Community archaeology and climate change

ABSTRACT

Archaeological heritage is under threat by climate change all over the world and its resulting impacts are happening so quickly and within so many different physical and socio-cultural contexts, that it is impossible for any single organization or discipline to combat. For this reason, researchers have developed various methods and options in engaging the public’s help through community-based and citizen science research, including community archaeology and community heritage projects to better preserve our cultural heritage. This paper presents five diverse case studies from Alaska, Scotland, Florida, Australia and Guadeloupe to highlight how collaboration and community archaeology are building better practices to manage coastal archaeological heritage. The case studies are compared and analysed based on underlying components they all share. In the end the most common factors attributing to a successful community archaeology project will be determined and reviewed.

KEYWORDS:

• Community archaeology
• climate change
• coastal archaeology

Introduction

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continues to predict major changes in the climate by the end of this century due to greenhouse gas emissions. With the rising temperatures, the likelihood of irreversible loss increases, with extinction of species, loss in biodiversity in forests, coral reefs and especially in Arctic regions (IPCC 2023, 13–18). These diverse changes will cause significant damage to archaeological heritage in a multitude of ways, leading the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) to declare a Climate and Ecological Emergency for archaeological sites and heritage (International Council on Monuments and Sites 2020). Coastal erosion is a major threat to cultural heritage sites, even without influence from climate change. However, with exacerbation from climate change, rising sea levels become an increasingly prominent threat to cultural heritage situated at coastlines around the world (Erlandson 2008, 167–168; Rick and Fitzpatrick 2012, 135). Erosion can destroy coastal heritage gradually over some decades or all at once with single a catastrophic event (Dawson et al. 2020, 8281–8282). For this study, the definition of archaeology and archaeological heritage includes archaeological sites, structures and materials as an integral part of the historical cultural landscape.

In the face of climate change, where there is no legal responsibility to manage a site and no clearly identifiable polluters disrupting in situ preservation, some researchers have developed various methods and practices by engaging the public’s help through community archaeology and citizen-science research.

Community archaeology is a form of archaeology that gives the public an opportunity to co-design and take part in the archaeological research of their community, with the aim to create and preserve certain values within the community in relation to its heritage and the past. These values can be both tangible (physical) or intangible (social, psychological), educational, economic, political or cultural/ethnic (Simpson 2008, 3–4; Simpson and Williams 2008, 75). The growth of socio-political discussions within archaeology in the 80s and 90s (e.g. Franklin 1997; Gero 1985; Pinsky and Wylie 1989) prompted archaeologists to reconsider the ethical responsibility of the discipline when practicing archaeology within communities they themselves are not a part of. This is particularly prevalent in indigenous areas, where indigenous rights movements forced archaeologists to consider their indigenous communities’ rights to have access to and be a part of the conversation regarding their heritage (Scarre and Scarre 2006, 8–9; Simpson 2008, 4). Community archaeology gives the archaeologist and the community the opportunity to establish a two-way dialogue, creating new ways of interpreting the past that are more relevant to the community itself, rather than only supporting scholarly pursuits (Marshall 2002, 218; Simpson 2008, 5).

The aim of this research is to present examples of archaeologists and the community coming together in different parts of the world to tackle the effects climate change is having on cultural heritage in their respective regions, while also discussing the challenges each project faced and how those challenges were resolved. The effects of coastal erosion on the archaeological heritage and historical cultural landscape, due to climate change are studied with a particular focus on what available options there are.

To achieve this, I will begin by examining five case studies of community archaeology projects, comparing each to the list of five category components and their sub-components individually before comparing them together. In the end I will determine the most common factors contributing to a successful community archaeology project and discuss how we can enlist the public’s help in our battle against climate change.

Methodology

The general methodology adopted is a comparative case-study approach, based on literature study. The case-studies chosen are:

1. Nunalleq ‘The Old Village’, based in Alaska,

2. the SCHARP project, based in Scotland,

3. Heritage Monitoring Scouts in Florida,

4. Australian Indigenous Rangers’ Management of Cultural Sites in the Northern Territory of Australia,

5. the ALOA project, based in Guadeloupe

The case studies examined here were chosen because they were some of the most widely cited examples in available literature on archaeological sites under threat by the impacts of climate change where archaeologists came up with community-based options. The case studies were also chosen to be geographically diverse to highlight the similarities and the differences of how climate change impacts archaeological sites and how effective community archaeology is in different types of communities and different parts of the world (climate, landscape, ecosystems). They also clearly state that the main reason for the project’s establishment is a result of climate change. In this analysis the various methodologies utilized are examined and compared on the basis of the five component categories.

For this research the various methodologies for community archaeology in the case study projects are examined. To make a comparison of each case study, certain key phrases and aspects were chosen and then compared systematically. Each study is individually summarized in a table along with their key components and their sub-components, which can be seen in Table 1. The components were inspired by the methodology composed by Moser et al. (2002) which was then adapted to fit the context of this research. Many of the identified key components corresponded with the ones Moser et al. (2002) considered to be crucial to facilitating a successful community archaeology project. However, the components and sub-components chosen for this research are less detailed, to make it easier to adapt to various contexts and allow for more versatility.

Table 1. The five category components and sub-components each case study was examined by.

Two-way Communication
A clear two-way partnership that is based on open communication and cooperation between the researchers and the local community throughout every stage of research continuously leading to full collaboration in interpreting and presenting the project to the larger public.
Communication and partnerships are initiated before the start of the project and the community is involved in defining the questions.
(1.1) Regular project updates and reports available to the wider public
Regular project updates and reports for the wider public informing them of the structure of the project, how it develops, and any news related to the project compiled in collaboration with the local community.
Serves to remind the community of the project and its importance.
Updates are plain and easy to understand to make the results accessible to all stakeholders.
(1.2) Transparency and willingness to share information regarding the project
Including the project’s initial goals and limitations, in case something proposed is not possible.
Acknowledging barriers and difficulties when it comes to misinterpretations, cultural differences, colonialism, especially concerning past encounters with archaeologists/researchers in the area to help reduce any negative views that may have been conjured by previous research.
(2) Active Participation
Members of the community receive training and participate in every stage of the project.
(2.1) Untrained participants receive formal training to instil proper research methods, identification and work ethics among the community
Field et al (2000, 43). has shown that giving the members of the community formal training gives them a better understanding of archaeology, its objectives and inspires them to preserve it
(2.2) Allows for diverse areas of community participation so there is something to do for any member of the community who wishes to contribute
Every member of the community should be given the opportunity to participate in the conservation of their cultural heritage.
(2.3) Partnering with local organizations
These organizations reach a wider audience and are likely to draw attention to the project, bringing in more members of the community.
Ensures that archaeological heritage is integrated into future management.
(3) Education Resources
Researchers and the local community facilitate and collaborate in ensuring fully accessible and easily operated educational resources for the wider public.
(3.1) Allowing the public access to all reports and official documents regarding the project
(3.2) Involving the younger members of the community to inspire an appreciation of their cultural heritage
(4) (Re)presentation by the Community
Members of the local community have full or at least partial control of communicating and representing the project to the wider public to share its significance to the region and the effects of climate change.
Ensuring (culturally) appropriate methods for presentation.
(4.1) The community has a clear role in terms of organization, representation and outreach of the project along with the control of a specific site where applicable
If the local community is not involved in the representation of their heritage, their sense of ownership is lessened and subsequently, their willingness to maintain it lessens.
(4.2) Encourage the development of facilities where the community’s history and cultural heritage is shared and the impacts of climate change
(5) Sustainability
The project is sustainable and can be maintained for the next years providing the community’s willingness to do so.
(5.1) Collaboration between researchers and the local community to ensure the sustainability of the cause
(5.2) Encouraging and advocating to ensure the protection of unknown sites and other sites that may need protection

As Moser et al. (2002, 229) mentions, the components are not meant as a ‘recipe’ for conducting community archaeology but are rather meant to provide some ‘useful ideas for others seeking to undertake work of this nature’. By highlighting these factors, a detailed picture can be drawn of the components that appear most frequently as can be seen in Table 2 and should potentially be made priorities when community-based archaeological research in the context of climate change is considered.

Table 2. Showing component score of each individual case study.

		Nunalluq Project	SCHARP Project	HMS Florida	Australian Indigenous Rangers	ALOA Project
1. Two-way communication
	1.1	x	x
	1.2	x	x	x	x	x
2. Active Participation
	2.1	x	x	x	x	x
	2.2	x				x
	2.3	x	x	x		x
3. Educational Resources
	3.1	x	x	x	x
	3.2	x	x			x
4. (Re)presentation by the Community
	4.1	x	x		x
	4.2	x	x
5. Sustainability
	5.1	x	x	x	x	x
	5.2	x	x	x	x	x

The case studies

Case study 1: the Nunalleq project

Melting glaciers, rising sea levels and air temperatures, permafrost thaw and precipitation fluctuations are just some of the changes affecting the natural system in the Arctic (ACIA 2004, 2–8), causing physical and chemical damage to archaeological sites and materials which, up until now, have been remarkably well preserved. The archaeological and geological record of the Arctic regions are gradually decomposing with the retreating permafrost, and we are running out of time to research and recover data from these sites (Hollesen et al. 2018, 573–579).

When the residents of Quinhagak, a village in the Yukon – Kuskokwim Delta in southwest Alaska, noticed artefacts washing up on the shores of the Bering Sea, archaeologist Richard Knecht and Warren Jones, then President of Qanirtuuq Inc., decided that community-based efforts to recover artefacts from the eroding sites would be the best way to honour the past. The Elders of Quinhagak and other villages in the Yup’ik region also felt this would be an effective way to involve the younger generation in learning about their cultural traditions, heritage and preserving it (Knecht and Jones 2019, 26–27).

Over 100,000 artefacts have been recovered since the project began. Knecht and Jones (2019, 30–31) have emphasized the importance of the unwavering support from the people of Quinhagak and Qanirtuuq Inc. The village provided transport for crew members and gear, as well as offering office buildings and the community centre for housing. Local carpenters were enlisted in setting up sifting screens, shelters, the outbuilding and stairways at the beginning and taking it back down at the end of every season. The crew received help from volunteers and the staff of Qanirtuuq Inc. during the process of backfilling the site after each excavation and then removing it again at the start of the next season, as well as volunteering at the excavation itself or during field laboratory work while others would show up to offer warm soup and smoked salmon. Since the project began, archaeological Yup’ik heritage and an appreciation for the complexity of Yup’ik culture has taken root in Quinhagak and the project has gained attention both locally and in nonacademic media with the neighbouring villages looking to start similar projects. In 2018 The Nunalleq Culture and Archaeology Center opened its doors where the majority of the artefacts recovered from the excavation are being kept. It is also being used to teach traditional Yup’ik arts, skills, dancing and songs (Knecht and Jones 2019, 36, 45–48).

Over a decade later, the archaeological presence in Quinhagak continues through excavations, processing and conservation (Knecht and Jones 2019, 26–27) with frequent updates being given on their blog (https://nunalleq.wordpress.com/). Despite great challenges, the Native communities of Alaska have shown remarkable resilience in the face of climate change and erosion. The success and scale of the project can be directly credited to the residents of Quinhagak and when the excavation in Nunalleq ends, the effects of it will continue throughout the region as other communities look for ways to preserve their cultural heritage.

Case study 2: SCHARP

The archaeological heritage of the coastline is one of the most vulnerable disciplines under threat by climate change. Rising sea levels, coastal erosion and storm surges have begun to destroy invaluable coastal archaeological sites (Erlandson 2008, 167–169; Fitzpatrick, Rick, and Erlandson 2015, 16–19), with sea levels expected to rise between approximately 12 and 18 cm by the 2050s along the Scottish coast (CCC, 2021, 2–3, 13).

At the forefront of this problem is the Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion Trust or SCAPE, that focuses on remains threatened by coastal erosion. Their projects centre around community involvement and local volunteering to research, rescue and highlight the coastal heritage of Scotland (SCAPE, 2017). Among SCAPE’s many innovative projects was Scotland’s Coastal Heritage at Risk Project, or SCHARP, which had the specific aim of enlisting volunteers to update data about Scotland’s coastal heritage at risk that had been collected between 1996 and 2010 (Hambly 2017b, 1). SCHARP was split into two different strategies. The first involved creating a web-based interactive map using existing records and the ShoreUPDATE app. By using the app, volunteers did not need to own cameras, GPS equipment or even paper maps (Hambly 2017a, 5–6). From the years 2012 to 2016, 43 training events were held around Scotland by SCAPE where the project’s goals were presented, how the volunteers could use the app and the website while also practicing their surveying skills on site. To maintain consistency in the records the volunteers submitted, eighteen of the training events involved longer periods of field surveys (called ShoreUPDATE focal surveys) so volunteers could enhance their archaeological observation and recording skills. In total 404 volunteers trained to become ShoreUPDATE surveyors and by the end of 2016 they had completed 695 days of coastal surveying, submitting 1074 ShoreUPDATE records along with more than 400 new site records (Hambly 2017a, 5–6).

Another aim of the project was ShoreDIG, where the focus was placed on working with communities to research, excavate and interpret locally valued heritage sites. To only collect information does not save a site and the community acknowledges this. With ShoreDIG, different types of projects are undertaken, including excavations, filmmaking, traditional surveys and 3D digital recordings (Dawson, Hambly, and Graham 2017, 28–29). 11 of 14 heritage sites threatened by erosion were nominated by communities through SCHARP’s volunteer recruitment process. Ten ShoreDIG sites focused mainly on surveying and recording while the other four sites were based on excavation. All of them explored various methods of interpreting the projects, such as making a blog and films. A website was dedicated to the Wemyss Caves, the story of Eyemouth Fort was shared both on-site and in the museum while the reconstruction and relocation of the Meur Burnt Mound became a visitor attraction at the Sanday Heritage Centre. 486 volunteers contributed over 1,100 days to ShoreDIG activities and were involved in every aspect of the projects, with SCHARP training volunteers in archaeological techniques and practice (Hambly 2017a, 7–10). ‘The scale of what was achieved in ShoreDIGs within the four year project period was only made possible because of the local knowledge and support of volunteers’ (Hambly 2017a, 10).

Dawson et al. (2017, 31–32) attribute SCHARP’s success to two decades of work experience, creating connections with various collaborators in protecting Scotland’s coastal heritage. Even though SCHARP has ended as a project, its impact on almost 500 people in four years will remain within the community as SCAPE continues assessment surveys of Scotland’s coastline (Boyd 2022, 2) and other similar projects. The authors add that the considerable amounts of the Scottish coast that have not yet been surveyed would be obtainable through community coastal surveys and continuous ShoreUPDATES, and hundreds of sites would benefit from similar projects (Dawson, Hambly, and Graham 2017, 32). However, to apply such an approach in other countries, they would need to be adapted to the specific cultural, geographical, demographic, and legal contexts of each country, a process undertaken by other case studies in this report.

Case study 3: HMS Florida

The State of Florida has begun to feel the various effects of climate change, such as increased flood frequencies due to the combined effects of extreme rainfall events and rising sea levels. Hurricane wind speeds and rainfall rates are predicted to rise in tandem with the warming climate as well, causing major damage to infrastructure (Carter et al. 2018, 18–19, 758, 766). Of the recorded archaeological sites along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, almost 20,000 recorded archaeological sites will be submerged below sea level by the end of the century if current projections by IPCC (2023) hold, not including sites yet to be recorded, according to Anderson et al. (2017, 7, 18).

Like many archaeological organizations around the world, the Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN), began turning their attentions to the rising concern of climate change in the last decade, leading to the development of the Heritage Monitoring Scouts (HMS Florida) in 2016, under the influence of SCAPE‘s SCHARP project (Miller and Murray 2018, 238; Miller and Murray 2021, para. 1).

In the United States, locations of archaeological sites are restricted from public access for fear of looting or damage (undefined). Sites are owned by various government or state organizations or private landowners, who often prefer to restrict access to specific locations to protect the site from damage or prevent visitors from venturing into potentially unsafe environments. To overcome this, FPAN sends information about safe sites directly to approved volunteers to monitor targeted locations rather than releasing their locations on the website (Dawson et al. 2021, 378; Miller and Murray 2018, 239–240). When volunteers monitor a site, they simply fill out a monitoring form, take photos and upload them to the HMS Florida Arches Monitoring Database (Florida Public Archaeology Network, 2020). In the first year 233 volunteers representing 87 communities applied for the program and submitted 312 monitoring forms, at a rate of 26 sites per month since the launch of the program. In addition to the sites monitored, volunteers also reported 19 sites that were not previously listed on the Florida Master Site File (Miller and Murray 2018, 241).

HMS Florida has grown and can be found in various forms around the state of Florida, for example as an aid for land managers and disaster responders like the Guana Tolomato Matanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve. The Reserve covers some 74,000 acres of coastal conservation lands in north-east Florida and its boundaries cover 115 recorded cultural resources, including a burial mound, shell middens and homestead sites (DEP, 2008, Executive Summary). With the Reserve, FPAN initiated a pilot program to monitor sites and record threats and impacts to help staff manage archaeological resources. The Reserve and FPAN co-hosted four training events over 6 months where participants were introduced to archaeology, the importance of site-monitoring was discussed and instructions were given on how to fill out the appropriate forms (Miller and Murray 2018, 244–245).

We no longer have the luxury of gradually or independently developing solutions and it is becoming increasingly important to develop ways to include the public in research. SCAPE and FPAN have found an apt solution to both problems: enlisting the local community to record and monitor coastal heritage sites. This case study gives a glimpse into some of the challenges that can occur when adapting methods to other countries. FPAN overcame issues related to site locations by sending them to approved volunteers (Miller and Murray 2018, 240). The fear of sites being looted if locations are made more widely available is valid. However, Dawson et al. (2020, 8285) argue that ‘In the light of the eventual destruction of some sites, it may be worth risking some threatened sites in order to save others’.

Case study 4: Australian indigenous rangers

Since national records began in 1910, Australia’s climate has warmed by 1.4 °C and since 1950 every decade has been warmer than the one before. Australia’s warmest year on record was in 2019, which led to the worst bushfire season on record where 33 individuals died as a direct result, 19 million hectares burnt, an estimate of over 1 billion wild animals lost their lives and over 3000 houses were destroyed (Filkov et al. 2020, 44–45; Dickman and McDonald 2020, 86–87).

To support Indigenous rangers in managing heritage sites that have felt the impact of climate change, Carmichael (2015, 63–66) constructed an adaption guide, where the full control of the process lies in the hands of non-professionals. The Cultural Site Adaption Guide is split into five phases: (1) the scoping phase (split into a further seven steps), (2) risk analysis, (3) option analysis, (4) planning and implementation, (5) review. The Djelk and Kakadu National Park (KNP) Indigenous Rangers who manage IPAs (Indigenous Protected Areas) in the Northern Territory of Australia had previously expressed deep concerns for the impact of climate change on cultural sites, considering them to be a management priority and agreed to participate in workshops to test the adaption guide.

The first phase of the Guide focused on discussing group expectations for cultural site adaption, consider methodological options and assess and anticipate certain challenges that might occur (Carmichael et al. 2017, 1200). This included a lack of data and data storage, insufficient staffing and financial resources being mostly focused on tourism (Carmichael 2018, 87–88). During the second phase of the Guide, rangers perceived that the increasing erosion of coastal middens and inland riverine rock art was due to a more extensive storm surge and more frequent precipitation events. Arnhem Land contains some of Australia’s most exceptionally preserved painted rock art imagery, but research (although limited) has shown that the increasing intensity of tropical cyclones as a result of climate change is dramatically impacting rock art conservation in Australia (Taçon et al. 2021, 124–126).

During the third phase, rangers ranked six options out of ten gathered beforehand by Carmichael et al. (2020, 9–10) as primary priorities: giving sites protective legal designation, introduce a routine risk assessment and monitoring program, establish partnerships, providing local stakeholders with training and addressing governance issues. Not all options focus directly on climate impacts but represent broader risk management of cultural heritage sites, such as legal protection and addressing governance issues. So far, Northern Territory legislation only protects known sites, leaving unknown sites vulnerable. This is where it becomes essential to document cultural sites so rangers can protect them not only from climate impacts but also from human impacts.

Another option suggested was developing an augmented reality application to create 3D models of sites that can be experienced again with an ocular headset after they have been lost on their original rock face. In recent years, Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR) as a communication tool for sharing archaeological information and cultural heritage data with the public in times of climate change has been increasing rapidly. One example of this is the Heritage on the Edge project, which highlights the impacts of climate change at different cultural World Heritage Sites (Megarry and Hadick 2021). Rangers were enthusiastic about the idea of making 3D models of the most vulnerable riverine rock art sites which could be viewed again once they were lost. However, strict cultural protocols would have to be maintained in consultation with traditional owners and the community. Rangers also expressed concerns with ensuring that culturally sensitive material does not get misused or appropriated on the internet or reveal the locations of the sites (Carmichael 2018, 149–150).

After completing the first three phases of the Cultural Site Adaption Guide, the rangers will continue to the last two phases of the guide, (4) plan/implement and (5) review which will be the focus of future research (Carmichael 2018, 191–195).

Carmichael’s (2018) research makes important points in placing the management of sites in the hands of local community custodians. While research has been done on risk analysis and significance ratings (see Bickler, Clough, and Macready 2013; Daly 2014; Shi et al. 2012), the Cultural Site Adaption Guide takes the next step onwards considering site management of climate change impacts. Carmichael (2018, 175) explains this as being because research is focused on developing risk analysis with a top-down or middle-path that is managed by heritage professionals and involving community stakeholders. Here, the rangers in the end control the whole process, while heritage professionals take the role of consultants. This research shows that climate change adaption policies controlled and managed by local stakeholders are a very real possibility, especially where government agencies do not have the funding or resources to manage large areas.

Case study 5: ALOA

Despite emitting the lowest greenhouse gases compared to other regions (Crippa et al. 2022, 251), the Caribbean Islands and other Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are likely to feel the effects of climate change ahead of other regions. Increased tropical cyclones (TCs), storm surges, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise (SLR), and coral bleaching are already affecting the environment and the everyday lives of the islands’ residents (Mycoo et al. 2022, 2045). These threats are often accelerated or induced by human impacts such as sand mining, construction activities and looting, causing many archaeological sites to disappear or become severely damaged without any research or documentation (Hofman and Hoogland 2016, 2). This compelled researchers to choose intervention in favour of conservation, by studying and recording sites according to the general principle of ‘preservation-by-record’. To achieve this, the Center for Research in Archaeology, Archaeosciences and History (CReAAH) has developed the ALOA Project, similar to the projects started by SCAPE in Scotland and FPAN in Florida.

The project is developed within the framework of the ALeRT Project (Motte et al. 2022b, 2). Established in France in 2006, the AleRT project employs a vulnerability model with assessment and monitoring maps to evaluate research strategies and make it adaptable for cultural heritage sites on the coastline. The result of this was the Vulnerability Evaluation Form (VEF), which creates a standardized grid to review the current state of preservation at archaeological sites on the coastline (Daire et al. 2012, 177). After the development of VEF, there came a need to improve field collection and data management strategies, which led to the creation of the AleRT app. With the app, a user can submit the necessary information for specific sites while also standardizing data collection and improving the quality of the application, making it more accessible to researchers and heritage managers from different fields along with the wider community (Barreau et al. 2013, 612).

After a particularly difficult season of winter storms between December 2013 and March 2014, researchers were faced with the impossibility of physically preserving all threatened sites exposed by the storms, leading them to base their methodology on the ‘preservation-by-record’ strategy. According to Olmos Benlloch, López-Romero, and Daire (2017, 83–84) this is where the role of coastal managers, local authorities, volunteers and AleRT reporters became essential in alerting researchers of the erosion and damage of coastal heritage sites in the spring of 2014, which was followed by an intensive fieldwork campaign in close partnerships with local groups. After the successful implementation of the VEF grid and AleRT in Western France (Shi et al. 2012) and Northwest Iberia (Daire et al. 2012), the project’s next stage was to expand fieldwork collaboration and communicate the effects of coastal erosion on cultural heritage sites as a result of climate change (Olmos Benlloch, López-Romero, and Daire 2017, 83–85).

In 2017, AleRT (2017) announced that they intend to extend their knowledge to the islands of the Caribbean, with the aim of remobilizing the successes, experiences and tools of the AleRT project and adjust them to the regional and climatic context, specifically the islands of the archipelago of Guadeloupe and Saint-Martin (Motte et al. 2022a, par. 9). The first stage of the project, observation and data collection, involves participation from various groups, such as scientists, managers along with local residents, associations and schoolchildren. The groups participate in monitoring and reporting discoveries, which may have occurred by chance or as a result of research or field surveys. These discoveries are reported through either the ALOA app or their blog (https://aloa.blog/). On the app, users fill out a form, giving general information on the site, describing its circumstances and conditions and evaluating their vulnerability according to a criteria index grid. The grid is specifically designed for the ALOA project, integrating both potential hazards on the site but also elements of resistance for a vulnerability index. Once the form has been filled, new reports appear on the project’s interactive map and after it has been confirmed, an alert is automatically sent to the relevant authorities with the power to decide the next course of action in response (Motte et al. 2022a, par. 21).

Alongside monitoring, the project includes training workshops to raise awareness amongst different audiences and involve them in the project to enrich and diversify the network of participants likely to continue the approach in other territories. Hosted by State services and members of the project team, the modules include both a theoretical component (legislative frameworks and scientific contexts: historical, cultural, geomorphical, tools, principles and methods of the project) and a practical component (field training, observation methods and surveys). The components are easily adaptable to different types of audiences such as managers, coastguards, schools and public associations (Motte et al. 2022a, par. 23).

A third initiative of the ALOA project is the launching of an iconographic collection of photographs to document the history of the shores and how they evolved through past decades. An approach initiated within the framework of the Arch-Manche project (Satchell and Tidbury 2014) and further developed by research conducted in Northwest Iberia (López-Romero et al. 2017) and on the north coast of Brittany (Motte 2019). This initiative is aimed at individuals who may be in possession of photographs, postcards, engravings, paintings, sketches, drawings and even videos that depict the coastal environment and would be willing to share them to document the evolution of the shore. This makes it possible to create an interactive map via 3D reconstructions with digital photogrammetry from old images (see López-Romero 2014) to showcase the nature and intensity of the dynamics at play on the coast and the effect of climate change on the coastal heritage (Motte et al. 2022a, par. 22).

The Caribbean continues to lose much of its archaeological record, leading researchers to look for more medium- and long-term mitigation methods. Projects like the ALOA Project, where the community and their valuable knowledge systems of the natural environment to create monitoring programs could be the answer for monitoring and preserving Guadeloupe’s archaeological heritage. ALOA is still in its early stages, but hopefully, the successes and experiences of the AleRT project can help adapt it to a different regional context.

Results

Climate change is having a disastrous effect on the world’s archaeological heritage. However, it is also giving us an opportunity to bridge the gap between the archaeologist and the local stakeholders who are a part of the heritage they are directly or indirectly researching. Here I have presented five case studies where the community has taken an active role in safeguarding its archaeological heritage.

While comparing the data in Table 2 we can see that the Nunalleq Project is the only example to fulfill all 11 sub-components. The SCHARP case study fulfils 10 out of 11 sub-components, with the ALOA case study fulfilling 8 sub-components. These are followed by the Australian Indigenous Rangers and HMS Florida case studies, each fulfilling 6 out of 11 sub-components. The Nunalleq Project has a clear advantage over the other case studies, having been active for over a decade. The same goes for the ALOA project, where the AleRT project has been ongoing since 2007, so the ALOA project can rely heavily on the long-time established experience and network of its French counterpart.

The HMS Florida, the Australian Indigenous Rangers and ALOA case studies do not fulfill sub-components 1.1. The ALOA project blog (https://aloa.blog/) has not been updated since May 2022 and very few reports are available to the general public. In the case of HMS Florida and Australian Indigenous Rangers, it is most likely related to their limited ability to share certain information with the public, according to the laws in their respective regions (Florida Statutes, 2019; Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976, Part VII, Section 69). The laws in the US seek to prevent people from destroying important archaeological heritage and site protection by avoidance is the benchmark, where only limited excavations are allowed under permit by professionals with demonstrated qualifications and valid research questions (undefined). These laws will always remain important; however, they focus on protecting sites from human actions but leave them vulnerable to this natural crisis. The current mantra in most countries is in situ preservation, but that assumes that our resources will still be there in the future. This is why we must develop approaches to save the invaluable resources and engage the public in protecting archaeological heritage.

Two sub-components all case studies fulfill are 1.2. and 2.1. 1.2. focuses on transparency and acknowledging barriers that may arise. 2.1. emphasizes the importance of providing formal training, instilling archaeological work methods and the importance of preserving it which contributes to the project’s long-term sustainability within the community.

Sub-component 2.2. was not seen as a priority for most of the case studies, with only the Nunalleq Project and the ALOA case studies fulfilling it. The Nunalleq Project has the community’s undying support and in turn, the community has various ways to contribute to the project. Anyone can volunteer not only during the excavation itself or in the laboratory, but also by providing crucial support, such as offering researchers warm food (Knecht and Jones 2019, 30–31). The ALOA project also offer participants different ways to contribute such as creating an iconographic collection of photographs to document the history of the shores and how they have evolved through past decades, offering different members of the community a way to contribute to the knowledge of long-term processes (Motte et al. 2022a, par. 22).

Sub-component 2.3. has a way of solidifying a project within the community and ensures that archaeological heritage is integrated in future management, while also spreading awareness about the project. All the case studies fulfill the sub-component of partnering with local organizations, except for case study 4, Australian Indigenous Rangers which is understandable, considering their strict rules regarding access to site locations. Multiple local organizations have taken part in the Nunalleq Project in one way or another. Researchers received continuous support from the local village corporation and various residents, who provided crew members with transport and gear, office buildings and the community centre for housing, and the Nunalleq Culture and Archaeology Center was constructed by local builders. SCHARP made a point of partnering with multiple local charities, historical societies and administrations throughout different areas of Scotland (Hambly 2017a, 30; 2017b, 35) and HMS Florida conducted training opportunities in tandem with various local organizations in Florida, such as Guana Tolomoto Matanzas National Estuarine Reserve and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (S. E. Miller and Murray 2018, 235, 253), while the ALOA project partners with local museums, schools and the Guadeloupe National Park and Nature Reserves along with government agencies in both Guadeloupe and France (ALOA, n.d.). Community archaeology projects should aim to collaborate and reach out to as diverse local organizations as possible, to create more awareness among different community groups.

The third component category, educational resources, focuses on the researchers and the local community collaborating to ensure fully operational educational resources available to the wider public. The only case study that does not fulfill sub-component 3.1. is the ALOA project as its blog updates are infrequent and few reports are available with open access. Two case studies do not fulfill sub-component 3.2., as HMS Florida has not mentioned making any efforts to organize activities for children and because the Australian Indigenous Rangers are an organization, with rangers receiving wages as managers of natural and cultural resources (Carmichael 2018, 17–18), there are limited participation opportunities for children and might not be applicable in this context.

Three case studies fulfill sub-component 4.1., with members of the community hvaing a clear role in outreach and representing the project. The Nunalleq Project and Australian Indigenous Rangers have an advantage within this sub-component by being extremely focused, with the Nunalleq Project concentrating on a single site and the Australian Indigenous Rangers working within a specific organization. Nevertheless, those case studies could have an immense impact on the discussion of climate change and the protection of their archaeological heritage in their respective regions, illustrating the benefits of sharing control of the project with the local communities. This is where case studies like SCHARP, HMS Florida and ALOA are at a disadvantage, because their communities are more diverse and widespread than the inhabitants of Nunalleq and the Australian Indigenous Rangers. At the same time, this has also the potential to be an advantage, making the projects more adaptable, allowing for more diverse involvement and reaching more areas. Only two case studies mentioned the development of facilities where the community’s history and cultural heritage is shared and the impacts of climate change (sub-component 4.2.), with the Nunalleq Project creating the Nunalleq Culture and Archaeology Center and the Sanday Heritage Center making arrangements for the Meur Burnt Mound.

All case studies emphasize the importance of sustainability and fulfill both sub-components in the last component category. Sustainability in community archaeological projects is very difficult to accomplish. Each of the case studies have come up with creative methods to achieve this. The SCHARP, HMS Florida and ALOA case studies all rely on the public to volunteer their time, while the Nunalleq Project focuses more on reaching cultural and economic sustainability through the Nunalleq Culture and Archaeology Research Center. Nunalleq is only accessible by bush plane or boat, making it more difficult for a wider audience to reach. However, it was felt that the benefit of making it accessible to those it matters to the most was much more valuable. To make the museum more accessible to the wider public, an online exhibition was developed (https://nunalleq.org/), allowing others to explore the archaeological collection. The Culture Centre also keeps community interest alive through multiple local, regional and global outreach contexts (Hillerdal et al. 2023, 194–196).

The Australian Indigenous Rangers place more focus on policy and paperwork aspects of sustainability by choosing to give sites protective legal designation, addressing governance issues and introducing a routine risk assessment program as primary priorities during the options analysis phase of the Cultural Site Adaption Guide (Carmichael 2018, 144–147).

Discussion

As demonstrated by these case studies, there are several vital factors contributing to a successful community archaeological project combating climate change. First and foremost, if the community does not recognize the effects that climate change is having on their archaeological heritage and without a clear desire to take action, managing the impacts will prove to be extremely difficult. It is necessary to keep the community’s wishes in mind in the beginning to successfully interweave them with professional archaeological theories and approaches to avoid misunderstandings down the line.

Considering certain cultural aspects in the beginning of each community archaeology project is also a crucial point, as the Australian Indigenous Rangers case study points out in the context of knowledge sharing. During the scoping phase of Carmichael’s (2018, 149–150) Cultural Site Adaption Guide, the Australian Indigenous Rangers shared their concerns with research outputs being misused or sensitive material revealed. In the end, it was agreed that Rangers should own outputs, and in the rare instances that traditional knowledge was included in those outputs, it would only happen with the traditional owners’ consent (Carmichael 2018, 90).

As all case studies show, taking the time and effort to provide formal training is an essential part of a successful community archaeology project in the context of climate change. By teaching participants archaeological research methods, we can give a better understanding of the area’s archaeological heritage, the importance of conservation and hopefully inspire awareness regarding the community’s heritage and the project itself. This will also have a beneficial outcome for researchers, giving them opportunity build a better connection with the local community and establish long-term relationships. Conducting training programs and workshops can also be extended to other organizations within the community or organizations with whom climate change and the protection of archaeological heritage is concerned. Keeping local organizations in mind during all phases of the project can help draw attention to it, create awareness within the community and ensure that the archaeological heritage of the area is integrated into future management. Something that needs to be considered in future projects is to develop diverse options for participation. Those who wish to contribute to the protection of their archaeological heritage but may not necessarily be able to participate in surveying and monitoring, should not be discouraged. This is of course dependent on the context of each project and may not always be possible but should nevertheless be considered when constructing a community archaeological project.

Educational resources are an important aspect of each case study but should not be limited to younger generations but include resources aimed at adults as well. Organized site visits and activities can be a way to communicate the area’s local heritage but they also demonstrate the importance of having the community involved and integrated in the project. Stories and oral histories are a common method of communication in many cultures (Anderson and Birx 2010, 277–281) and therefore should be promoted, but as much focus should be placed on making resources available online for those who are interested but cannot be there in person, whether they be a member of the community, tourists or someone simply with a general interest in the area. The development and execution of these educational resources should be at least partially under the control of the community as per component category 4.

One of the most vital aspects of a community archaeology project is the question of sustainability. Making a project sustainable in the long-term allows participants to develop skills which has a deeper impact on the community and demonstrates the success of the project. A common problem when conducting a community archaeology project is the limited amount of time and funding allocated to them. Researchers must collaborate with the community to ensure long-term sustainability and the incentive of the project. This was achieved by the case studies in several ways, such as the development of facilities where the archaeological heritage is shared along with the impacts of climate change, like the Nunalleq Culture and Archaeology Center where many of the artefacts recovered are displayed for visitors. This is, however, not possible for all community archaeology projects and therefore, future projects must consider a variety of ways to ensure economic sustainability.

Another aspect to consider is the laws and regulations in each region. In Scotland, the ‘right to roam’ laws enable volunteers more freedom to monitor the country which made the SCHARP project possible. This is not the case in many countries and proposed a challenge in Florida where locations of archaeological sites are restricted from public access for fear of looting or damage (undefined). FPAN overcame this challenge by making site locations accessible after volunteers had been vetted and approved. Looting and damage are valid concerns when considering site locations being available for the public. Nevertheless, as more sites continue to be lost to the effects of climate change, revealing the locations of sites at risk to the local community is an angle that needs to be explored further.

The case studies mentioned here show what partnership between heritage professionals and local communities have managed to achieve and as climate change continues to have further impact, we will have to turn to our local communities more often for help. Here we have seen five case studies where the community has taken action to protect its archaeological heritage alongside researchers in various ways. Nonetheless, because communities are constantly changing and evolving, the methods we use to collaborate with them in preserving their archaeological heritage must also be constantly reassessed and redesigned.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).