of erosion, hurricanes, and other changes, managers have engineered shorelines and spaces to maintain the current management priorities. Despite understanding the motion or change in these spaces, managers expected to see a stable state. NPS documentation on climate change aims to provide park managers with science on climate change; however, this historic trajectory suggests that seeing or understanding the science of environmental change does not necessarily motivate action if the changes directly conflict with management priorities. While managers have sought permanence overtime, the shorelines, structures, species, and states of the park they have worked to protect have changed overtime as national and NPS priorities have shifted. In each of the three sites, managers' expectations of environmental permanence are pervasive through time. As federal management priorities change, managers' expectations of what should be made permanent similarly shift, but these three studies show that overtime, managers have anticipated or engineered a stable environment despite observation and understanding of the environmental change overtime.

Lost Resources Do Not Always Lose All Value
At each of the three case study sites, cultural resources have been lost overtime.
While some of these sites have retained value through their archaeological remains and the ability to study these remains, this non-renewable use of cultural resources is threatened by climate change. Sites can be interpreted for visitors without physical remains. Managers indicated that interpretation of cultural resources without corresponding physical remains is part of the method of interpretation staff employ.
Updating and changing technologies such as smart phone applications allow managers to convey information about cultural resources that are no longer present on the landscape in visual, creative, and interactive ways. Climate change may add to the already numerous challenges of historic preservation, may further compound human relationships with the environment, and may push overlapping uses into direct conflict.
As the use of national park spaces transitioned from commercial, military, or another purpose to emphasize the recreational and educational values of the space, the sites and structures inherited by NPS were often damaged or already in ruins when they entered the park system. However, this status did not necessarily detract from the value of the site. The changing priority in site use allows a ruined site that does not meet military or historic preservation guidelines to retain significance and use as a part of the recreational landscape. The ability of cultural resources to retain value outside of the requirements for historic preservation may be an important consideration for climate change adaptation. While sites may have historic significance, if their use and significance is derived from recreational uses, the site condition may not be a paramount concern for preservation resources.
Preservation of cultural sites, structures, and landscapes in the face of climate change may require managers and others to accept change as part of these landscapes, both as part of the story they tell, and as the condition in which things are maintained.
Ruination has always been a part of the landscape. Managers and other's perceptions of the landscape have long included and understood the natural weathering and decay of the built environment. As climate change increases the intensity of some of these weathering factors or changes the environmental specifications to which sites were originally built, the natural weathering and decay may be affected. In addition to tough choices as to which sites to invest the most time and attention into, notions of what preservation means may need to change. Structures with damage and little integrity may need to be considered for their past importance rather than being rejected for their condition as this condition may become more commonplace.

Prioritization is More than Just Sitting Down and Making "Tough Choices"
Prioritizing cultural resources for preservation in the face of climate change is a barrier to climate change adaptation. After assessing the vulnerability of cultural resources to climate change projections, prioritizing resources and adaptation plans is the next step in working towards adapting the site for climate change (Glick, Stein, and Edelson 2011). However, this presents three problems: there is little guidance on how to prioritize resources, the idea of sitting down and making "tough choices" suggests that all of the required information for prioritization has already been gathered within the existing system, and "tough choices" is at odds with ideas of adaptive management based on an increasingly complex set of priorities which may also be changing alongside climate change.
Tough choices are tough for a variety of reasons, one of which is that there is not any precedent for making those decisions. Former military and commercial use regimes in these three sites had identifiable and mostly non-conflicting goals that prescribed management actions. Recreational sites initially had identifiable goals; however, developments in the fields of historic preservation and archaeology, as well as a growing American interest in preserving objects from the past altered and added to the goals of the management of federal spaces. The cultural resources in these areas as represented by the archaeological sites, historic structures, cultural landscapes, and ethnographic and museum collections associated with the area added to the preservation responsibility of park managers. In 2011, Patrick Gonzalez, principal climate change scientist of NPS suggested that "areas of unique ecological or cultural value may continue to merit high priority," and suggests that locations should be considered for their uniqueness and vulnerability and managed accordingly. In their 2010 comparison of climate change adaptation literature across NPS, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Delach and Matson found that NPS plans to work to develop prioritization scales with stakeholders, using scientific assessment, policy, and management tools to inform these decisions. Cultural Resource Climate Change Strategy published in 2016 notes that guidance on prioritization is forthcoming and that the prioritization of resources at each site will remain site specific, subjective, and rooted in current park priorities.
The process of selecting sites for preservation in the face of climate change will require selecting and using modern values to retain sites that are currently considered a priority. This process has taken place throughout history as any management of cultural resources requires selection and culling of which resources to protect, showcase, and interpret (Ashworth 2013;Lowenthal 2015). The political process of selecting which remains at a given site tell the most important story at that site has taken place before, with the designation of park sites and the creation of enabling legislation that identifies what Congress, as advised by park supporters, deems the most important features. As federal managers and research partners begin to work through the process of assessing climate change vulnerability of cultural resources and planning for the adaptation of these resources, understanding the goals of the park may be important in outlining adaptation actions.
Part of the prioritization challenge is that the sites that are considered to be of national value have changed overtime. The idea of "tough choices" suggests that all of the potential sites for preservation are being considered and the current criteria for site significance and integrity will remain applicable in a reality of climate change. As managers and partners seek to address climate change vulnerabilities, enabling legislation that does not represent current priorities may affect manager's ability to prioritize resources for protection in the face of climate change. If NHLs get the most attention, the first step to prioritization may not be making 'tough choices' but may instead be revising the standards that guide these choices to make sure they accurately represent the best available archaeological and historical evidence and modern stakeholder priorities.
In a 1976 review of NPS designation criteria, the Afro-American Bicentennial Although inclusive historical narratives are constantly changing and improving, a subsequent review found that the park service has improved representation of African-American sites; however, a challenge of improving the representative nature of cultural resources in a changing climate comes from the bias in historic preservation towards sites that have higher material integrity. Slave homes or other constructions that were built with organic materials and not prioritized for preservation may not meet the preservation criteria that more expensive structures can meet. This systemic bias may be continued or compounded by climate change impacts on cultural resources (Mahoney 2015;. Archaeological sites may contain the only representations of people who are not recorded in the historical record and this possibility should be considered in cultural resource and climate change prioritization (Mahoney 2015).
The goal of including stakeholder priorities is to ensure a representative history.
However, park managers discussed that stakeholders may belong to interest groups that focus on one historical period, form of construction, or group of people. For instance, Civil War societies may emphasize the history of this period. And charismatic structures like lighthouses may receive more support than buried archaeological deposits or a hidden or lesser known resource. As the park service reaches out to stakeholders to identify preservation priorities of cultural resources in the face of climate change, historically marginalized or underrepresented groups may have less of a voice in the conversation (Adger 2003). This potential for the exclusion of certain voices may lead to the loss or exclusion of certain storylines or resources as a part of tangible cultural heritage. In addition to diversifying the mechanism through which stakeholders can provide feedback and making these exchanges as accessible as possible, as the park service seeks public input, priority setting procedures may also include review by experts who may be more informed on the variety of time periods, constructions, and people represented by the cultural resources at different sites.
Finally, the idea of "tough choices" suggests a single management decision, rather than ongoing adaptive management given changing climate conditions and resource circumstances. Some managers indicated they would prioritize the most vulnerable sites, while others the least vulnerable sites with the best change of maintaining their integrity despite climate change. Some managers mentioned Historic American Building Survey documentation as a way to preserve records of structures that may be lost, while others argued that the mitigation or removal of sites would affect the value as the context and the ability to ask certain research questions in the future may be lost. When asked about how prioritization would take place, almost all managers mentioned that NHLs are maintained to a higher standard and would receive the most attention. However, rather than making a uniform decision, managers and management plans could work to consider case-by-case resource conditions, park interpretive needs, and changing research questions rather than making tough choices based on existing information.

Change
While this study revealed that the interpretive and research uses of resources may require different management regimes, new and burgeoning technologies provide novel ways to interpret sites, structures and landscapes. However, archaeological sites and cultural landscapes are non-renewable, unique resources that lose value if destroyed. New technological possibilities, as well as traditional interpretive measures, may allow managers to address just one set of values as they make climate change decisions.
Understanding these barriers specific to cultural resources may help NPS managers tailor or prepare ongoing vulnerability assessment or other management procedures for the specific needs of cultural resource management in the face of climate change.
Conceptual barriers to the climate change adaptation of cultural resources present different of challenges. If managers cannot distinguish climate change from ongoing effects of weathering, this may hamper management action for a longer-term impact or problem. Especially for non-living cultural resources which may visibly naturally weather and degrade overtime, managers expect to see change. However, if each instance of change is seen as standard and maintenance regimes are not adjusted, incremental change may lead to complete deterioration more quickly than anticipated. Although some managers identified which cultural resources they found most vulnerable, these vulnerabilities did not uniformly indicate the significance or priority of the resource within current management schemes. While this study illuminated these modern barriers to climate change adaptation, by examining how change has been managed overtime in each of these three site locations, this research illuminated a longer history of these conceptual barriers. The longer history of the management of change in each of these locations both informs these barriers to current action and illuminates additional ongoing management patterns that relate to climate change management in NPS.

Historical Perspectives on Cultural Resources
Scholars have called for the inclusion of historical perspectives, such as the empirical studies in this research, in climate change adaptation conversations critiquing approaches to the topic by looking at factors like barriers to adaptation, also seen in this research, as ahistorical (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018). However, a reciprocal critique of historical research is that this research operates on a slower time table than other fields (Adamson, Hannaford, and Rohland 2018) and the resulting information may be difficult to translate or apply in policy situations (Morin 2017). Through the process of conducting this research, I concede both points. However, like the authors cited in the previous sentence, I believe despite these difficulties, the perspective employed in this work and the resulting conclusions are of value and importance in the climate change adaptation conversation.
This research revealed an American habit of modifying a shoreline and location rather than relocating to a more suitable site. More than just one amongst many choices, this habit has become codified overtime through organizations such as the San Francisco Board of State Harbor Commissioners. Although priorities have changed overtime, managers are still reconciling permanence of features on impermanent landscapes. And these patterns may impact the adaptation options that managers and others identify and consider when addressing climate change. Similarly, past priorities as to which histories to represent have been codified in park management guidelines overtime. As managers work to address change, reconsidering these patterns to determine what additional values the landscape may represent and how these values can be adapted may be an important early step. These findings result directly from the historical approach. And in an attempt to address the critique that historical research is difficult to apply, I provide recommendations for moving forward with climate change adaptation management actions for cultural resources; however, these recommendations may also be applicable in other climate change adaptation situations: 1. Rethink management structures to prioritize the goals of management over the conditions of the resource.
2. Gather broad input including scholarly and tribal expertise and public opinion as to what to protect given projected climate change impacts.
3. Explicitly document the process of prioritization for cultural resources.
4. Interpret climate change as a continuous part of the American coastline and link patterns of industrial and physical change to this history.

Future Research
In considering the tangible cultural heritage that remains along American coastlines, there are many types of investigations that could contribute to better understanding the impacts of climate change on these sites. For the purposes of this study, I focused on the perspectives of federal managers. However, federal managers are increasingly engaging with tribal, state and local governments, non-profit organizations, research institutions, individual stakeholders, local area residents and others to guide park decision-making activities. Additionally, parks, especially urban parks like San Francisco Maritime NHP, are working outside established boundaries to identify community priorities and urban planning for the waterfront. Future research may look at community views of coastal climate volatility including storm surge, coastal flooding, coastal erosion, and sea level rise overtime to conceptualize how residents have and continue to frame coastal climate change, especially with regards to cultural sites and structures.
Future research may compare the perspectives of the local managers, state managers, commercial communities, or residents with those of federal managers to determine whether there is agreement or divergence in perceptions of change.
This research revealed that American managers have applied policies to the coupled human-natural coastal environment for hundreds of years. While this study examined the impacts of these policies on the environment, future research could examine the outcomes of past policy decisions to determine how effective these policies were in terms of resource protection or to determine how these policies continue to impact management decisions. Additional case study sites of similar or divergent types to the three types identified here (barrier island, urban coastline, and sediment river system) could contribute to broader understandings of context-dependent features of management, or alternately, indicate which features diverge between sites despite similar coastal morphologies and features.
This study answered a multi-disciplinary call for a historical and social-science examination of patterns of environmental change. Cultural resources represent the long tenure of humans on the landscape, and by examining these resources in the modern context, and the cultural interactions with the landscape overtime, this study has revealed that, while climate change may represent a set of environmental circumstances distinct from what managers have addressed in historical memory, the management patterns of historical memory are influencing management actions along the shore today.
Management priorities have changed overtime, but the approach to engineering the shoreline have remained similar in a local context. And while managers and others anticipate and understand change on a daily scale, planning for this change on a longerterm scale, when various other factors in the process including management priorities, technologies, administrative or institutional priorities, are changing alongside climate, the appropriate set of questions may become much different in the face of climate change.
In your opinion, what poses the biggest risk to the condition of cultural resources in the park?

Historical Perspective and Site Interpretation
Are certain themes in your park being affected more than others due to climate change?  i.e. Native American or black history sites on the coast  what, if anything, is the park able or required to do to protect different historic themes?
Are there examples of historical stories or themes in your park that are interpreted for visitors without the presence of any physical artifacts or historic landscapes?  Is this method effective? Do visitors like these stories?
Does your park interpret historical climate or climate change for visitors?  Any panels or plaques? Ranger talks?
Is there a place in your park for historic environmental perspectives in site interpretation?  For instance, if past communities in the area would have built more flexible infrastructure or moved inland, would this type of alteration be considered in park adaptation planning?
The Decision-making Process for Cultural Resources and Climate Change Impacts Are there any studies by the NPS or others on climate change and cultural resources going on in your park right now? Or have any studies been conducted recently?  Have you seen the results of any studies? Do you think any of these results could be applied to park policies?
If you were asked to prioritize resources to protect from climate change, how would you set these priorities? What would most heavily influence those decisions?  Internal factors: Historic significance? Rarity?  External factors: Cost? Visitor interest? Superintendent or partner priorities?

Follow-up
Given the topic at hand, is there anything else you would like to point out or anything that you think was missing from our conversation?