See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320014316

Biodiversity in World Heritage Cultural Landscapes: Possibilities and Problems

for Communicating Climate Change and Mobilizing Mitigation

Article · December 2017

DOI: 10.1111/cuag.12094

CITATIONS READS

4 462

1 author:

Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels

University of Maryland, College Park
30 PUBLICATIONS   348 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Heritage Landscapes and Vinicultural Agrobiodiversity under Climate Change View project

Carbon Footprints and Carbon Management of World Heritage View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels on 27 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biodiversity in World Heritage Cultural
Landscapes: Possibilities and Problems for
Communicating Climate Change and Mobilizing
Mitigation
Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels
Abstract
When biodiversity is recognized not simply as a natural
quality but as a cultural concept and product, it highlights
human agency in fostering and promoting biodiversity.
Mobilizing human agency becomes particularly important
in the face of significant threats to biodiversity, such as those
posed by global climate change. UNESCO World Heritage
Sites offer an ideal platform for communicating global con-
servation challenges like climate change, and therefore for
mobilizing social action for climate change mitigation. The
World Heritage category of cultural landscapes is particu-
larly well suited to presenting biodiversity as a joint
natural-cultural product, and likewise demonstrating both
the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the social
possibilities for climate action. [biodiversity, cultural her-
itage, World Heritage, cultural landscapes, climate
change, mitigation]
Although varying definitions of biodiversity
abound, biodiversity can be understood structurally as
assemblages of elements—whether at the level of
genes, species, or ecosystems—presenting unique con-
figurations whose value derives from their holistic
combination, in which the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts (Norton 1986; Gaston 1996; Takacs
1996; Wilson 1992). Humans, as one species, one gen-
ome, among others, constitute these assemblages too,
so that cultural practices shape biodiversity. Broadly
speaking, human impacts on biodiversity have been
profoundly detrimental, for example in ushering in a
sixth great extinction event (Kolbert 2014; Novacek
Kathryn Lafrenz Samuels is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at
the University of Maryland. Her work combines ethnographic and
archaeological methods to examine the transnational sociopolitical
contexts of cultural heritage and heritage management.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment Vol. 39, Issue 2, pp. 116–126, ISSN 2153-9553, eISSN 2153-9561. © 2017 by the American Anthropological
Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/cuag.12094
2007; Wake and Vredenburg 2008). However, sustain-
able cultural practices also have the capacity to foster
biodiversity, and global climate change threatens these
relationships as well, exacerbating the negative impacts
of global climate change. Therefore, safeguarding sus-
tainable practices that support biodiversity can help
mitigate the worst effects of global climate change on
biodiversity. Moreover, highlighting these practices
through public engagement could also inspire broader
mitigation of the drivers of climate change.
In the following, I discuss several cases of biodiver-
sity under threat from global climate change that are
associated with significant heritage sites, and examine
the potential for such sites to aid in climate communi-
cation and to mobilize social change for climate
mitigation. I focus on heritage practices associated with
designated heritage properties inscribed to the
UNESCO World Heritage List, specifically those
inscribed as “cultural landscapes.” UNESCO World
Heritage cultural landscapes, and the safeguarding
and care surrounding these heritage resources, make
for particularly well-documented and public examples
of biodiversity supported by sustainable cultural
practices.
The intersections between cultural heritage and cli-
mate change is an increasingly energetic field of
research, concentrating especially on archaeological
examples of climate adaptation and environmental sus-
tainability in the past (e.g., Anderson, Maasch, and
Sandweiss 2013; Contreras 2017; Crumley 2013; Van de
Noort 2013), the role of cultural heritage and tradi-
tional knowledge in climate adaptation and resilience
(e.g., Harvey and Perry 2015; Williams and Hardison
2013), and the impacts of climate change on the mate-
rial fabric and intangible elements of heritage resources
(e.g., Cassar 2005; Colette 2007, 2009; Kim 2011; Mark-
ham et al. 2016; Sabbioni, Brimblecombe, and Cassar
2012). Less examined is the potential for cultural
heritage in climate change communication and mitiga-
tion. As I have argued in previous work (Lafrenz
Samuels 2016), cultural heritage resources are an
underutilized tool for communicating the need to
reduce the drivers of climate change, for the purpose of
mobilizing social change for climate mitigation.
Using a comparative and international framework,
my purpose here is to highlight those cases of biodiver-
sity in World Heritage cultural landscapes that offer
the greatest potential for raising public awareness
about the impacts of climate change on biodiversity,
and for coordinating social action around climate
change mitigation. I organize my discussion around
the three categories of cultural landscapes recognized
by UNESCO World Heritage. The category of “organi-
cally evolved landscapes” typically encompasses
agrarian landscapes and includes a number of vine-
yards and popular wine regions that I suggest offer the
potential to broadcast the impacts of climate change by
highlighting threats posed to a food commodity
beloved by many. With respect to the category of “as-
sociative cultural landscapes,” I argue that the spiritual
dimensions of many cultural landscapes lend persua-
sive narratives about global climate change as a
fundamentally moral and ethical issue. Finally, I
address the limits of the World Heritage framework for
mobilizing cases of biodiversity for climate communi-
cation by examining the case of a failed site nomination
that was proposed for the category of “landscapes
designed and created intentionally.” Overall, this com-
parative survey and analysis draws on the available
site documentation for individual World Heritage Sites
(WHS) inscribed as cultural landscapes (available at
whc.unesco.org) and supporting scholarly literature.
Focusing on biodiversity practices in WHS offers
an ideal platform for considering the capacity of her-
itage resources to inspire climate mitigation, due to the
widespread appeal and public recognition of World
Heritage as a “brand” for global conservation. WHS
are inscribed to the World Heritage List due to their
“outstanding universal value” (OUV). OUV is defined
under ten different criteria, but can be loosely summa-
rized as follows:
. . .outstanding means that in comparison with the
generally documented cultural heritage they
belong to the very best or are “representative of the
best”. . . Universal means that these outstanding
values [identified through the criteria] can be
acknowledged as such in general and worldwide.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
It also means that not only a region or a country
looks after the protection of this heritage, but that
instead. . . “mankind as a whole” feels responsible
for its protection and conservation (Petzet 2008, 8).
While the universal assumptions of OUV under-
standably render it a problematic concept, its
universalizing ambitions do have the everyday effects
of attracting a great deal of heritage management fund-
ing and attention, as well as tourism revenue and press
interest in the public sphere.
The World Heritage designation, then, invokes
a heritage resource of international import, whose
conservation is of widespread concern, requiring
international responses. The “brand” character of
World Heritage is thus important in offering a plat-
form for promoting the cultural constitution of
biodiversity and, taken as such, the agentic possibil-
ities for mobilizing social action around climate
mitigation in order to reduce the impacts of climate
change on biodiversity. Put another way, highlight-
ing biodiversity as culturally constituted positions
its safeguarding as more doable and necessary,
where the human-nature relationship is not simply
adversarial (if focusing on the detrimental effects of
human activities alone), but can also be productive
and vital. In sum, the World Heritage designation
of cultural landscapes is especially well suited to
communicating biodiversity as a joint natural-cul-
tural product.
Cultural Landscapes
The 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the
Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Her-
itage established the World Heritage framework.
Within the context of international conservation
instruments, it was an innovative tool for combining
the conservation of natural and cultural properties
under a single umbrella, so as to draw together more
closely the shared cultural and natural character that
distinguished the properties and conservation pro-
cess. However, the new categories of “cultural
heritage” and “natural heritage” remained function-
ally separate under the operating mechanisms of the
1972 Convention, and it took until the 1990s for the
category of “cultural landscapes” to forge a more per-
fect union between the two. The Operational
Guidelines for the World Heritage Convention define
cultural landscapes as
117 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
 represent[ing] the “combined works of nature and
man” designated in Article 1 of the Convention.
They are illustrative of the evolution of human
society and settlement over time, under the influ-
ence of the physical constraints and/or
opportunities presented by their natural environ-
ment and of successive social, economic and
cultural forces, both external and internal
(UNESCO 2015, 11).
In 1992, the interaction between people and the
environment as the “combined works of nature and
man” was further refined by the World Heritage Com-
mittee through the recognition of three categories of
cultural landscapes: (1) clearly defined landscapes
designed and created intentionally by humans; (2)
organically evolved landscapes; and (3) associative cul-
tural landscapes.
As of 2017, there have been 103 sites inscribed
to the World Heritage List as cultural landscapes
(UNESCO 2017). The first category of landscapes
designed and created intentionally by humans has typi-
cally included planned gardens and parks such as
at Versailles (France) and the Kew Gardens (UK),
but also includes large landscapes. The second cate-
gory of organically evolved landscapes highlights the
long-term evolution of societal needs in concert with
the natural environment, whether as a relict land-
scape whose distinguishing features are still evident
in the landscape, or as a continuing landscape with
an active role in contemporary society (UNESCO
[United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization] 2015, 71). Organically evolved land-
scapes have been well represented by agricultural
landscapes such as, for example, the iconic Rice Ter-
races of the Philippine Cordilleras. The final
category, associative cultural landscapes, tends to
address the intangible—especially religious or spiri-
tual—elements of cultural landscapes, and has been
mobilized especially for recognizing indigenous
heritage.
Overall, the category of cultural landscapes is a
growing phenomenon and priority for World Heritage.
Over the past seven years (2011–2017), there have been
35 cultural landscapes inscribed to the List, accounting
for 21% of new inscriptions. Cultural landscapes are
currently the most suitable and practical designation
for sites where biodiversity conservation is a priority,
especially when approaching biodiversity as a joint
natural and cultural product.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Organically Evolved Landscapes: Agrobiodiversity
and Climate Change
By a wide margin, the most common type of cul-
tural landscape inscribed to the List is organically
evolved landscapes, either as relict or continuing land-
scapes. One of the most important rationales for
needing the cultural landscape category was to recog-
nize and conserve the joint natural and cultural
character of agrarian landscapes, which were areas that
had previously fallen through the cracks of the cate-
gories considered under the nomination process
(Cameron 2015; R€ ossler 2006a, 2015). Previously land-
scapes, if nominated, were considered under natural
heritage, and were large “wilderness” properties simi-
lar to the national parks model of the United States.
Cultural heritage properties, meanwhile, were rarely
conceived as broad spatial expanses, not least for the
perceived management difficulties of larger properties.
At the same time, beyond World Heritage, there was
an increasing awareness of the need for conservation
efforts for agricultural heritage (Mitchell and Barrett
2015). Agrarian cultural landscapes under World Her-
itage make for an obvious institutional channel for the
designation and protection of agrobiodiversity, and
this is coming at a time when climate change will place
increased pressures on the site-based specificities of
important crops and the agrarian heritage practices
associated with them.
World Heritage organically evolved landscapes are
devoted to a number of important agricultural tradi-
tions, including rice, coffee, tobacco, and agave; the
early domestication of squash, maize, banana, taro,
and yam; and fishing and pastoralism practices. By far,
the best-represented agrarian landscapes on the World
Heritage List, with nine total, are vineyard landscapes,
all of which are located in Europe (Austria, France,
Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and Switzerland; see
Table 1). As such, vineyard landscapes are a particu-
larly important and emerging block of sites not only
within the category of organically evolved landscapes,
but also for cultural landscapes generally. France had
two vineyard cultural landscapes inscribed in 2015
alone. Additionally, four more cultural landscapes
include vineyards as part of the agricultural mix (in
Austria/Hungary, Germany, Italy, and Hungary), and
two involve vineyards as an historic component of a
relict landscape (in Palestine and Ukraine). There are
also five vineyard landscapes in preparation for nomi-
nation to the World Heritage List, in Spain, Italy,
118 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
Table 1.
Vineyard Cultural Landscape Sites Inscribed to the World Heritage List (compiled from whc.unesco.org/en/list)
World heritage site
1 Jurisdiction of Saint-Emilion
2 Wachau Cultural Landscape
3 Alto Douro Wine Region
4 Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape
5 Landscape of the Pico Island Vineyard Culture
6 Lavaux, Vineyard Terraces
7 Vineyard Landscape of Piedmont: Langhe-Roero and Monferrato
8 Champagne Hillsides, Houses, and Cellars
9 Climats, Terroirs of Burgundy
Croatia, and South Africa. An element of competition
fuels these nomination; for example, not to be outdone
by French champagne, Italy is pursuing a nomination
for the site “The Prosecco Hills of Conegliano and
Valdobbiadene.”
In vineyard landscapes several trends converge.
The increasing use of cultural landscape designations
as an instrument for biodiversity protection dovetails
well with highlighting the impacts of global climate
change to viniculture agrobiodiversity. This is because
wine grapes are particularly vulnerable to climatic
change, and offer a “canary in the coal mine” situation
for the threats of climate change to biodiversity (Han-
nah et al. 2013). Therefore, the conservation of
vineyard landscapes, as sources of an important her-
itage crop beloved by many, potentially brings greater
public and political attention to the need for mitigation
(not simply adaptation). The wine industry in Europe
is expected to be hit particularly hard compared to
other wine regions in the world (Bernetti et al. 2012;
Fraga et al. 2012; Jones and Alves 2012). Grapes in
France are harvested two weeks earlier than they were
500 years ago (Cook and Wolkovich 2016). The suit-
ability of cultivation for present grape varietals is
expected to shift to higher latitudes and altitudes
(Fraga et al. 2013; Moriondo et al. 2013), a change that
strikes a blow at the heart of the concept of terroir—a
concept specifically important to the European wine-
making tradition—that encompasses all the local envi-
ronmental conditions and elements that affect the
quality of grapes, including rainfall, temperature, and
soil conditions (Seguin and Garcia de Cortazar 2005;
Whalen 2010).
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Country Year of inscription
France 1999
Austria 2000
Portugal 2001
Hungary 2002
Portugal 2004
Switzerland 2007
Italy 2014
France 2015
France 2015
Associative Cultural Landscapes: The Moral
Dimension of Climate Change
Another category of World Heritage cultural land-
scapes is associative cultural landscapes, which tends
to recognize the intangible and spiritual elements
of cultural landscapes. With global climate change
increasingly recognized as a fundamentally moral and
ethical issue (Broome 2012; Caney 2006; Gardiner 2011;
Singer 2006), such sites are well suited to highlighting
the moral dimensions of climate change. The WHS of
Ouadi Qadisha (the “Holy Valley”) and the Forest of
the Cedars of God (Horsh Arz el-Rab) in northern
Lebanon provides an excellent example of the spiritual
and moral dimensions of associative cultural land-
scapes: as places where communities have woven
sacredness into the fabric of their natural and built
environment, and as heritage sites where these quali-
ties might be leveraged for mobilizing climate change
mitigation as a fundamentally moral issue and ethical
responsibility.
This cultural landscape knits together Early Chris-
tian monasteries and a heritage of eremitism, as well as
sacred cedars, soaring rocky cliffs, caves, and terraced
fields, and has been highlighted as one of the WHS
where biodiversity is most at risk (Markham et al.
2016). Those who visited or resided in the many
monasteries and hermitages of the Qadisha valley—
some of which date back to the early years of Christian-
ity—sought commune with God within a remote and
rugged landscape with networks of natural caves shel-
tering to the spiritual needs of hermits.
119 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
 Unfortunately, this fabric is also unraveling as the
impacts of climate change threaten the communal
livelihoods and ecological systems that compose Ouadi
Qadisha. The current climate crisis is made most visi-
ble in the sacred Lebanon cedars of the Qadisha valley,
diminished to a small remnant stand of approximately
two hectares, the Forest of the Cedars of God (Horsh
Arz el-Rab), which contains the oldest and largest
cedars known (Beals 1965). Of the approximately 375
trees comprising the remnant stand, two are claimed to
be over 3000 years old, and ten over 1000 years (ICO-
MOS 1997), although the number of trees older than
1500 years may be as few as four (Shackley 2004).
The sacredness of the Lebanon cedar (Cedrus libani,
A. Rich) extends from antiquity to today, carrying a
spiritual value through the millennia (Clark 2011; Hyn-
dman-Rizk 2012; Moukarzel 2001). Importantly, the
spiritual value of Lebanon cedars foregrounds global
climate change as a moral issue, with imperatives for
mitigating the worst risks and effects of climate change,
and for tending well to the gifts of God and passing
them on to future generations. Psalm 104:16 reads
“God planted them, and it is He who waters them,”
and Lebanon cedars are mentioned another 102 times
in the Old and New Testaments comprising the Bible.
The First and Second Temples in Jerusalem were built
of Lebanon cedar. Indeed, the spiritual importance of
cedar trees in the Qadisha valley can be understood as
extending beyond their forest communities, their
sacredness distributed throughout the Levant in the
building of other temples and sanctuaries (Colette
2009; Loffet 2004).
Lebanon cedars have been sought after for 5000
years (Khuri et al. 2000). They were famed throughout
the Mediterranean for their strength, durability, and
pleasant aroma, especially in shipbuilding, being syn-
onymous with the great seafaring ambitions of the
Phoenicians (Meiggs 1998). Cedar was so prized as a
building material that the great cedar forests of Leba-
non were disappearing by the sixth century AD,
according to historical sources from the time of Jus-
tinian (Mikesell 1969). The ongoing deforestation and
land use conversion over the centuries have long been
the greatest threat to the Lebanon cedar, causing its
numbers to continue declining to approximately 5 per-
cent of its estimated ancient range in Lebanon (Davis
and Heywood 1994; Khuri et al. 2000). Deforestation
will continue to threaten further decline, now with the
added stressors of climate change exacerbating this
trend.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Predictions for the responses of Lebanon cedars to
climate change are based on genetic analysis and pale-
obotanical (pollen) studies illuminating previous
periods of major climate change (Fady et al. 2008;
Hajar et al. 2010a,b; Jeffers and Willis 2014). Based on
these studies, climate change is projected to reduce
C. libani populations to only three refugial zones by
2100, due to the increased warming and water stress
that is forecasted for the Mediterranean region (Hajar
et al. 2010a). There are currently 12–15 C. libani forests
in Lebanon—situated at 1100–1925 masl on the west-
ern slopes of the Mount Lebanon range, with more
than half occupying an area of less than 1 km2 each—
and they are zones of high biodiversity, sheltering
endemic and threatened species (Hajar et al. 2010a;
Khuri et al. 2000; Ministry of Environment 2015;
Talhouk, Zurayk, and Khuri 2001a). The Lebanon
cedar is itself listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List
(Gardner 2013).
While plant communities have the ability to adapt
to climate change by “migrating” to higher altitudes
(through seed dispersal and gradual replacement),
most of the C. libani forests in Lebanon are already iso-
lated on or near mountain summits, with nowhere
further upslope for these populations to migrate. The
Arz el-Rab stand in the Qadisha valley is an exception,
being one of the three C. libani forests with higher alti-
tude zones accessible for expansion, which makes their
protection all the more urgent (Hajar et al. 2010a). The
cedars of Ouadi Qadisha therefore exemplify the
importance of conserving refugial populations, given
the vulnerabilities and loss of resilience that plant com-
munities face with increasing fragmentation.
Moreover, this process entrains cultural impacts,
threatening the sacredness of the cedars and therefore
bringing on declining conditions of integrity for the site
as a cultural landscape (R€ ossler 2006b). Overall, the
bioclimatic zone of the Arz el-Rab forest is expected to
change from oro-mediterranean to pre-humid, which
will affect its spatial distribution, species composition,
and community structure (Colette 2009, 76–77). Insect
and moth attack, fueled by increasing aridity, are
affecting the cedar forests in Tannourine and Shouf,
and threatening to spread to the Arz el-Rab sacred
cedars (Sattout and Nemer 2008; Talhouk, Zurayk, and
Khuri 2001a).
The Lebanon cedar is an emblematic species,
emblazoned on the flag, currency, and stamps of Leba-
non (Hall, James, and Baird 2011; Talhouk et al.
2001b). C. libani moreover can be understood as a
120 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
cultural keystone species, being essential to cultural
lifeways and religious practices (Al Zein et al. 2005;
Cristancho and Vining 2004; Sattout, Talhouk, and
Caligari 2007). The Lebanon cedar has also become a
symbol of environmental degradation in Lebanon
(Khuri et al. 2000), its iconic value raising in sharp
relief the processes of anthropogenic deterioration
through deforestation, as well as the impacts of climate
change on the sacredness of human entanglements
with the natural environment (Heyd 2014). The endur-
ing spiritual connectivities binding Christian faiths of
the Qadisha valley into multispecies communities with
the sacred Lebanon cedars of the Arz el-Rab forest sub-
mit a moral challenge for the proactive mitigation of
climate change.
Landscapes Designed and Created Intentionally:
The Scientific Heritage of the “Biodiversity”
Concept
The third category of WHS cultural landscapes is
clearly defined landscapes designed and created intentionally
by humans. Within this category, many sites are fine
gardens in association with grand estates or cultural
monuments, where biodiversity may have been pur-
posefully tended. However, the most vivid
manifestations of biodiversity intentionally shaped
through cultural interventions may be found in botani-
cal garden WHS, such as Kew Gardens in the UK. As a
result, such sites might prove useful in communicating
the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the
urgency for mitigating climate change to protect this
biodiversity.
However, a failed site nomination to the World
Heritage List—for a site that had great potential for
representing the concept of biodiversity as a cultural
product—demonstrates the limits of the World Her-
itage framework as a vehicle for biodiversity
conservation and climate communication. The resis-
tance to this site’s inscription as a WHS reveals that
changes are needed to how the UNESCO World Her-
itage Centre and its advisory bodies understand and
approach biodiversity, if their capacity for communi-
cating climate change and mobilizing mitigation
measures is to be realized. In part, the resistance might
be due to a reluctance on the part of UNESCO and its
advisory bodies to see scientific practice as a cultural
practice, which unfortunately reifies science as some-
how “above” or transcending culture. This creates
stumbling blocks to understanding the biodiversity
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
concept as bound up within scientific cultures, with a
heritage in its own right.
The nominated site of “Darwin’s Landscape Labo-
ratory” was proposed by the United Kingdom and was
most recently “not recommended” for inscription to
the World Heritage List in 2010 (UNESCO 2010, 26).
The reasons are various and not entirely coherent,
indicative of the struggle between older conceptions of
cultural heritage and newer ones being championed
through the cultural landscape categories. The site is
set around Charles Darwin’s estate of Down House,
where he lived and worked for 40 years (1842–1882).
The nominated property is approximately 7 km2 and
includes Down House, his experimental gardens, the
village of Downe, and parts of the Downe and Cud-
ham valleys (ICOMOS 2010). Darwin chose to live in
Downe because of the biological and ecological diver-
sity within its farmed and semi-natural landscapes,
and the biological diversity on the nominated property
remains much the same as in Darwin’s time (IUCN
2010, 179).
One of the objections to inscribing the site to the
World Heritage List is that there is already another
WHS associated with Darwin’s work, the Gal apagos
Islands in Ecuador (ICOMOS 2010). Yet, critically for
the legacy of Darwin’s work, the Galapagos were not
the site of Darwin’s important work on evolution, nor
were they as much of an inspiration for his work as
previously assumed, since it was not until many years
later that Darwin went back to the now famous finches
to analyze them in light of his theory, which was
already well worked out (Sulloway 1982, 2009). The
major intellectual and scientific work happened at
Down House, which is why the nomination is pre-
sented as a laboratory landscape. The assertion that the
Galapagos Islands WHS is already associated with his
work is based on outdated understandings of his
research process and highlights the dangers of “fos-
silizing” the interpretation of heritage to the time when
the Galapagos Islands WHS was established, in 1978.
Moreover, the original evaluation of the Gal apagos
Islands WHS nomination makes only passing reference
to Darwin, and his work is not given much coverage in
public presentations at the site.
Further, another primary objection to inscribing
Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory as a WHS implicates
the nature of scientific practice, and by extension the
biodiversity concept. Instead of exploring the mechan-
ics of the biodiversity concept as a cultural lens with
which to “see” the world, biodiversity is represented in
121 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
this decision as an objective reality that exists “out
there” in the landscape. The landscape therefore is a
“study object” that is passively observed by a scientist:
“. . .the nominated property is not the result of Dar-
win’s theory or discoveries, but is instead a study
object. . . the landscape cannot be said to be a manifes-
tations [sic] of Darwin’s ideas, as he only observed the
landscape rather than modifying it” (ICOMOS 2010,
280), and further, “. . . the landscape cannot be said to
convey in a meaningful way Darwin’s theory of evolu-
tion. The link between the landscape and the theory is
in observation, rather than intervention” (ICOMOS
2010, 281). These statements make clear the signifi-
cance that observation is understood to hold for the
scientific process, yet presents observation as an
entirely passive activity. The landscape as “study
object” is disconnected from the scientific viewer,
whose ideas and ways of seeing and understanding
the landscape have no impact on it.
Further, the determination that the landscape did
not “convey in a meaningful way” Darwin’s theories,
nor was a manifestation of them, posits a particularly
stringent and fanciful separation between natural and
human realms, one moreover that significantly misrep-
resents his work. One of Darwin’s most famous
paragraphs, the last paragraph in the final edition of
On the Origin of Species that asserts “There is grandeur
in this view of life. . .,” begins with the sentence “It is
interesting to contemplate an entangled bank. . .” and
goes on to discuss the complex interrelationships of the
different life forms “so different from each other, and
dependent on each other” (Darwin 1859, 489) that
existed therein. The hedge to which Darwin refers—
which was likely a hedge that forms a prominent fea-
ture of the agricultural landscape on the walks he
would take around his property (Keynes 2001)—can be
taken as one of the most important encapsulations of
his work, his contemplation of the hedge entangling
with its ecosystem. As Paul Lane observes, “the hedge-
rows around Down House and their species
composition also have their own entangled human his-
tories, shaped most obviously by management
practices but also a variety of locally, regionally, and
nationally specific sociocultural and economic factors”
(Lane 2016, 142, emphasis in original).
Finally, the passive nature of scientific observation
assumed for the site is moreover wrapped up in
ongoing conceptual difficulties that UNESCO World
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Heritage has with tangible versus intangible heritage.
Outside of UNESCO and its heritage conventions, most
heritage scholars and practitioners understand all cul-
tural heritage to be composed of both material and
immaterial elements simultaneously (Munjeri 2004;
Smith and Akagawa 2009). It is a relic of UNESCO’s
privileging of material heritage that the 2003 Conven-
tion for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage was adopted as a corrective, but with the end
result that tangible and intangible heritage remain
administratively separate in UNESCO. Thus, the focus
on observation as a rationale for not inscribing Dar-
win’s Landscape Laboratory site was in part because
observation is considered to leave no tangible marks,
and scientific WHS must “express in their materiality
the results of scientific and technological work”
(ICOMOS 2010, 277, see also UNESCO 2008). The
“associative” properties of cultural landscapes do pro-
vide a means for recognizing the intangible realm of
cultural landscapes, but these are in practice reserved
for spiritual or religious associations, as, for example,
with the Ouadi Qadisha WHS. Therefore, according to
UNESCO’s framework, a spiritual observer may legiti-
mately impress intangible elements onto a landscape,
but a scientific observer may not. The implication,
again, is that the scientific observer is merely taking in
an objective reality and, in this case, biodiversity is the
objective reality that Darwin “discovered,” rather than
Darwin playing an active role—entangling with the
hedges—in shaping biodiversity as a concept, as a cul-
tural lens with which to see and understand the world.
In sum, the failed nomination for the Darwin’s
Landscape Laboratory site presents a missed opportu-
nity for straightforwardly honoring the significance of
the biodiversity concept to UNESCO World Heritage,
its remit of fostering global conservation, and its poten-
tial for encouraging climate mitigation. Instead, World
Heritage is handicapping its own conservation efforts
by presenting biodiversity as a passive quality of the
landscape, rather than culturally constituted. This is
despite the intention behind the cultural landscape des-
ignation being to break down the nature/culture
binary and honor heritage occupying both realms. An
attentive accounting of the heritage of biodiversity
itself, as a thoroughly cultural concept and practice
borne in a rich history of scientific inquiry, would bring
added value to the World Heritage brand for promot-
ing biodiversity in the face of global climate change.
122 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017

Conclusion
The cultural landscape designation is the category
of World Heritage Sites best suited to foregrounding
the impacts of climate change to biodiversity, particu-
larly when biodiversity is understood as constituted
through cultural practice. My aim in the preceding dis-
cussion has been to raise in sharp relief the capacity of
cultural landscapes under the World Heritage designa-
tion to promote biodiversity through cultural heritage,
and therefore to provide leverage for social action on
climate change mitigation. Looking at the three cate-
gories of cultural landscapes, I highlighted important
cases that could be mobilized for climate communica-
tion and awareness-raising: (1) viniculture landscapes
that produce an important agricultural product now
under threat from climate change; (2) the intangible
spiritual properties of associative landscapes such as
Ouadi Qadisha that highlight the ethical and moral
dimensions of climate change; and (3) a site that could
communicate the scientific heritage of biodiversity
itself, as a reflexive accounting of the joined natural-
cultural relationships that compose biodiversity, but
thus far has been unable to attain World Heritage
designation.
The global status and well-known recognition of
World Heritage offer an ideal platform for communi-
cating climate change. Many WHS experience a stream
of tourists, and indeed WHS designation is often
sought precisely for its ability to attract more global
recognition and visitors. Increased communication
about climate change should be pursued further by
individual sites, for example through site signage, exhi-
bits, demonstrations, programs, tours, and heritage
trails linking sites. It also must be taken into account
that tourism is a major contributor to greenhouse gas
emissions (G€ ossling 2010; Hall, Scott, and G€ ossling
2013; Hall 2016; Scott, Michael Hall, and G€ ossling
2012). The heritage tourism industry will need to start
implementing and prioritizing climate mitigation mea-
sures, and individual sites should communicate the
climate impacts of tourism to site visitors.
Further, climate education and communication
should be advanced through more programmatic ini-
tiatives by the World Heritage Centre, whose
responses to climate change thus far have been fairly
narrow and limited, focused on the impacts of climate
change on heritage resources and localized adaptation
measures. Moreover, while the category of cultural
landscapes was innovative for recognizing the joint
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
cultural-natural character of some heritage resources,
as discussed above, the conceptual thinking behind this
category remains inconsistently applied, having not
been fully carried over to the evaluation process. The
Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory decision also reveals
the dangers of the categorical organization of heritage
sites, when what is intended as a pragmatic sorting for
management purposes forms rigid conceptual barriers,
for example in the continuing administrative separa-
tion of tangible and intangible heritage, and in
associative characteristics being the province of spiri-
tual but not scientific heritage elements. I highlighted
the case of the Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory nomi-
nation and decision in order to call attention to the real
challenges involved in the World Heritage framework
for positioning biodiversity as culturally constituted. A
more flexible approach to evaluating nominations and
managing WHS that allows and even encourages
crossing World Heritage categories—which are organi-
zational artifacts of the evolution of World Heritage
and not inherently necessary—would go some way in
breaking down the conceptual divisions between natu-
ral and cultural heritage.
Mobilizing cultural heritage for climate mitigation
would also benefit from measures that link individual
sites together in ways that coordinate and move for-
ward on regional or topical responses to climate
change. So much of current engagement with climate
change remains site-based, focused primarily on local-
ized impacts and adaptation measures (Quirico 2012).
Mitigation, if involved at all, is dealt with only in a
very limited way and circumscribed to the site. More
cooperation is needed among sites for broad-based mit-
igation efforts, and the World Heritage Centre also
needs to take a stronger lead on broad-based mitiga-
tion. The cultural landscape category was intended to
move World Heritage beyond such site-based silo-
building.
Biodiversity is a term born from the emergence in
the 1980s of conservation biology as a scientific field in
the United States, for which defining and establishing
reserves and protected areas was the primary concern
(Sarkar 2005, 2007). In terms of reserves, WHS are some
of the most iconic sites and carry a global branding for
conservation, and are therefore useful for raising
awareness about the global dimensions of climate
change and its specific place-based impacts. The “is-
land mentality” of setting aside reserves as the primary
means to protect biodiversity has been a subject of hot
debate in conservation biology through the years, and
123 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
 it remains to be seen how the World Heritage designa-
tion may evolve to meet the needs and challenges of
biodiversity conservation in a changing world. Cul-
tural landscapes offer an important step forward, not
only in the spatial rethinking of cultural sites, but also
in joining natural and cultural relationships under one
heritage management instrument. In the future, trans-
border and serial nominations may also point the way
forward for additional innovations in adaptive man-
agement of biodiversity within UNESCO World
Heritage. The multiple vineyard landscape WHS
would benefit from such an approach, as would the
Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory nomination in linking
to his work in the Gal apagos and the Joggins Fossil
Cliffs in Canada.
References
Al Zein, Mohammed, Lytton John Musselman, T. Robert Sampson,
and Kushan Tennakoon. 2005. “Cultural and Religious Keystone
Species: The Need to Resacralize Nature, ” accessed September 28,
2017, http://ww2.odu.edu/~lmusselm/plant/bible/AleppoApril
2005.pdf
Anderson, David G., Kirk A. Maasch, and Daniel H. Sandweiss. 2013.
“Climate Change and Cultural Dynamics: Lessons from the Past
for the Future”. In Humans and the Environment: New Archaeological
Perspectives for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Matthew I. J.
Davies and Freda N. M’Mbogori, 243–56. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Beals, E.W. 1965. “The Remnant Cedar Forests of Lebanon.” Journal of
Ecology 53: 679–94.
Bernetti, Iacopo, Silvio Menghini, Nicola Marinelli, Sandro Sacchelli,
and Veronica A. Sottini. 2012. “Assessment of Climate Change
Impact on Viticulture: Economic Evaluations and Adaptation
Strategies Analysis for the Tuscan Wine Sector.” Wine Economics
and Policy 1: 73–86.
Broome, John. 2012. Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World. New
York: WW Norton.
Cameron, Christina. 2015. ““Entre chien et loup”: World Heritage
Cultural Landscapes on the Fortieth Anniversary of the World
Heritage Convention.” In Conserving Cultural Landscapes:
Challenges and New Directions, edited by Ken Taylor, Archer St.
Clair and Nora J. Mitchell, 61–74. New York/Abingdon:
Routledge.
Caney, Simon. 2006. “Environmental Degradation, Reparations, and
the Moral Significance of History.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37:
464–82.
Cassar, May. 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment.
London: University College London Centre for Sustainable
Heritage.
Clark, William A. 2011. “Clarifying the Spiritual Value of Forests and
their Role in Sustainable Forest Management.” Journal for the Study
of Religion, Nature and Culture 5: 18–38.
Colette, Augustin, ed. 2007. Climate Change and World Heritage. World
Heritage Reports No. 22. Paris: UNESCO.
- . 2009. Case Studies on Climate Change and World Heritage. Paris:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
Contreras, Daniel, ed. 2017. The Archaeology of Human-Environment
Interactions: Strategies for Investigating Anthropogenic Landscapes,
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Dynamic Environments, and Climate Change in the Human Past. New
York: Routledge.
Cook, Benjamin I., and Elizabeth M. Wolkovich. 2016. “Climate
Change Decouples Drought from Early Wine Grape Harvests in
France.” Nature Climate Change 6: 715–19.
Cristancho, Sergio, and Joanne Vining. 2004. “Culturally Defined
Keystone Species.” Human Ecology Review 11: 153–64.
Crumley, Carole L. 2013. “The Archaeology of Global Environmental
Change.” In Humans and the Environment: New Archaeological
Perspectives for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Matthew I. J.
Davies and Freda N. M’Mbogori, 269–76. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Darwin, Charles R. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
London: John Murray.
Davis, Stephen D., and Vernon H. Heywood. 1994. Centres of Plant
Diversity: A Guide and Strategy for their Conservation, Volume 1:
Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East. Cambridge:
WWF and IUCN.
Fady, B., F. Lefevre, G.G. Vendramin, A. Ambert, C. Regnier, and M.
Bariteau. 2008. “Genetic Consequences of Past Climate and
Human Impact on Eastern Mediterranean Cedrus libani Forests:
Implications for Their Conservation.” Conservation Genetics 9: 85–95.
Fraga, Helder, Aureliano C. Malheiro, Jose Moutinho-Pereira, and
Jo~ao A. Santos. 2012. “An Overview of Climate Change Impacts on
European Viticulture.” Food and Energy Security 1: 94–110.
- . 2013. “Future Scenarios for Viticultural Zoning in Europe:
Ensemble Projections and Uncertainties.” International Journal of
Biometeorology 57: 909–25.
Gardiner, Stephen M. 2011. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy
of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gardner, M. 2013. Cedrus libani var. libani. The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2013: T42305A2970821, accessed September
28, 2017, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42305/0
Gaston, Kevin J., ed. 1996. Biodiversity: A Biology of Numbers and
Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.
G€ossling, Stefan. 2010. Carbon Management in Tourism: Mitigating the
Impacts on Climate Change. London: Routledge.
Hajar, Lara, Louis Francßois, Carla Khater, Ihab Jomaa, Michel Deque,
and Rachid Cheddadi. 2010a. “Cedrus libani (A. Rich) Distribution
in Lebanon: Past, Present and Future.” Comptes Rendus Biologies
333: 622–30.
Hajar, Lara, Maya Ha€ıdar-Boustani, Carla Khater, and Rachid
Cheddadi. 2010b. “Environmental Changes in Lebanon during the
Holocene: Man vs. Climate Impacts.” Journal of Arid Environments
74: 746–55.
Hall, C. Michael. 2016. “Heritage, Heritage Tourism and Climate
Change.” Journal of Heritage Tourism 11: 1–9.
Hall, C. Michael, Michael James, and Tim Baird. 2011. “Forests and
Trees as Charismatic Mega-flora: Implications for Heritage
Tourism and Conservation.” Journal of Heritage Tourism 6: 309–23.
Hall, C. Michael, Daniel Scott, and Stefan G€ ossling. 2013. “The
Primacy of Climate Change for Sustainable International
Tourism.” Sustainable Development 21: 112–21.
Hannah, Lee, Patrick R. Roehrdanz, Makihiko Ikegami, Anderson V.
Shepard, M. Rebecca Shaw, Gary Tabor, Lu Zhi, Pablo A.
Marquet, and Robert J. Hijmans. 2013. “Climate Change, Wine,
and Conservation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America 110: 6907–12.
Harvey, David C., and Jim Perry, eds. 2015. The Future of Heritage as
Climates Change: Loss, Adaptation and Creativity. Abingdon/New
York: Routledge.
Heyd, Thomas. 2014. “Symbolically Laden Sites in the Landscape
and Climate Change.” Ethics, Policy & Environment 17: 355–69.
124 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
Hyndman-Rizk, Nelia. 2012. “Return to Hadchit: The Virtual,
Spiritual and Temporal Dimensions of Pilgrimage to a Lebanese
Mountain Village.” In Pilgrimage in the Age of Globalisation:
Constructions of the Sacred and Secular in Late Modernity, edited by
Nelia Hyndman-Rizk, 170–202. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
ICOMOS [International Council on Monuments and Sites]. 1997.
“Advisory Body Evaluation: Qadisha (Lebanon), No. 850.” Paris:
ICOMOS, accessed September 28, 2017, http://whc.unesco.org/
document/154441.
- . 2010. Advisory Body Evaluation: Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory,
No. 1247. Paris: ICOMOS.
IUCN [International Union for Conservation of Nature]. 2010.
“IUCN Evaluations of Nominations of Natural and Mixed
Properties to the World Heritage List (WHC.10/34.COM/
INF.8B2).” Gland: IUCN.
Jeffers, Darren, and Kathy J. Willis. 2014. “Vegetation Response to
Climate Change During the Last Interglacial-Last Glacial
Transition in the Southern Bekaa Valley.” Lebanon. Palynology 38:
195–206.
Jones, Gregory V., and Fernando Alves. 2012. “Impact of Climate
Change on Wine Production: A Global Overview and Regional
Assessment in the Douro Valley of Portugal.” International Journal
of Global Warming 4: 383–406.
Keynes, Randal. 2001. Annie’s Box: Charles Darwin, his Daughter, and
Human Evolution. London: Fourth Estate.
Khuri, Sawsan, M.R. Shmoury, R. Baalbaki, M. Maunder, and S.N.
Talhouk. 2000. “Conservation of the Cedrus libani Populations
in Lebanon: History, Current Status and Experimental Application
of Somatic Embryogenesis.” Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1261–
73.
Kim, Hee-Eun. 2011. “Changing Climate, Changing Culture: Adding
the Climate Change Dimension to the Protection of Intangible
Cultural Heritage.” International Journal of Cultural Property 18:
259–90.
Kolbert, Elizabeth. 2014. The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History.
New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Lafrenz Samuels, Kathryn. 2016. “The Cadence of Climate: Heritage
Proxies and Social Change.” Journal of Social Archaeology 16: 142–63.
Lane, Paul J. 2016. “Entangled Banks and the Domestication of East
African Pastoralist Landscapes.” In Archaeology of Entanglement,
edited by Lindsay Der, and Francesca Fernandini, 127–50. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Loffet, Henri C. 2004. “Sur quelques especes d’arbres de la zone syro-
palestinienne et libanaise exportees vers l’Egypte Pharaonique.”
Archaeology and History in Lebanon 9: 10–33.
Markham, Adam, Elena Osipova, Kathryn L. Samuels, and Astrid
Caldas. 2016. World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate.
Nairobi/Paris: UNEP and UNESCO.
Meiggs, Russell. 1998. Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mikesell, Marvin W. 1969. “The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon.”
The Geographical Review 54: 1–28.
Ministry of Environment (Republic of Lebanon). 2015. Fifth National
Report of Lebanon: To the Convention on Biological Diversity. Beirut:
UNEP/Ministry of Environment, Lebanon.
Mitchell, Nora J., and Brenda Barrett. 2015. “Heritage Values and
Agricultural Landscapes: Towards a New Synthesis.” Landscape
Research 40: 701–16.
Moriondo, Marco, G.V. Jones, Benjamin Bois, C. Dibari, R. Ferrise, G.
Trombi, and M. Bindi. 2013. “Projected Shifts of Wine Regions in
Response to Climate Change.” Climatic Change 119: 825–39.
Moukarzel, Alexis. 2001. “The Qadisha Valley: Heritage Reclaimed.”
World Heritage Review 20: 48–55.
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
Munjeri, Dawson. 2004. “Tangible and Intangible Heritage: From
Difference to Convergence.” Museum International 56: 12–20.
Norton, Bryan G., ed. 1986. The Preservation of Species: The Value of
Biological Diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Novacek, Michael. 2007. Terra. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Petzet, Michael. 2008. “Introduction.” In What is OUV? Defining the
Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties,
edited by Jukka Jokilehto, 7–11. Paris/Berlin: ICOMOS.
Quirico, Ottavio. 2012. “Key Issues in the Relationship between the
World Heritage Convention and Climate Change Regulation.” In
Cultural Heritage, Cultural Rights, Cultural Diversity: New
Developments in International Law, edited by Silvia Borelli, and
Federico Lenzerini, 391–412. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
R€ossler, Mechtild. 2006a. “World Heritage Cultural landscapes: A
UNESCO Flagship programme 1992-2006.” Landscape Research 31:
333–53.
- . 2006b. “Linking Forests and Cultural Diversity: The World
Heritage Convention.” In Forestry and Our Cultural Heritage:
Proceedings of the Seminar, 13–15 June, 2005, Sunne, Sweden. Ed.
Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 13–
22 Warsaw: Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in
Europe.
- . 2015. “World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992–2012,” In
Conserving Cultural Landscapes: Challenges and New Directions,
edited by K. Taylor, A. St. Clair and N.J. Mitchell, 29–46. New
York/Abingdon: Routledge.
Sabbioni, Cristina, Peter Brimblecombe, and May Cassar. 2012. The
Atlas of Climate Change Impact on European Cultural Heritage:
Scientific Analysis and Management Strategies. London: Anthem
Press.
Sarkar, Sahotra. 2005. Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An
Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- . 2007. “From Ecological Diversity to Biodiversity.” In The
Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, edited by David L.
Hull and Michael Russ, 388–409. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Sattout, Elsa J., and Nabil Nemer. 2008. “Managing Climate Change
Effects on Relic Forest Ecosystems: A Program for Lebanese
Cedar.” Biodiversity 9: 122–30.
Sattout, Elsa J., Salma N. Talhouk, and Peter D.S. Caligari. 2007.
“Economic Value of Cedar Relics in Lebanon: An Application of
Contingent Valuation Method for Conservation.” Ecological
Economics 61: 315–22.
Scott, Daniel, C. Michael Hall, and Stefan G€ ossling. 2012. Tourism and
Climate Change: Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation. London:
Routledge.
Seguin, Bernard, and Inaki Garcia de Cortazar. 2005. “Climate
Warming: Consequences for Viticulture and the Notion of
‘Terroirs’ in Europe.” Acta Horticulturae 689: 61–9.
Shackley, Myra. 2004. “Managing the Cedars of Lebanon: Botanical
Gardens or Living Forests?” Current Issues in Tourism 7: 417–25.
Singer, Peter. 2006. “Ethics and Climate Change: A Commentary on
MacCracken.” Toman and Gardiner. Environmental Values 15: 415–
22.
Smith, Laurajane, and Natsuko Akagawa (eds.). 2009. Intangible
Heritage. New York/Abingdon: Routledge.
Sulloway, Frank J. 1982. “Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a
Legend.” Journal of the History of Biology 15: 1–53.
- 2009. “Tantalizing Tortoises and the Darwin-Gal apagos
Legend.” Journal of the History of Biology 42: 3–31.
Takacs, David. 1996. The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise.
Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Talhouk, Salma N., Jala Makhzoumi, Mike Maunder, and Sawsan
Khuri. 2001b. “You Can’t See the Wood for the Trees: The Cedar of
125 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017
 Lebanon as a Symbol of a Country and an Ecosystem.” Archaeology
and History in Lebanon 14: 114–22.
Talhouk, Salma N., Rami Zurayk, and Sawsan Khuri. 2001a.
“Conservation of the Coniferous Forests of Lebanon: Past, Present
and Future Prospects.” Oryx 35: 206–15.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization]. 2008. World Heritage: Science and Technology, an
Expert Workshop within the Framework of the Global Strategy for
a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List.
WHC-08/32.COM/INF.10A, May 2008. Paris: UNESCO.
- . 2010. World Heritage Committee Thirty-fourth Session. 8B:
Nominations to the World Heritage List. WHC-10/34.COM/8B.
Paris: UNESCO.
- . 2015. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO, accessed September
28, 2017, http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines
Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment
View publication stats
-. 2017. World Heritage List, accessed September 28, 2017,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
Van de Noort, Robert. 2013. Climate Change Archaeology: Building
Resilience from Research in the World’s Coastal Wetlands. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. “Are We in the
Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of
Amphibians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 105: 11466–73.
Whalen, Philip. 2010. “Whither Terroir in the Twenty-first Century:
Burgundy’s Climats?” Journal of Wine Research 21: 117–21.
Williams, Terry, and Preston Hardison. 2013. “Culture, Law, Risk,
and Governance: Contexts of Traditional Knowledge in Climate
Change Adaptation.” Climatic Change 120: 531–44.
Wilson, Edward O. 1992. The Diversity of Life. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
126 Vol. 39, No. 2 December 2017