International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 09 No 3, December 2003

I N T E R N A T I O N A L

Journal of WildernessDECEMBER 2003 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 3

3

4

18

39FEATURES

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESWilderness LeadersBY CHAD P. DAWSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSCourage for WildernessBY HUBERT WEINZIERL

STEWARDSHIPUrban Wilderness in Central EuropeRewilding at the Urban FringeBY MATTHIAS DIEMER, MARTIN HELD, andSABINE HOFMEISTER

The Muskwa-Kechika Management AreaA Model for the Sustainable Development of Wilderness?BY JOHN SHULTIS and RON RUTLEDGE

Relationships Between Transfrontier Park Managers,Policy Makers, and Resident Indigenous PopulationsBY SANDRA SLATER-JONES

Adventure Racing in the WildBY LINDA MOFFAT

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHInterpersonal and Societal Aspects of Use ConflictsA Case Study of Wilderness in Alaska and FinlandBY JOAN KLUWE and EDWIN E. KRUMPE

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTEA Decade of Coordinated Wilderness ResearchBY DAVID J. PARSONS

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONWilderness BenchmarkingIs Visitor Acceptability Creep a Concern or Not?BY JOSEPH P. FLOOD

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVESIdentifying Wilderness in the Landscapes ofHong Kong Urban PeripheryBY LAWAL M. MARAFA

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements and Wilderness Calendar

Alan Ewert Leaves IJW Editorial Board

Perry Brown named to IJW Editorial Board

Book ReviewsConfronting Consumption

edited by T. Princen, Michael Maniates, and KenConcaREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS

Driven Wild: How the Fight Against AutomobilesLaunched the Modern Wilderness Movementby Paul SutterREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS

7

12

24

28

34

35

43

46

47

48

48

FRONT COVER image of the Iguaçu River as it pours through a subtropicalrainforest at Iguaçu Falls, Iguaçu National Park, Brazil World Heritage Site.INSET PHOTO, a male cock of the rock (Rupicola peruviana), in a 1,600 meter-high cloud forest, Kosnipata Valley, near Manu NP, Peru. Both photos courtesy ofAlan Watson/Forest Light, Caledonia, Findhorn, Forres IV360YY, Scotland.Tel: 0139-690934/691292.

2003 Excellence InWilderness Stewardship Research Award

Co-sponsored by theUSDA Forest Service and IJW

Professional stewardship of wilderness is dependent on a foun-dation of solid research. This award from the Chief of theUSDA Forest Service recognizes excellent research conductedeither by an individual or a team. Employees of the Federaland State governments, other private or public organizations,and private individuals are eligible.

Criteria for selection: (1) ability to identify managementimplications of the research; (2) creativity and innovation inscientific method; (3) effectiveness of research accomplishmentsin addressing wilderness stewardship issues of critical importance;(4) effectiveness in communicating research results to manage-ment; and (5) where appropriate, an interdisciplinary design ofthe research project occurred recognizing the interactions betweenthe physical, biological, and social components of the wildernessresource.

Nomination submission: Request a nomination form andguidelines by e-mail from Don Fisher, USDA Forest ServiceNational Wilderness Program Manager ([email protected]).

Deadline for nominations: January 30, 2004.

2 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2003 • VOLUME 9, NUMBER 3

EDITORIAL BOARDPerry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USAAlan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., CanadaSteve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

Wayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USARebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFJohn C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITORChad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONALGordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir,Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic ofSouth Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-LiisaSippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University ofMaine, Orono, Maine; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA,Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks,California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Manage-ment, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy,University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vt.; ConnieMyers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg,Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, NationalOutdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson,The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year(April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication.

Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, OneForestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210-2787, USA. Telephone: (315)470-6567. Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected].

Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380,Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230.E-mail: [email protected].

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside NorthAmerica, add $20. Back issues are available for $15.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2003 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide aresolicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management,and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptionsof key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, andenvironmental education; wilderness-related science and research fromall disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects ofwilderness; and international perspectives describing wildernessworldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, bookreviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest areencouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines isavailable from the managing editor.

Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions areencouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signedby the author.

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration • NationalOutdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD®

Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestryand Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDINational Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interestedcitizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management,

and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2003 • VOLUME 9, NUMBER 3 3

FEATURES

E D I T O R I A L P E R S P E C T I V E S

We are blessed with a rich history of wildernessadvocacy within the United States and aroundthe world. Some research reports in the United

States indicate that a sizable portion of the population knowsabout wilderness and values it (see Cordell et al. in theApril 2003 issue of the IJW). However, that same public isunaware of or does not understand some of the ecologic,economic, and social benefits of our wilderness resourceand legacy. As Marshall points out, we need organizationsand leaders to keep the spirit of wilderness alive.

Some of the “spirited people” who are the driving forcebehind development and production of the IJW are chang-ing with this issue. Dr. Alan Ewert, one of the foundingexecutive editors of the IJW, has resigned in order to devotemore time to his new duties at Indiana University as asso-ciate dean in the School of Health, Physical Education andRecreation (see page 46). Dr. Perry Brown, dean of the Col-lege of Forestry and Conservation at the University ofMontana in Missoula, has accepted an appointment to theIJW editorial board (see page 47).

The Soul of the Wilderness article in this issue is an ed-ited transcript of a speech in Munich on June 25, 2003, byHubert Weinzierl, President of Deutscher Naturschutzring.He calls for us individually to have the courage to speakout for wilderness and ensure its creation and protection,and to have the courage as a society to restrain ourselvesfrom creating cultured landscapes everywhere and losingthe natural.

Four articles in this issue speak to the changes withinthe international landscape toward more attention to wild-lands and wilderness. Diemer, Held, and Hofmeister relateattempts at the and need for rewilding the fringe aroundurban areas in central Europe. Marafa identifies wild com-

ponents in the historic landscapesaround Hong Kong. Slater-Jonesinvestigates the relationships be-tween transfrontier parkmanagers, policy makers, and in-digenous populations aroundsome North American and south-ern African parks. Shultis andRutledge review a managementmodel that may help provide sus-tainable development aroundsome wilderness areas of Canada.

Kluwe and Krumpe explorethe social aspects of visitor useconflicts in wilderness areas ofAlaska and Finland; in particular, they are concerned aboutrecreation uses and users increasingly conflicting with sub-sistence activities. Flood reports on studies of recreationalusers and managers in the Mission Mountains Wildernessof Montana to address the concern that wilderness usersmay “benchmark,” or fix a reference point on the condi-tions they observe in wilderness, and use that as a referencepoint in future visits to that or other wilderness areas.

The two book reviews in this issue focus on the “tyranni-cal ambition of civilization to conquer every niche.” The firstbook, Confronting Consumption, tells the story of the obses-sion with consumption in Western cultures, while the secondbook, Driven Wild, tells about the impact of automobile-basedtourism on early wilderness advocates and their interest inpreserving some natural landscapes. What will generationsin the future say about the wilderness leaders of today andthe wilderness legacy we leave to them?

Wilderness LeadersBY CHAD P. DAWSON

There is just one hope of repulsing the tyrannical ambition of civilization to conquer everyniche on the whole earth. That hope is the organization of spirited people who will fight forthe freedom of the wilderness.

—Robert Marshall, cofounder, The Wilderness Society

Article author Chad Dawson.


S O U L O F T H E W I L D E R N E S S

FEATURES

Wilderness seems to be booming. There is noacademy that doesn’t offer symposia on wil-derness; no magazine that doesn’t have a topic

on the so called “wild”; and even the German state TVchannel (ARD) alone ran over a 100 programs on themeslike “adventure wilderness,” “longing for wilderness,” “refugewilderness,” and so forth.

Nature romance, outdoor drive, and the Waldwesen havereturned to our modern vocabulary. The forest as a mysti-

cal place and Green Man orMerlin myths are under discus-sion again, and it appears thatmany an Internet surfer longsfor the green labyrinths and the“downs” of the soul.

It took quite a while forthe wilderness discussion tocross the trans-Atlantic gap,where the discussion had al-ready started half a century ago.But wilderness thinking is nowhere. Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) defined this philosophy

with the still-valid words, “Wilderness is a rejection of thearrogance of humans.”

Wild Nature Under Attack in GermanyIf I were to be led blindfolded through different countriesand had my sight returned in this country, I would imme-diately know that I was in Germany: Because nowhere elseare the forests and rivers governed by a more obtrusiveform of orderliness, and nowhere else are the degrees ofcleanliness celebrated with such a perversity as here. Streets,farm tracks, forest borders, villages, towns, and industrialareas—all reflect a cultivated land, born of offices and draw-ing-table brains that have nothing in common withcivilization, and nothing in common with free nature. And

if one dares to ask about the remaining wilderness, he orshe would only raise an uncomprehending stare.

To the contrary, the question of whether nature is replace-able is keeping the landscape planners, governmentadministrators, and legislators busy, but also some invest-ment speculators who try to distract us from their destructionof nature with compensation deals to try to offset or minimizethe damage. For example, amphibian pools in highway loops,restoration after mining, compensation for nature conser-vancy when building power lines, purchase of acreage, and“optimization” in new road construction or at the edge ofindustrial areas—these are offered to the public as ecologicalbait. Elaborate and often perverse calculation methods andso-called ecological performance evaluations are used as proofthat nature and species protection are best served with in-trusions into the ecosystem.

It is exactly here that I stake my most urgent protest. Grownlandscapes and their species and creatures cannot be com-pensated for by manipulation or with money—any more thancan the place that we call home. Those who sell habitats andthink to buy a piece of nature in exchange elsewhere mustknow that they destroyed nature all the same.

Our Grandchildren Will Judge Usby the Nature We Leave for ThemMuch more honest than an ecological performance evalua-tion would be to introduce a grandchild compatibility checkin order to disclose what we force on our posterity. Theensuing ages will not judge us on how many roads or fac-tories we built, but on how much habitat, how many animaland plant species, and how much wilderness we left be-hind. Therefore, I plead for more courage for wilderness. Leavehands off of some forests and meadows. Let’s have the courageto do nothing, and, as foresters or landscape planners, let’s findvirtue in the insight that nature doesn’t need us at all.

What kind of culture is this that wrecks its basis, thelandscapes and river valleys, leaves its forests to waste away,

Courage for WildernessBY HUBERT WEINZIERL

Author Hubert Weinzierl by Ulf Doerner.


and quarrels in its greed about whetherthe richest society ever can afford a fewanimals and plants, which survivedthe famines of harder days. Isn’t it anindicator for the loss of sense of pro-portion, when in Germany there iscurrently a heated debate aboutwhether 50 lynx are allowed to keeptheir ancestral right to live just becausethey feed on a few deer? Where is theprey envy directed at 50 million carsto which we make hundreds of thou-sands of game sacrifices and againstwhich we even lovingly insure them?

To Live and Let LiveFor 20 years we left the park behindthe Wiesenfelden castle to run to seed.Since then, the biologists have regis-tered peaks of diversity. The goldenoriole has returned, the hobbyistsearches for dragonflies and the bogcalla flowers, and the newts and toadsattract gray herons. But the touristboard inveighs against the unbearablemess that should be cleaned up andconverted into human playgrounds.

The repertoire of every populistpolitician still has it that our home-land would convert into a miserable“misnature” without the nursing handsand the machines of industrious farm-ers—that left alone it would convertto dark and wild steppe. Foresters,hunters, anglers, water managers, androad builders all assume that the goodLord is incapable of keeping his cre-ation in order without their help.

Recently, a host of landscape plan-ners and landscape curatorsreinforced their battle for the perpetu-ation of our artificial or so-called“cultured land.” Must not we, theconservationists, in the face of suchideas think about which nature wewant to protect? Do we want to con-serve a snapshot of the human-madelandscape forever, or do we want toprotect nature itself?

We should show more courage forwilderness, and not be fobbed off bythe idea that certain habitats are up-holders of landscape moralstandards. On the contrary, weshould see nature reserves as pearlsembedded into a landscape, andwhich we carefully protect. Thus, weneed nature conservancy over all ar-eas. And we need some wildernessin our country in order to not dis-connect totally from nature.

This shift signifies a few correctionsneeded in our thinking; for example,changing the farming policy fairy tale ofthe farmer as landscape curator. And aconfession by us conservationists thatquite a bit of our obsession with natureoriginates from the anthropocentricwishful thinking to conserve nature aswe would like it to be. Nature conserva-tion understood this way is ultimatelyjust a form of the desire to dominate.

Isn’t it horrible to live in a countryin which every square meter of livingspace is technocratically planned as aneconomic area or development axis,or as usable agricultural area, con-struction area, or, recently, as aconcession to ecology as a “mainte-nance area” or “habitat” conserved justto make intensive use possible? In this

way, nature is all but sent to the asy-lum or transferred to the welfare officeof creation.

To counter this mind-set, I want tovoice the consideration that ecologicalsuccession in its own right is worthprotection, and that we need to assureenough space for evolution to occur.Why don’t we seize the historic oppor-tunity in light of the current farmingsituation in central Europe and leavesome fallow land to develop for itself,to be reforested, or to just be? Or de-velop some hundred thousand hectaresof river scapes into floodplains as a pro-tection against floods?

Now, due to economic reasons, wehave the once-in-a-lifetime chance todeclare the areas from which farmingwill retreat as succession areas (about10%) and to reward the farmers for itinstead of subsidizing overproductionof agricultural products.

Is the development of hazelnuthedges, birch clusters, juniper slopes, oralder thickets a disaster, even when itleads to a species change? Isn’t there awonderful new forest after the barkbeetle collapse in the low mountainranges, or fields of reed where a pondstarts to dry up? Or gorgeous wetlandswere we don’t keep the drainage trenches

“Keeping it Wild” is on the European agenda. Photo by Vance Martin.


open anymore, and forest fringes wherewe used to cut away to the bark?

We need to think about thesecheaper alternatives to cultivation ofthe landscape. Are we aware that onlya rich society can afford state-financedprograms to cultivate the landscape inthe long run, and that the so-calledcontractual nature conservation willrun out eventually? If we respect theright of the wilderness again, we willhave to abandon quite a bit of staticnature conservation management forthe benefit of a perpetual flow of natu-ral conditions, while also creatingrecreation opportunities.

Maybe we should become moresensitive to life processes and rethinkour conservation relationship to na-ture with a shift toward a future ethic,that abjures the landscape geometryand turns toward being and letting be.This idea is not to play anthropocen-tric against biocentric thinking, butrather to engage more in a spiritualintuitiveness that we are on a commonearth and a common creature.

Courage for wilderness is also thecourage for self-control, for observinginstead of acting, for noninterference.It is doing nothing as nature conser-vation. It embodies respect forsanctuaries and the reduction of ourown characteristic arrogance in favorof respect for the rest of creation. Then

it will suddenly become apparent whythe wildcat is part of the nature of theforest, even if we never get to see one,that beaver shavings on the riverbanksreveal a secret presence, and that theflap of an Apollo butterfly sanctifiesthe heath slope.

Longing for WildernessRecently I was asked to deliver a defi-nition of the topic of wilderness. Whilethinking through my own wildernessphilosophy of “doing nothing as na-ture conservation” and “let nature benature,” I suddenly realized the error:Wilderness is not thinkable, wilder-ness can only be, wilderness is notdescribable, let alone able to beplanned. It cannot even be experi-enced, it is only livable.

Wilderness is a rejection of order, thetypical German approach, the appall-ing planning of every square meter,and the banishment of the last secretsand myths from our surroundingworld. Wilderness is a culture againstthe streamlined thinking, against allthe “you may, you shall, you must”constraints by which State and religionhave cleared our “soul wilderness” andconsolidated our natural creative sen-sitivity. Out of the wilderness of livinghearts they formed disciplined, civi-lized humans, whose ties to the livingthreaten to snap.

Wilderness nature trails that arecurrently in vogue are as absurd as liv-eries fairs or fitness trails; that are notneeded if I am living a real life, andthe clichés of the good old times areas bogus as those of the wilderness.

The wilderness in our hearts is ayearning. It is a yearning for all the no-tions that don’t cost anything, a yearningfor the simple, the manageable, and thethings human. It is a yearning for en-chantment and for mysteries, for

intuitiveness instead of knowledge, forhope instead of promises.

Wilderness does not have to bejungle, a wild river, or the howling ofa wolf. Wilderness is everywherewhere we tolerate it: in a chemical-freegarden, in forests where the lynx istolerated, or in a society that permitsits citizens to think.

This society that we live in has beenchasing the misapprehension of sepa-rating intellect from mind since the ageof enlightenment, which is after all adozen human generations ago, and,therefore, our right brain is hopelesslyatrophied. Thus, we have our difficul-ties in talking to trees or lovingbutterflies. And it will take time inevolutionary terms to overcome thisgenerations-long error.

Maybe it can happen much faster,given the growing global pressure to con-serve wilderness. Then we can go hometo wilderness, not back to nature. Home,where we can be how we are, to exist,love, eat, drink, sleep, be lazy and weak,pray, laugh, and dance—being wild andsimply alive. Therefore, wilderness is thedream of being allowed to be oneself, in-stead of a state of heteronomy.

Wilderness is a mind-set. Wilder-ness is the delight of not mowing theGarden of Eden, but waiting serenelyfor paradise. Wilderness is dreaminginstead of cleaning up. Wilderness isa dialogue with nature instead of talk-ing about nature.

HUBERT WEINZIERL is the president ofDeutscher Naturschutzring (GermanLeague of Nature, Conservation, andEnvironment [and an umbrella organizationof 105 NGOs, 5.5 million members]). Thisarticle is based on a translation of a June25, 2003, presentation in Munich at thelaunch of the International WildernessFoundation (Germany). He can be reachedat: Post Fach 40, 94343 Wiesenfelden,Germany.

Photo by Ulf Doerner.


Wilderness is a popular con-cept in central Europe, al-though extensive natural

areas where human management haseither never occurred or ceased centuriesago are lacking. Wilderness areas tendto be small and isolated, and often cur-rently in the process of rewilding;therefore, wilderness and rewildingmust be viewed in a specific central Eu-ropean context. As Leopold (1942)notes about the value of small wilder-ness: “One of the symptoms ofimmaturity in our concept of recre-ational values is the assumption, frequent amongadministrators, that a small park or forest has no place forwilderness. No tract of land is too small for the wildernessidea. It can, and perhaps should, flavor the recreationalscheme for any woodlot or backyard” (pp. 24–25).

IntroductionIn most regions of Europe, including the British Isles, ex-tensive pristine wilderness areas are lacking, if judged bythe criteria contained in the U.S. Wilderness Act or by theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature and Natu-ral Resources (IUCN) wilderness classification (EUROPARCand IUCN 2000; Carver et al. 2002). Nevertheless, a num-ber of isolated wilderness areas exist in relatively remotelocations throughout central Europe (Germany, Austria, andSwitzerland). They are often synonymous with nationalparks of which they comprise core zones, where humanimpacts were historically minimal or, where managementactivities have been halted. Although a number of these

national parks were established in the 1990s, it is unlikelythat a substantial number of new reserves will be estab-lished in the near future due to the large land areas requiredand associated management constraints.

Concurrently, a number of local initiatives were startedby conservationists, foresters, NGOs, and local public agen-cies, which have led to the independent establishment ofurban wilderness areas in central Europe to complementthe more remote national parks (Held and Sinner 2002).There are analogous efforts within the IUCN to address theissue of urban parks (McNeely 2001). In the following sec-tions we introduce the underlying ideas, concepts, andpotential functions of established and proposed urban wil-derness areas in central Europe.

Wilderness, Rewilding, and ScaleAs mentioned previously, extensive pristine wilderness ar-eas are lacking in Europe. Although there is ample evidenceof extensive human influence in the shaping of so-called

STEWARDSHIP

Urban Wilderness inCentral Europe

Rewilding at the Urban Fringe

BY MATTHIAS DIEMER, MARTIN HELD, and SABINE HOFMEISTER

Article coauthors (l to r) Matthias Diemer, Martin Held, and Sabine Hofmeister.


pristine North American wilderness(Olwig 1995; Schama 1995), the idealof pristine and untrammeled wilder-ness formulated in the U.S. WildernessAct (1964) still prevails (Cole andLandres 1996). In practice, however,the wilderness criteria associated withIUCN classifications are applied prag-matically, and difficulties in definingnatural states of ecosystems prior tohuman settlement are acknowledged(EUROPARC and IUCN 2000). Briefly,wilderness is viewed as an area, wherenatural processes are permitted to op-erate without human interference.

Throughout Europe, the establish-ment of wilderness inevitably involves theprocess of rewilding. Yet rewilding is per-ceived differently in Europe than in NorthAmerica. Although the reintroduction

and immigration of large carnivores com-mands great interest and controversythroughout Europe, the rewilding issuegoes far beyond wildlife habitat. Big wil-derness (Soulé and Noss 1998), rewildedor not, is unfeasible in central Europe.

From Species to Processes:Conservation in CentralEuropeIn central Europe, virtually allseminatural landscapes are the prod-ucts of centuries-old, traditionalagricultural, hydrological, and silvicul-tural management regimes. Thesehuman efforts have resulted in habi-tats with high biodiversity and manyrare or endangered species (e.g., fens,calcareous grasslands). Many of theseunique and species-rich habitats arethreatened as a result of land-usechanges associated with the intensifica-tion of agriculture, urban development,and anthropogenic impacts. For ex-ample, more than 90% of Swisswetlands have been destroyed since1850. Consequently, nature conserva-tion during the past decades hasfocused primarily either on the preser-vation of rare or endangered species,or, more recently, on the maintenanceof threatened seminatural habitats,characterized by high biodiversity and/or presence of endangered species.These two approaches are termed static,since the preservation of a status quoor an ideal are the primary managementobjectives. Despite their virtues andsuccesses, these approaches are highlydependent upon subsidies to landhold-ers and managers, which may not beavailable in the future (Eissing 2002).

More recently, a third, dynamicapproach has gained momentum,which emphasizes processes ratherthan static preservation (Scherzinger1997; Jedicke 1998). Here, the main-tenance or reestablishment of naturalprocesses, including vegetation suc-cession, floods, wind throws, andinsect calamities, are explicitly toler-ated. Reestablishment of naturalprocesses also implies rewilding, sincemanagement is effectively terminated.In most habitats this process will re-sult in secondary succession towardwilderness. In some instances, theconsequences of rewilding may in-clude the disappearance of certainhabitat types and even reductions ofoverall biodiversity. Furthermore, forsome ecosystems there are no clearconceptions of the composition orappearance of the future wilderness state.Consequently, rewilding (Verwilderung)is a controversial issue, not only amongnatural resource professionals andconservationists, but also among thegeneral public.

A case in point is the national parkBayerischer Wald in Germany wherewidespread diebacks of spruce forestsoccurred due to drought and beetleinfestations during the 1990s. Thesediebacks led to public protests remi-niscent of reactions to the wildfires andthe “let burn” policy in YellowstoneNational Park during 1988. Yet, in time,attitudes of both the public and somecritical foresters changed as the restor-ative powers of ecosystems becameevident through widespread forestregeneration, as predicted by conser-vation professionals. Hence, publicacceptance of rewilding rises once thedynamic properties of ecosystems areunderstood and appreciated.

Rewilding is also relevant outsideof national parks or reserves. Outsideparks, rewilding is bound to increasesignificantly in marginal forest and

Figure 1—Abandoned railroad yard in the rewilding areaSchöneberger Südgelände in Berlin, Germany. Photo by S.Hofmeister.

The creation of wilderness or rewilding areas proximateto urban centers will contribute to conservation, natureappreciation, and the overall quality of life.


agricultural lands. Present efforts byfederal agencies and the EuropeanUnion to take cropland out of agricul-tural production and futureprojections of these agricultural poli-cies indicate that abandonment andhence rewilding of agricultural landswill increase dramatically in the nearfuture, particularly in regions wheresoils are marginally productive(Eissing 2002). It is presently unclearif and how these extensive agriculturalrewilding areas will be administered.Similar trends, albeit driven by differ-ent constraints, can be projected forthe field of forestry.

Urban Wildernessin Central EuropeAside from established national parksand abandoned agricultural and forest-lands, where ecosystems are developinginto wilderness, other types of wilder-ness are present in central Europe—albeit at appreciably smaller spatialscales than recognized by current IUCNcriteria (i.e., less than 1,000 hectares[2,470 acres]). These wildernesses in-clude steep canyons or ravines, remotewetlands, inaccessible as well as aban-doned orchards, or vineyards insuburban and rural areas. In addition,abandoned industrial areas, rail yards,former borderlines (such as sections ofthe former Berlin Wall), unused lots,and recreational parks are rapidly de-veloping into urban wilderness. Theseurban wilderness areas are highly di-verse, not only biologically, but also inspatial extent. Only few have a legalstatus guaranteeing permanence. Con-sequently, a multitude of uses exists,spanning the extremes of recreationalplaygrounds or picnic areas to imper-vious and thus solitary thickets. Yet, inall examples, parts of the area arerewilding. We propose the followingclassification to characterize variouswilderness areas (see Table 1).

Table 1—Proposed Classification of Wilderness in Central Europe.Designation Description IUCN Status Purpose

National Parks Reserves distant from human II, Ib Biodiversity, ecologicalhabitation, large areas services, large carnivores,(> 1000 ha). recreation, research

Urban Reserves close to urban None, but Biodiversity, recreation,wilderness centers and/or urban areas desirable by ecological services,

(≤ 10 km distance), smaller both IUCN researchareas (< 1000 ha). Remnants and nationalof wilderness or areas with agencies.low human impact.

Urban and rural Abandoned urban, industrial Not needed. Biodiversity, education,rewilding areas or agricultural sites (< 500 ha), Regional or ecological processes (e.g.,

including rail yards, former national legal plant succession, invasions),coal mining areas, former status recreation, researchagricultural fields. desirable.

Rewilding Small areas (≤ several ha), Not needed. Biodiversity, recreation,microcosms such as private and public Local legal ecological processes(urban and gardens, canyons, edges of statusrural) parks, streams or ponds. desirable.Adapted from Meyer et al. 2002.

Table 2—Examples of Urban Wilderness Areas in Central Europe.Name Location/Country Age Area (ha) Habitat Former Use

Faberwald Nürnberg, D 1981 20 Mixed deciduous Recreationforest

Sihlwald Zürich, CH 1993 820 Mixed deciduous Silviculture,forest recreation

Stadtwald Lübeck, D 1994 479 in Mixed deciduous Silviculture,four sites forest recreation

St. Arnualer Saarbrücken, D 1995 45 Grassland, open Meadows,Wiesen forest landfillNational Park Wien, A 1996 8,800 Floodplain, Recreation,Donau-Auen deciduous forest silvicultureWilder Ruhrgebiet, D 1995– 100 Mixed birch and Coal mines,Industriewald/ 1999 willow stands spoilsBrachewaldSchöneberger Berlin, D 2000 18 Various stages of Railroad yardSüdgelände successionSteinbachtal- Saarbrücken, D 2002 1,000 Mixed deciduous Silviculture,Netzbachtal forest recreationGoldachtobel St. Gallen, CH proposed 430 Stream, ravine, Silviculture,

mixed deciduous hydroelectricity,forest hunting, recreation

Of primary interest here is urban wil-derness. During the last decade anumber of urban wilderness areas, pre-dominantly forests, have becomeestablished in Switzerland, Germany,and Austria (see Table 2). The mostprominent example is Sihlwald, locatedin the vicinity of metropolitan Zürich

(Christen 2002), a mixed deciduous for-est formerly managed for timber andwood production that is reverting towilderness. As for most other urban wil-derness areas, no definitive legal statusexists for Sihlwald. Currently, the Swisslegislature is preparing amendments thatwould provide recognition as well as


protection for existing (e.g., Sihlwald)and proposed urban wilderness areas,such as the watershed Goldach-Tobelclose to St. Gallen (see Table 2).

Independent of these Swiss federalactivities, a growing interest prevailsthroughout central Europe forestablishing further urban wildernesses,evidenced by activities of local initiatives,conferences, and workshops (Held andSinner 2002). Campaigns by Swiss andGerman NGOs have resulted in broad,nationwide coverage and hence greaterpublic and political awareness of urbanwilderness. Presumably several newurban wilderness areas will beestablished or officially recognized

throughout Germany and Switzerlandas a result of this publicity.

Another wilderness category uniqueto central Europe, often located inmetropolitan areas, should also bementioned here (see Table 1). Severalformer industrial areas in Germany haverecently gained protective status, suchas in the Ruhrgebiet (EmscherLandschaftspark), Berlin (SchönebergerSüdgelände), and Dessau (Ferropolis).The areas usually comprise extensiveindustrial complexes, including vastareas used for the storage of materials,such as open pits or quarries, andmounds of spoils that were abandonedfor economic reasons. These sites are

unique in that they attempt to coalescea number of potentially conflicting uses,such as demonstrations of historicalindustrial architecture, ecologicalsuccession on spoils, various recreationalactivities, and cultural events. They allinclude zones set aside for rewilding (i.e.,secondary succession). As a result ofthese multiple uses, we classify thesesites as urban rewilding areas rather thanurban wilderness (see Table 1). Thedistinction between wilderness andrewilding area seems contradictory, thatthe process of rewilding occurs in bothcategories. Yet, the long-term objectivesare different. Wilderness areas are tractsof land specifically set aside to evolvewithout human interference, whereasrewilding areas, or fractions thereof, maynever attain this state, due to the multiplemanagement objectives.

Public Acceptance ofUrban Wilderness—Successes, Functions,and PotentialsThe concept of wilderness is highlypopular throughout central Europe andpublicized through tourism, the media,and NGO campaigns. Nevertheless,many people still associate it with vastnational parks located in Scandinavia,North America, or elsewhere. Onlyseveral of the national parks inGermany, such as Bayerischer Wald,actively promote the term wilderness.Furthermore, due to restrictions on use,many of the wilderness areas withinnational parks are not freely accessibleto the European public.

Hence, urban wilderness areas canserve to promote the wildernessconcept in situ in the proximity ofurban centers, as well as to fosternature appreciation, recreation, andexperiences of solitude (Zucchi 2002).Additional uses include educational,pedagogic, or therapeutic programs.

Figure 2—Goldachtobel—a proposed urban wilderness area near St. Gallen, Switzerland. Photo by M. Diemer.


In fact, the success of two integratededucational and therapy programs inSwitzerland appears to be closely linkedwith recurrent nature experiences inurban wilderness areas.

However, these human demands mustbe weighed against ecological objectives(biodiversity, maintenance of naturalprocesses) as well as legal constraints(maintenance of roads, public safetyissues, hunting, access). Irrespective ofthese limitations, urban wilderness areashave a great potential for education,recreation, and the experience of nature(Meyer et al. 2002). In addition, theirestablishment addresses the criticisms ofCronon (1995) and others, who haveargued that the preoccupation withremote and presumably pristinewilderness has been counterproductivewith respect to environmental awarenessand appreciation of nature (but see abovequote from Leopold). In this context,urban wilderness should and cancontribute significantly to environmentalawareness in urban areas, where themajority of people reside and whereenvironmental problems are most severe.In addition, urban wilderness areas serveas vital resource for future generations.For children and adolescents, these areasprovide a suite of functions, includingplaygrounds, refuges, and testinggrounds for personal challenges undernatural conditions.

The creation of wilderness orrewilding areas proximate to urbancenters will contribute to conservation,nature appreciation, and the overallquality of life. In doing so, they comp-lement the more remote wildernessareas, such as national parks andreserves throughout central Europe andelsewhere. Urban wilderness can beviewed as a unique European approachto reinstate wilderness via rewilding ina landscape extensively shaped byhumans and as a model for othermetropolitan areas worldwide.

Figure 3—View from Sihlwald towards Zürich, Switzerland. Photo by A. König, Grünstadt Zürich.

REFERENCESCarver, S., A. Evans, and S. Fritz. 2002. Wil-

derness attribute mapping in the UnitedKingdom. IJW 8 (1): 24–29.

Christen, M. 2002. Sihlwald—Erfahrungen einessich entwickelnden stadtnahen Wildnisgebietes.Bayerische Staatsforstverwaltung Tagungs-bericht 7: 25–33.

Cole, D. N., and P. B. Landres. 1996. Threats towilderness ecosystems: Impacts and researchneeds. Ecological Applications 6: 168–184.

Cronon, W. 1995. The trouble with wilderness;Or, getting back to the wrong nature. In W.Cronon, ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethink-ing the Human Place in Nature. New York:W. W. Norton, 69–90.

Eissing, H. 2002. Die Wiedergewinnung derWildnis—Gedanken zu Wildnis undWildniserfahrung. Bayerische Staatsforstver-waltung Tagungsbericht 7: 12–24.

EUROPARC and IUCN. 2000. Guidelines forProtected Area Management Categories—Interpretation and Application of the Pro-tected Area Management Categories inEurope. Grafenau, Germany: EUROPARCand WCPA.

Held, M., and K. F. Sinner. 2002. Denn die Wildnisliegt so nah: Wildnis vor der Haustür—ZurEinführung. Bayerische StaatsforstverwaltungTagungsbericht 7: 7–11.

Jedicke, E. 1998. Raum-Zeit-Dynamik inÖkosystemen und Landschaften. Naturschutzund Landschaftsplanung 30: 229–236.

Leopold, A. 1942. Wilderness Values. The Liv-ing Wilderness 7: 24–25.

McNeely, J. A. 2001. Cities and protected areas:An oxymoron or a partnership? Parks 11: 1–3.

Meyer, K., M. Held, and K. F. Sinner. 2002.Wildnis vor der Haustür—Ergebnisse desWorkshops. Bayerische Staatsforstver-waltung Tagungsbericht 7: 128–131.

Olwig, K. R. 1995. Reinventing common na-ture: Yosemite and Mount Rushmore—Ameandering tale of a double nature. In W.Cronon, ed. Uncommon Ground: Rethink-ing the Human Place in Nature. New York:W. W. Norton, 379–408.

Schama, S. 1995. Landscape and Memory.New York: Knopf.

Scherzinger, W. 1997. Tun oder Unterlassen?Aspekte des Prozessschutzes und Bedeutungdes Nichts-Tuns im Naturschutz. LaufenerSeminarbeiträge No. 1: 31–44.

Soulé, M., and R. Noss. 1998. Rewilding andbiodiversity: Complementary goals for con-servation. Wild Earth (Fall 1998): 1–11.

Zucchi, H. 2002. Wildnis als Kulturaufgabe—Ein Diskussionsbeitrag. Natur undLandschaft 77: 373–378.

MATTHIAS DIEMER is an instructor ofexperiential education at the Wildnisschule,Wartensee, 9404 Rorschacherberg, andlecturer in environmental studies at theInstitut für Umweltwissenschaften,Universität Zürich, Winterthurerstrasse190, 8057 Zürich, Switzerland. E-mail:[email protected].

MARTIN HELD is a senior lecturer in and authoron economics and sustainable developmentat the Protestant Academy Tutzing, Schloss-Strasse 2+4, 82327 Tutzing, Germany.E-mail: [email protected].

SABINE HOFMEISTER is professor ofenvironmental planning at the FachbereichIV Umweltwissenschaften, UniversitätLüneburg, Scharnhorststrasse 1, 21335Lüneburg, Germany. E-mail:[email protected].


IntroductionThe economy of the province of British Columbia (BC) re-mains heavily dependent on resource extraction—the forestrysector is still its primary economic generator—but it is alsoknown for its level of environmental concern. Indeed, sincethe birth of the modern environmental movement in the late1960s, there has been an increasing number and intensity ofpolitical battles between resource extraction industries andresidents calling for the preservation of wilderness andparklands in BC. This so-called “war-in-the-woods” reacheda crescendo in the late 1980s, when valley by valley battlesbecame commonplace (Wilson 1998).

A change of government in 1990 stimulated the devel-opment of a new model of decision making for naturalresource management in BC. In 1992, the Commission onResources and Environment (CORE) was legislated to “de-velop for public and government consideration a BritishColumbia-wide strategy for land use and related resourceand environmental management” (CORE 1992, p. 39). Thislegislation specifically requested that a regional planningprocess founded on a community-based participatory ap-proach be created. In 1994, the Land and ResourceManagement Planning (LRMP) process was adopted by theBC government in concert with the Protected Areas Strat-egy, which called for a doubling of BC parkland from 6% to12% of the province (Province of British Columbia 1993).

The deep antipathy between the ideologies of stakehold-ers representing industry and conservation interests wasoften difficult to address, and the first two regional LRMPmeetings were unable to reach consensus regarding whichareas within their regions would be protected from normal

extraction activities. After the government demonstrated itwas willing to create protected areas despite the lack ofconsensus, the LRMP process began to move forward,though often at an excruciatingly slow pace.

In northeastern BC, two regionally based groups of stake-holders from government, industry, conservation, recreation,First Nations, and other interested parties began LRMP de-liberations in 1992. The purpose of this article is to describethe innovative outcomes created by these two groups overmore than five years of discussions. After briefly noting theecological significance of the Muskwa-Kechika ManagementArea (MKMA), the vision and objectives of the MKMA areoutlined, and the means of achieving these objectives throughdistinct legislation and policy are reviewed. The article spe-cifically highlights the central role that the concept ofwilderness plays in the management of the MKMA. Finally,the MKMA’s successes and future challenges are identified.

The Muskwa-Kechika Management AreaWhen the MKMA Act was passed by the government of BCin 1998, it formalized the creation of the largest conserva-tion system in North America. When a third LRMP regionjoined the system in 2001, the MKMA grew to 6.3 millionhectares, or over 24,000 square miles, an area the size ofWest Virginia or Ireland (see Figure 1). It is one of the fewremaining large, ecologically intact, almost completelyunroaded wilderness south of the 60th parallel, and as such,contains wildlife populations of truly global significance(British Columbia 1997b).

In addition to its globally significant wilderness,biodiversity, and ecological values, the MKMA also contains

STEWARDSHIP

The Muskwa-KechikaManagement Area

A Model for the Sustainable Developmentof Wilderness?

BY JOHN SHULTIS and RON RUTLEDGE


numerous resource development val-ues. Most significant are well-definedoil and gas fields, a variety of metallicand nonmetallic resources, forests, andvarious wilderness recreation and tour-ism resources. As the MKMA has beenused by First Nations for thousands ofyears, many cultural and heritage val-ues are also present, includingarchaeological sites, historical sites, andtraditional use sites, each of which re-tains high cultural significance to livingcommunities.

According to the preamble of theenabling legislation:

The management intent forthe Muskwa-Kechika Man-agement Area is to maintainin perpetuity the wildernessquality, and the diversity andabundance of wildlife and theecosystems on which it de-pends while allowing resourcedevelopment and use in partsof the Muskwa-Kechika Man-agement Area designated forthose purposes [recognizingthe] long-term maintenanceof wilderness characteristics,wildlife and habitat is criticalto the social and cultural well-being of [F]irst [N]ations andother people in the area. (Brit-ish Columbia 1998a, p. 1)

The Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Boardis an appointed body responsible foradvising the premier of BC on naturalresource management in the MKMA.The Board: (1) monitors developmentto ensure activities within the region areconsistent with the intent of the threeLRMPs, the MKMA Act, and the MKMAPlan; (2) makes recommendations to thetrustee on the Muskwa-Kechika TrustFund; and (3) provides an annual re-port on these matters to the premier andpublic (e.g., Muskwa-Kechika AdvisoryBoard 2001).

While the maintenance of the wil-derness quality of the MKMA isformally entrenched in legislation, the

concept of wilderness has yet to beadequately defined by the MKMA. Adraft definition states:

Wilderness is evident overlarge areas where human ac-tivities and constraints are atlevels that allow for the per-petuation of characteristicnatural processes, and thepresence of the full comple-ment of plant and animalcommunities characteristic ofthe region. While non-perma-nent, site specific distur-bances and activities will beevident, the overall natural-ness, biological diversity andecological integrity of theMKMA will be maintained.(MKMA, unpublished photo-copy, undated)

Many difficult questions are raised, butnot yet answered by this definition,perhaps reflecting future issues to beaddressed by the MKMA in balancingwilderness and resource development.For example, the issue of how natu-ralness might be conceptualized andoperationalized has yet to be ad-equately addressed in the literature;similarly, the question of how the con-cepts of biodiversity and ecologicalintegrity might be measured andmonitored in the field remains unclear.

A New Model forWilderness Management?The MKMA basically seeks to create asustainable development model forwhat is now a de facto wilderness area,and in this sense is not particularlyunique. Resource development is per-mitted in most areas of the MKMA(outside of designated protected areas),and operational plans must considerand address all other significant valuespresent on the land base, such as fishand wildlife habitat, wilderness recre-ation and tourism, visual quality,cultural/heritage, and major river cor-ridors (British Columbia 1998b). This

approach equates to an integratedresource management and ecosystemmanagement approach used in numer-ous places around the globe.

However, in our view, the MKMAis unique in the way in which itcombines several strands of current,state-of-knowledge thinking. It mustbe noted that the baseline ecologicalhealth and integrity of the MKMA isunusual: Predator-prey relationshipsare intact and preserved at the ecosys-tem scale, primarily because of lowhuman populations levels and the ab-sence of an established road systemwith its associated habitat fragmenta-tion. However, the model is unique inits landscape level use of the wilder-ness concept to frame the maintenanceand management of the sizable region,not just designated protected areaswithin the MKMA.

The structural components ofmanagement are also innovative, inlarge part because of the grassrootslevel development of the MKMAideal; as the agreement was createdby local residents, they demandedthat local residents (via the Advisory

Figure 1—Map of the MKMA.


Board) manage the region rather thanthe traditional bureaucratic agencies.They also convinced a reluctant gov-ernment to provide a trust fund forthe region. Originally, $2 million an-nually were added to the trust fundfrom general revenue funds, althougha change to a more fiscally conserva-tive government has seen this figurereduced to $1 million per year. Us-ing interest income from this fund,the Advisory Board is able to conductsignificant amounts of research eachyear. This commitment to research isalso reflected in the partnership cre-ated with the University of NorthernBC, which has created a Muskwa-Kechika professorship, graduatestudent scholarship, and annual re-search funding (British Columbia1999). The vision statement of theAdvisory Board clearly reflects this in-terest in research as they “willpromote and encourage effective andinnovative resource management

methods, based on the highest qual-ity research. Through research andfunding activities, [they] seek worldclass management, monitoring, andmitigation to minimize the humanfootprint” (Muskwa-Kechika Advi-sory Board 2001, p. 4).

Most research follows the tenets ofconservation biology, which has be-come an influential lens through whichto view ecosystems at the landscapelevel (e.g., Soulé and Terborgh 1999).As a result, concerns with future de-velopment focus on connectivitybetween landscapes, maintaining core(i.e., protected) and buffer areas, man-aging at the landscape scale, habitatfragmentation, and the maintenance ofpredator-prey relationships. A Conser-vation Areas Design plan is currentlybeing generated to direct the manage-ment of the MKMA in relation to thelocation, level, and type of developmentactivities allowed and their potentialimpact on ecological processes in the

area. In addition, five smaller-scale leg-islated planning processes—recreationmanagement plans, wildlife manage-ment plans, landscape unit objectives(forest planning), parks plans, and oiland gas pretenure plans—have beencompleted or are in progress by eitherthe MKMA and/or the relevant govern-ment ministry.

Zoning is consistent with previoussystems, and yet somewhat unique. Thethree main zones are Special Manage-ment Zones and Enhanced ResourceManagement Zones (covering 57% ofthe MKMA), and Protection Manage-ment Zones (27% of the MKMA). Eachzone and its accompanying objectiveswere given legal status through theMKMA Act. The 2001 MacKenzie ad-dition to the MKMA included a separatewildland zone, incorporating almost50% of the addition (or 16% of theMKMA), which allows mineral extrac-tion but not timber harvesting; onlytemporary roads are permitted in thiszone (Craighead Environmental Re-search Institute 2002).

The Special Management Zones areperhaps the key to creating a balancebetween resource use and wildernesspreservation. These zones, which al-low resource development, attempt toensure that such development hasminimal effects on the ecological in-tegrity of the MKMA. In essence, theyare large buffer zones, which have of-ten been requested by conservationistsbut have rarely been establishedaround protected areas due to thecommercial concerns of private land-owners or public land managementagencies. According to the MKMA Act,“The long-term objective is to returnlands to their natural state as devel-opment activities are completed”(British Columbia 1998a, p. 1). Thus,ecological restoration, which has of-ten proven to be controversial in otherlocations (Gobster and Hull 2000), is

Encourage others to create similar unique,grassroots approaches to wilderness management

at the landscape level.

Figure 2—Trail riding is a popular recreation activity in the MKMA. Photo courtesy of John Shultis.


central to the concept of Special Man-agement Zones.

Several changes to local strategicplanning processes have also occurred.Perhaps most importantly, joint planapproval is required. In the past, plan-ning approvals for resourcedevelopments and recreation use in BChave been the sole responsibility ofthat provincial agency under whoselegal mandate the specific activity fell(e.g., Forest Development Plans wereapproved by the Ministry of Forests).To ensure an enhanced degree of inte-grated management in the MKMA,joint approvals are required for thevarious local strategic plans (e.g., tim-ber harvesting, oil and gas exploration,or development). Accountability isshared across government agencieshaving a broad spectrum of environ-mental and development mandates.

In terms of funding, the MKMA leg-islation created a new fundingmechanism to guarantee an enhancedand stable level of support from thegovernment in combination with pri-vate sector funding. In addition to thepreviously noted Muskwa-KechikaTrust Fund, which provides $1 mil-lion annually until 2005, thelegislation enables tax-deductible pri-vate sector donations to the trust fundthat allow a company or interest groupto champion or support a project.These donated funds are now matchedup to $1 million per year by the gov-ernment. It is important to note thatthe trust fund is not intended to re-place the annual operating budgets forthe resource management agencies inthe northeast, but rather to supportMKMA-specific planning initiativesand special projects. Again, much ofthis funding is dedicated to ecologicaland social research in the MKMA andtoward communicating research find-ings to the communities of the region(MKMA 2003).

Finally, a formal role for aboriginalpeople’s participation in implement-ing the vision for the MKMA has beennegotiated. Management of protectedareas and Special Management Zonesin the area recognize local First Na-tions (Kaska Dena) rights, culture, andhistory. Recognition is given to theright of the Kaska Dena to harvest fishand wildlife using traditional or con-temporary harvesting methods inaccordance with their aboriginal rightsto harvest for sustenance, social, andceremonial purposes. Several FirstNations’ representatives serve on theAdvisory Board (currently seven outof 20 board members). While FirstNations are occasionally consulted onaspects of land and resource manage-ment in BC, this agreement ensures anenhanced and more formalized role fortheir participation in the MKMA (Brit-ish Columbia 1997a).

Current Successes andFuture ChallengesThe MKMA model provides somemeaningful questions to supporters ofthe wilderness concept. Can the ideasof wilderness and development everbe compatible? In a wild landscape

covering over 6.3 million hectares(over 24,000 square miles), can the ideaof maintaining wilderness quality beused to guide land use allocation deci-sions, including resource extraction, ordoes the idea simply degrade the ideaof wilderness? Can a diverse groupcomposed of First Nations, membersof the public, and representatives fromresource extractive industries success-fully maintain the wilderness characterof the region, or even agree on how thiswilderness character might be definedand measured?

The question of whether the Advi-sory Board will be allowed to directand manage (i.e., restrict) economicactivity in the MKMA region is alsounanswered. Will individuals andcommunities accept a slower rate ofdevelopment and the possibility offewer jobs and other economic spin-offs arising from such actions? Willcorporations accept the changes tooperational policies that will be nec-essary to “maintain in perpetuity thewilderness quality, and the diversityand abundance of wildlife and the eco-systems on which it depends” as setout in the MKMA Act? The issue of mini-mizing the creation and maximizing the

Figure 3—Camping beneath the Hoodoos in the Wokkpash Gorge. Photo courtesy of John Shultis.


deactivation of roads typically devel-oped for forest and oil and gasdevelopment is perhaps the greatestchallenge in this regard, as the rela-tionship between road constructionand the destruction of wilderness andecological integrity is well documented(e.g., Havlick 2002).

Perhaps most importantly, will theprovincial government allow the Ad-visory Board to challenge its visionfor the region? While the MKMA Acthas distinct legislation that empow-ers and directs the MKMA AdvisoryBoard to manage the region, it re-mains Crown land owned by theprovince of BC and is subject to ex-isting government policy. Since 2001,a new, more fiscally conservative gov-ernment has made significant changesto environmental protection and re-source extraction policies. Forexample, a new results-based policyfor Crown land management is be-ing implemented, and industries arebasically allowed to write their ownmanagement plans as long as theymeet specific guidelines set by thegovernment. Critics argue that theenforcement of these results is hap-

hazard at best. Indeed, the enforce-ment of all types of activities in thisremote region (e.g., hiking, logging,mining, or hunting) is recognized bythe Advisory Board as extremelyproblematic, given the size of the re-gion and the decreasing amount ofconservation services provided by thegovernment. The current BC govern-ment is moving to double the numberof oil/gas wells in BC, and has expe-dited the development of pre-tenureplans for oil and gas development inthe MKMA (Craighead Environmen-tal Research Institute 2002).

Thus, many individuals, groups,and social forces will pressure theAdvisory Board to maintain the eco-nomic status quo (i.e., to facilitate andmaximize economic development),and these pressures can only be de-flected by strong public support forthis new vision. While such support—due in large part to theconsensus-based LRMP process andthe leadership and vision of the origi-nal two LRMP groups in the Fort St.John and Fort Nelson regions—is cur-rently widespread, constant vigilancewill be required to maintain it.

In terms of its successes, from itsvery creation the MKMA has been aninnovative community-based ap-proach to sustainable wildernesslandscape management. The originalLRMP process brought stakeholderstogether and allowed them to seekconsensus on how the land and wa-ter base would be managed, whiledoubling the size and number ofprotected areas in the province.While other regions were not ableto reach such a consensus, stake-holders in three northeastern BCregions agreed to create a unique,comprehensive approach to land useand wilderness management. Noother regions in BC created such anintegrated, long-term approach tosustainable land use or utilized theconcept of wilderness landscapes indistinct legislation to frame regionalmanagement.

Through the Advisory Board andagreements with First Nations com-munities, local residents have takencontrol over the management of theMKMA to ensure that the agreed-upon objectives in the legislation andpolicies are met. While the conceptsof sustainable development and com-munity-based conservation arecurrently seen as saviors of 21st-cen-tury global conservation, there havebeen few examples of long-term suc-cess as measured by increasedecological health and/or integrity inthese areas. Even rarer are areas withlargely intact ecological systems,landscapes large enough to maintainecological processes, and reserveswith adequate funding (Terborgh etal. 2002). It is hoped that the MKMAwill prove to be successful in main-taining the wilderness of northeasternBC and encourage others to createsimilar unique, grassroots approachesto wilderness management at thelandscape level.

Figure 4—Trapping is a traditional activity in the MKMA; old trappers cabin near Harworth Lake. Photo courtesy ofJohn Shultis.


REFERENCESBritish Columbia. 1993. A Protected Areas Strat-

egy for British Columbia. Victoria: BC.British Columbia. 1997a. Letter of Understand-

ing Amongst the Government of British Co-lumbia and the Kaska Dena Council,September, 24, 1997. Victoria: BC.

British Columbia. 1997b. Muskwa-KechikaManagement Area Management Plan.Victoria: BC.

British Columbia. 1998a. Muskwa-KechikaManagement Area Act. Victoria: BC.

British Columbia. 1998b. Fort Nelson Land andResource Management Plan Summary.Victoria: BC.

British Columbia. 1999. Interim Letter of Under-standing between the University of NorthernBritish Columbia and the Muskwa-KechikaAdvisory Board. Land Use Coordination Of-fice. Victoria: BC.

CORE. 1992. Report on a Land Use Strategyfor British Columbia. Victoria: BC.

Craighead Environmental Research Institute.2002. Muskwa-Kechika Management Area.Accessed January 10, 2003, at http://www.grizzlybear.org/MKMA.html.

Gobster, P. H. and B. Hull. 2000. RestoringNature: Perspectives from the Social Sci-ences. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.

Havlick, D.G. 2002. No Place Distant: Roads andMotorized Recreation on America’s PublicLands. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.

Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board. 2001. AnnualReport—Fiscal Year 2000–2001. Fort Nelson,BC: Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board.

Muskwa-Kechika Management Area. 2003.MKMA website. Accessed January 5, 2003,at http://www.muskwa-kechika.com.

Soulé, M. E. and J. Terborgh. 1999. Continental Con-servation: Scientific Foundations of Regional Re-serve Networks. Washington, D. C.: Island Press.

Terborgh, J., C. van Schaik, L. Davenport, and M.Rao. 2002. Making Parks Work: Strategies forPreserving Tropical Nature. Washington, D. C.:Island Press.

Wilson, J. 1998. Talk and Log: Wilderness Politicsin British Columbia, 1965–1996. Vancouver:UBC Press.

concerns over the impact of automobile-based tourism on the wilderness.According to Sutter, “What made mod-ern wilderness distinct, separate from thenational park ideal, was the critique ofconsumerism that was central to it” (p.16; emphasis in original). For example,Leopold, in his Wilderness as a Form ofLand Use, published in 1925, stated that“Generally speaking, it is not timber, andcertainly not agriculture which is caus-ing the decimation of wilderness areas,but rather the desire to attract tourists”(cited on page 81). Sutter further sug-gests that before and after the interwarperiod, the politics of wilderness focusedon the traditional utilitarian conserva-tion versus preservation battle lines.

The founders of The Wilderness So-ciety were responding to a wave ofpublicity from land agencies eager tomaximize the use of protected areas, andto the unprecedented wave of publicspending on the infrastructure (e.g.,roads, campgrounds, trails) necessary tofacilitate and attract users. They werealso responding to the broader concernsof the nascent consumer society createdin the interwar period; the outdoor rec-reation craze of the interwar period wasitself a manifestation of Americans’newly found predilection and desire toincrease consumption. Many were con-cerned that the automobile wouldirrevocably alter the wilderness experi-ence, from a constructive andintrospective to a more escapist, mecha-nistic, and destructive experience.

Sutter provides convincing evidenceof early wilderness leaders’ fixation onthe potential impact of consumerismand recreation development on wilder-ness. While Sutter occasionally is a littleoverzealous in focusing on his primarytheme, Driven Wild succeeds in provid-ing an interesting and unique analysisof the rationales provided by wildernessleaders for creating a new society tochampion the concept of wilderness inthe oft-overlooked interwar period.Readers interested in the history of theAmerican wilderness movement willappreciate this distinctive and impas-sioned analysis, and will be remindedof the long history of concerns over ourconsumption patterns on wilderness.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS

From BOOK REVIEWS on page 48

JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor inthe Resource Recreation and TourismProgram, University of Northern BC, 3333University Way, Prince George, BC,Canada V2N 4Z9. E-mail:[email protected].

RON RUTLEDGE, former MKMA programmanager, resides in Taos, New Mexico.

Figure 5—The MKMA supports a diverse number of large mammals, including these young caribou. Photo by Ken Meadows.


Relationships BetweenTransfrontier Park Managers,

Policy Makers, and ResidentIndigenous Populations

BY SANDRA SLATER-JONES

Because of their strong spiritual, cultural, economic, andhistoric ties to the land, indigenous local communities liv-ing within or adjacent to transfrontier parks are the mostaffected by how these parks are planned and managed.Understanding the underlying issues that influence rela-tionships among transfrontier park managers, policymakers, and resident indigenous populations may helpidentify possible solutions to these challenges.

Case Study MethodologyThree case studies of transfrontier parks are the focus ofthis article: the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park,the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, and the Great LimpopoTransfrontier Park (Slater-Jones 2002). Semistructured in-terviews with selected key informants from each of thecase studies were conducted between June and Septem-ber 2002. Nonprobability, purposive sampling was usedto ensure that informants were diverse in age, gender, in-come, level of access to natural resources, and place withinthe community. For the purposes of this article, commonunderlying themes evident in all three case studies havebeen extracted from the longer research report and arepresented here as issues.

In 1932, the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park(WGIPP) joined Glacier National Park, USA, and Canada’sWaterton Lakes National Park to become the firsttransfrontier park in the world. The WGIPP was formu-lated as a celebration of peace and good relations betweenthe United States and Canada. The WGIPP allows visitors

STEWARDSHIP

IntroductionThe creation of transfrontier parks—cross-border resourceprotection units—is a hot topic on the conservation agendatoday. Transfrontier parks are not only heralded interna-

tionally as joining resource-richareas together and enlarging pro-tected areas to further protectbiodiversity, but also as providingeconomic opportunities for residentpopulations living within or nearthese parks and creating an atmo-sphere of cooperation that canpromote regional peace (Jaidev andJackson 1999).

Borders, because they exist at theinterface of autonomous nations andtheir sovereignty, are strong symbolsof the power of nation-states. They

reflect and reinforce the power of nations and their identi-ties (Donnan and Wilson 2001). Since transfrontier parksexist at international borders and are important symbols ofcooperation between countries, they have greater societalexpectations placed upon them than national parks. Theseexpectations include the protection of biological conserva-tion and extend into the realm of social equality and welfare.In short, there are immense social expectations placed upontransboundary protected area managers and policy makersto produce favorable results, often under very contentiouscircumstances.

Article author Sandra Slater-Jones.


to experience and appreciate resourcesthat deemphasize boundaries (A.Vanderbilt, personal communication).

The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park(KTP) was proclaimed on May 12,2000, through the signing of a treatybetween Botswana and South Africa,joining the Gemsbok National Park inthe southwestern part of Botswana andthe Kalahari Gemsbok National Park,in the northwest part of South Africa.It is one of the few places in southernAfrica where wildlife can move freelyover vast ranges according to chang-ing weather patterns. It is heralded asthe first formalized transfrontier parkin Africa, thus serving as a model forother such parks (W. Myburgh, per-sonal communication).

The Great Limpopo TransfrontierPark (GLTP) was created in November2001, joining the Limpopo NationalPark in Mozambique, the Kruger Na-tional Park, and Zimbabwe’sGonarezhou National Park. Kruger Na-tional Park already attracts largenumbers of tourists to the southern Af-rica region due to its incredible diversityof wild animals (including charismaticmegafauna) and its world-renownedwildlife management system. With allthree protected areas joined together toform one of the largest and most diverseconservation areas in Africa, the tour-ism potential is expected to reach evengreater, if not overwhelming propor-tions, which will boost the respectivenational economies.

Following is a description of threemajor issues synthesized from re-sponses that were common to all threetransfrontier areas studied (Slater-Jones 2002).

Issue 1: Dislocation andRelocation of Resident PeopleIn the process of creating national parksaround the world, resident indigenouspeople are often dispossessed of the

land upon which they depend. As aresult, a severe loss of cultural integ-rity and political autonomy of manyof the displaced groups has occurred(West and Brechin 1991). These kindsof impacts often generate hostilityamong local resident populations to-ward national parks and, as a result,impair the success of sustaining theseprotected areas in the long term.

In WGIPP the loss of aboriginalland by certain Native American tribes,now living in reservations adjacent tothe park, has caused long-standingbitterness that continues to erode thegoodwill necessary for mutual coop-eration between the tribes and theparks. Fourteen thousand registeredmembers of the Blackfeet tribe(Gallagher et al. 1999) currently liveon a reservation bordering the eastern

edge of the WGIPP in northwesternMontana. They lost their land in ces-sion to the federal government in1895. The Blackfeet had no choice butto sell their ancestral land because, asBryan (1996) describes, they weremarginalized and completely depen-dent on the federal government at thetime. Bear Medicine Bailey Peterson,a Blackfeet tribal member, describes alarge proportion of the payment for theland was the irrigation systems that theBlackfeet had to build themselves andwhich did not ultimately benefit them(B. Peterson, personal communica-tion). Some of the Blackfeet describethe term land cession as a polite way ofsaying “confiscated” (Burnham 2000).These century-old land issues remainentangled in current politics, therebyconfusing trust and preventing harmony.

Figure 1—GLTP residents do not want to move from their villages to the proposed irrigated buffer zone despite drought andharsh living conditions. Photo by Richard Slater-Jones.

When national/international goals and local valuesconflict, highly collaborative processes involving local

versus national interests seem vital.


The loss of heritage and rights hasgrown larger in issues of ownershipand control of resources in the WGIPPtoday. As a consequence, there is a riftin the relationship between the parkagencies and the tribe, although overtime collaboration and cooperationhave improved substantially.

The results of dislocation are fur-ther evident in the case of the KalahariGemsbok National Park formation in

1931 (now part of the KTP), whenthe Nlamani and Khomani San (Bush-men) aboriginal people were forcedout of their territory. They weremoved to settlements outside thepark where conditions have deterio-rated over the years—enveloping thecommunities in extreme poverty, se-vere cases of malnutrition, and socialdisparity. The Mier community, an-other culture group that occupied

territories in the park area before itwas established, was also forcibly re-moved from its land and deprived ofgood economic opportunities. Today,the people of that community liveunder poor conditions, including lowlevels of education, insufficientemployment opportunities, limitedmarkets, and acute lack of socialwelfare services (Engelbrecht andEngelbrecht 2000). In 1999, theSouth African National Parks, afterlengthy court proceedings, agreed torelinquish control of 135,905 acres(55,000 hectares) of the park, whichwas divided between San and Mier(Cock and Fig 2000). The San andthe Mier have agreed that the landremains part of the park as a pro-tected area. The land claim agreementof San communities has shown noevidence of improved livelihoods (E.Koch, personal communication; D.Grossman, personal communication).Rural poverty and deprivation mustbe understood so that further job pos-sibilities and partnerships can beidentified (Fig 2000).

Similar dislocation and relocationof indigenous residents is an issue ina transfrontier park in the making—the GLTP. During the Mozambiquecivil war (1976–1992), many peoplefled the country to South Africa. Afterthe war, many returned to the regionswhere their ancestors were buried andwere reunited with their families. To-day, there is a population of about30,000 people living within theLimpopo National Park (Mozambiqueportion of the GLTP). There are about6,500 people living along theShingwedzi and Elephant Rivers, inthe area in Mozambique proposedto be the Tourism Zone of the park.The GLTP management board hasproposed the relocation of thesepeople to a proposed buffer zone,the 643-mile (400-kilometer) eastern

Figure 2—The general sentiment of GLTP residents states “We will not leave our land!” Photo by Richard Slater-Jones.

Figure 3—With so much at stake, the future of the GLTP must be carefully considered. Photo by Richard Slater-Jones.


boundary of the GLTP along theLimpopo River, where 16,000 peoplealready live. As an offer of compensa-tion, the project proposes that housingand irrigated fields will be providedto the relocated communities in the newsupport zone. As far as the Shangaancommunity members living along theShingwedzi River are concerned, re-location will have a huge impact ontheir lifestyle. At least 98% of thesecommunity members interviewedfrom different village, class, age, andgender distinctions expressed that theywere unwilling to move even if offeredcompensation.

Relocation strategies are likely to failif they do no have support from thepeople affected, and this reality has con-siderably slowed the pace at which theproposed actions are being implementedin the GLTP. Other alternatives includeleaving unwilling communities intactalong the river, where a second resourcezone (in addition to the Limpopo BufferZone) could be created to prevent ani-mal-people and people-park conflictsoccurring in the current region allocatedfor tourism. Additionally, the second re-source zone may be declared a culturalzone, where tourists can take part in cul-tural and traditional activities, ifsupported by the local community. Theseadditional options could create opportu-nity for aid and development-relatedtourist programs, adding to value and di-versity of the GLTP and preventingunnecessary consequences of relocation.

It is recognized that transfrontierparks create new ecological corridorsjoining resources across borders, butpark authorities must also considerthe needs and rights of the peoplewho depend on these areas for live-lihood and survival. If this is notdone, the result will be long-termdamage to the trust and cooperationbetween transfrontier parks and resi-dent people.

Issue 2: Conflicting NationalVersus Local InterestsConflicting interests often arise from thevalue differences regarding the appro-priate use of natural resources orbetween local communities and na-tional interests. Transfrontier parksusually consist of national parks set upby national institutions with nationalconstituencies. Local communities, onthe other hand, are influenced by is-sues and needs of a more local nature.This difference makes it likely that con-flicting interests will occur.

One of the major conflicting issuesoccurring in the WGIPP is hunting.The 1895 land agreement between theBlackfeet Tribe and the U.S. govern-ment stated that the tribe had reservedthe right to “cut and remove wood andtimber for houses, fences, and all otherdomestic purposes, to hunt upon theland, and to fish in the streams as longas it remains public land of the UnitedStates” (Bryan 1996). According toBurnham (2000), the Blackfeet heldthose rights until Glacier National Parkwas created in 1910 and the localhunting rights were revoked. As a re-sult, today many Blackfeet Tribalmembers are bitter toward the WGIPP

Figure 4—Kgalagadi residents take a long journey through the desert by donkey cart to fetch water. Photo by Sandra Slater-Jones.

Figure 5—WGIIP—heritage of the Blackfeet and Salish-Kootenaitribes. Photo by Sandra Slater-Jones.

and feel denied of their rights to huntin an area that they consider to his-torically belong to them.

Similar to the issue of hunting in theWGIPP is the issue of cattle in the GLTP.Local people who wish to remain in theGLTP with their livestock will pose aserious ecological threat. Wild animal


populations, for instance, may be af-fected by the presence of livestockthrough disease transmission, and wildanimals may pose a threat to livestockand human lives. Although fencing inthe villages is proposed, complicationsmay occur when considering thatextensive agricultural fields need to befenced. No matter how well transfrontierparks are able to accomplish scientificand ecological goals, conflicting socialand moral imperatives will always ex-ist (West and Brechin 1991). Whennational/international goals and localvalues conflict, highly collaborativeprocesses involving local versus na-tional interests seem vital.

Effective relationships between thelocal people and the park to enhanceand maintain shared values requirecommunication, mediation, and nego-tiation between these stakeholders,along with joint problem solving (Westand Brechin 1991). For transfrontierparks to be successful, a focus on com-mon interests and common goals isneeded. Compromise and adaptationon the behalf of all stakeholders isnecessary if cooperation and stabilityare to be maintained.

Most transfrontier parks have betterscientific and biodiversity information

than social analyses. More attention isneeded on the stated social goals andthe processes needed to achieve them—particularly policies to create anacceptable balance between the conser-vation efforts of transfrontier parkmanagers and the rights of resident in-digenous people who rely on the localnatural resources.

Issue 3: MissedSocioeconomic OpportunitiesAlthough there is an appreciation of thepotential conservation benefits oftransfrontier parks from the improvedprotection of natural heritage andbiodiversity, the potential socioeconomicreturns are lacking or not realized. Jobopportunities in tourism generally ben-efit a small minority of local residents.The Blackfeet tribe living adjacent to theWGIPP have a poor local economy, with50% unemployment (Burnham 2000).Jobs created through tourism in theWGIPP are not sufficient to solve thetribe’s economic problems. Similarly, inthe GLTP there are neither long-termfunds nor capacity to meet all expecta-tions of communities (A. Van Wyk,personal communication), and in theKTP job opportunities for local peoplein tourism are still few and far between.

Although ecotourism does not al-ways have the capacity to providesufficient jobs for local residents, newpossibilities may provide further andextended opportunities. Cultural tour-ism is one possibility and is currentlyunderutilized. Tourist interests intransfrontier parks might include thecultural elements of the protected area,and development of cultural aspectscould increase public interest in a par-ticular area. Creating cultural zonesmay enhance the status of transfrontierparks and expand the range of expe-riences to meet diverse interests. Suchdevelopment of cultural resources, incollaboration with the resident com-

munities under local leadership,would seem logically a source of jobsas well as pride in heritage and pro-tection of the area.

Rather than merely being token ben-eficiaries of transfrontier parks, localcommunities need to become real part-ners through ownership rights anddecision making. It is important thattransfrontier park managers can embracea range of alternatives to deliver local eco-nomic benefits, such as current activities:contract work for park infrastructure con-struction in the KTP; consultancy work,ecological management, and monitoringin the WGIPP; and craft production forthe local and international market pro-posed for the new GLTP. As morepartnerships are established with residentpeople that include opportunities for theireconomic benefit, support for the pro-tected area increases and marginalizationof local residents will be reduced. Part-nerships between private sector, park, andresident participants create a solid foun-dation from which local economicopportunities can grow.

ConclusionConservation today calls for a greaterawareness of human rights and socialissues. It is important that managersand policy makers of transfrontierparks understand the negative socialconsequences of many past ap-proaches and rebuild broken bondsbetween park management and resi-dent people. New transfrontier parksrequire policies that address the needsof local populations. If transfrontierparks are to fulfill the promise of eco-nomic growth and community capac-ity building, it will require respect forthe integrity, importance, and values oflocal cultures, and opportunities forcommunities to promote their owngoals and priorities. Despite improvedrelationships between protected areasand resident people over the last two

Figure 6—One of the few locally run tourism businesses in theWGIPP—Sun Tours. Photo by Sandra Slater-Jones.


decades, this study found problems toaddress in three transfrontier parks:displacement of indigenous people,conflicting local and national interests,and missed socioeconomic opportu-nities. Many examples and opportu-nities noted in the interviews with keyinformants are encouraging in termsof progress being possible. Suchprogress is essential in realizing thegoal that “Transfrontier Parks ensurepeace, prosperity and stability for gen-erations to come” (Borchert 2002).

AcknowledgementsTo Charles Besancon for assistance withthe research in WGIPP and support andguidance in writing the final report; toVance Martin and the WILD Founda-tion, USA for sponsoring the WGIPPcomponent of the research; and toBelinda Bozolli and the DevelopmentStudies Department of the Universityof Witwatersrand, South Africa forsponsoring the GLTP research.

REFERENCESBorchert, P., ed. 2002. Peace parks: No turning

back. Africa Geographic: (9) 11:86–87.Bryan, W. L. 1996. Montana’s Indians Yesterday

and Today. Helena, Mont., USA: Americanand World Publishing.

Burnham, P. 2000. Indian Country—God’sCountry: Native Americans and the NationalParks. Washington D.C.:, Island Press.

Cock, J., and D. Fig. 2000. From colonial tocommunity-based conservation: Environ-mental justice and the national parks of South

Africa. Society in Transition 31 (1): 22–35.Donnan, H., and T. M. Wilson. 2001. Borders:

Frontiers of Identity, Nation and State. Ox-ford, UK: Berg.

Engelbrecht, M., and D. Engelbrecht. 2000.Towards conservation through a social ecol-ogy approach in the Kgalagadi TransfrontierPark. In Towards Best Practice, Communi-ties and Conservation Conference Proceed-ings, Berg en Dal., Kruger National Park:South African National Parks and DANCED.

Fig, D. 2000. Professionalising our practice. Therole of tertiary education in developing thepractice of social ecology. Towards Best Prac-tice, Communities and Conservation, Con-ference Proceedings. Berg en Dal, KrugerNational Park: South African National Parksand DANCED.

Gallagher, E., F. Miele, M. P. Murphy, R. Nickell,and S. Olin. 1999. The Insiders Guide toGlacier. Helena, Montana: Falcon.

Grossman, Dave. Consultant Kalahari LandClaim. Sandringham, South Africa. Personalcommunication, 2002.

Jaidev, Jay Singh and Rodney Jackson. 1999.Transfrontier Conservation areas: Creating op-portunities for conservation, peace, and thesnow leopard in central Asia. IJW 5 (3): 7–12.

Koch, Eddie. Environmental Sociology Jour-nalist, Nelspruit, South Africa. Personalcommunication, 2002.

Myburgh, Werner. Peace Parks Foundation,Stellenbosch, South Africa. Personal com-munication, 2002.

Peterson, Bailey Bear Medicine. Blackfeet TribalMember, Browning, Mont. Personal commu-nication, 2002.

Slater-Jones, S. 2002. Social impacts oftransfrontier parks. Development Studies.Johannesburg, University of theWitwatersrand, unpublished master thesis.

Vanderbilt, Amy. Public Affairs Officer. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, West Gla-cier, Mont. Personal communication, 2002.

Van Wyk, Arrie. Project Manager for GreatLimpopo Transfrontier Park, Nelspruit, 1200,

Figure 7—Villagers living along the Shingwedzi River in theGLTP completely rely on the natural resources of the area tosurvive. Photo by Richard Slater-Jones.

South Africa. Personal communication,2002.

West, P. C., and S. R. Brechin. 1991. ResidentPeoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmasand Strategies in International Conservation.Tucson, University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

SANDRA SLATER-JONES is an environ-mental sociology consultant who received anature conservation b-tech degree in 2000from Pretoria Technikon and a mastersdegree in 2002 from Development Studies,University of Witwatersrand. She can becontacted at [email protected].

From ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE on page 34

of a high level Wilderness Policy Councilhas, for the first time, provided an inter-agency forum for discussion of programsand priorities. Much of the council’s initialefforts have been focused on respondingto the recommendations in the 2001 reportof the Pinchot Institute for Conservation,Ensuring the Stewardship of the National Wil-derness Preservation System (see http://

www.pinchot.org/pic/wilderness_report.pdf). Recognition of the importanceof common problems faced by the wilder-ness agencies, together with the synergyfound in leveraging limited resources to ad-dress common issues, provides hope thatthe model of a dedicated, base-funded in-teragency program of wildernessmanagement science is here to stay.

More information about both theresearch and application programs ofthe Leopold Institute, including sum-maries of key projects and publica-tions, can be found at http://leopold.wilderness.net.

DAVID J. PARSONS is Director, AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute,Missoula, MT; E-mail: [email protected].


Using wildlands for adventure racing has come un-der increasing scrutiny during the past severalyears as adventure racing sports have become more

mainstream. Practitioners’ perspectives may be helpful ingaining insight into the motivations, experiences, and im-pacts of this (sometimes) wilderness-dependent activity.

Participants and EventsParticipants are from every possible background. Thoughbackgrounds vary, participants’ personal criteria are similarand singular—the need for maximum challenge and a dedi-cation to rigorous physical training. For example, I am aprofessional marketing consultant and personal career coach.I began competing in 1997 in the Eco-Challenge 24 to 36hour qualifier race held in Pt. Mugu, California. Only threeof the top finishers would go on to participate in the 1997Eco-Challenge five to 12-day Expedition Race in Australia.

In 1997, adventure racing was still new to the public,though it was already well established within an interestedand relatively small group of people from around the world.While every participant I met was a true adventure lover,my attraction to them was based on their respect for natureand the wilderness. They also knew that racing is not actu-ally about individual competition, rather it is about teamschallenging each other, against the clock, in nature. Be-cause of the varied nature of the sport and the challengesinherent within it, both physical and interpersonal skillsare needed to successfully compete. As a result of all thesefactors, adventure racing participants are very different typefrom people I had met while doing triathlons—a sport thatI now regard, when compared to adventure racing, as verylinear and controlled.

What hooked me on adventure racing was the set ofquestions every racer must face: How will I survive? Howwill I keep moving forward when I am suffering—men-tally, emotionally and physically? How will I set aside allmy emotions in order to assist the weak person on my teamwhen that person is making us lag behind? Will I be able toreach deep inside myself and keep going at the momentwhen I am the weakest person? The internal stirrings andquestions felt during a race are a compacted version of life.The issues are forced to the surface—and the racer mustdeal with them immediately. Procrastination may cost timeand is potentially life threatening. I relish the adventure-racing challenge.

Many types of events can fall under the umbrella of “ad-venture racing. I refer to a one- to multiday, multisport event,usually consisting of three-, four-, or five-person teams (usu-ally with at least one female as a member of the team)traveling across hundreds of miles of open ocean, lakes,rivers, mountains and/or jungles, with a map and compass,checkpoints to reach, and a time deadline to finish. Thereare no direct paths, no markers to tell you where to go,and—usually—no support crews to assist your team ingetting from point A to point B. The races are held in all

STEWARDSHIP

Adventure Racing in the WildBY LINDA MOFFAT

Article author Linda Moffat (third from left) with her Eco-Challenge teammates.


areas of the world, such as Africa,Malaysia, Europe, New Zealand, Aus-tralia, China, and, of course, theUnited States. The multiple sportstend to focus on the terrain of the landand country in which the races areheld. They consist of trail running,hiking, mountain biking, some formof paddling—kayaks, canoes,outrigger canoes, rafts—horsebackriding, ropes work—ascending anddescending mountains—and naviga-tion. A map, compass, and person whohas strong navigational skills (no GPSequipment allowed) is critically impor-tant in these events. Without these keyresources, the entire team can get lostand physically depleted as theystruggle to find their way through thecourse. Most teams race with very littlesleep (two to three hours a night, ifthat); sleep deprivation is one of themany challenges in keeping a teammoving forward.

Adventure racing must be similar tothe type of scenario faced by originalexplorers and adventurers, who had tocope with life and death decisions in thewild. It requires working through com-plex and continuing challenges withoutthe technology and comforts providedby the modern world. I contend thatthese comforts blind us to “real” life andalienate us from understanding the im-portance of wise, balanced use ofprecious natural resources and the needto sustain wilderness. Adventure racinghelps me, and all other participants Iknow, choose a world with wildernessrather than one of just cement walls andsidewalks.

History and Impacts ofAdventure RacingThere has been much discussion aboutthe impacts of adventure racing, and,thus far, it appears to be constructive,but more information and continued

discussion is needed. To further thisprocess, I asked a couple of adventureracers whom I respect immensely tocomment on what it means to themto pursue their sport in the wild. I re-spect them not just as athletes, but alsobecause of their philosophy on life andhow their lives and everyday activitiesweave into nature. The two inter-viewed were Ian Adamson, three-timewinner of the well-known and presti-gious Eco-Challenge and first-placefinisher of Raid Gauloises, along withmultiple first-place finishes in otherwell-known adventure races; andAdam Chase, an adventure racer andsnowshoe racer, best known for hismultiple first-place wins in the area ofultratrail running races (50- to 100-mile races). Both provided me withgreat comments on their perspectives.

Though adventure racing began toreceive public attention in the mid1990s, the following excerpt from IanAdamson’s forthcoming 2004 book,Runner’s World Guide to Adventure Rac-ing, tells the story of how team racingstarted in the mid-1980s.

In 1987 French journalistGerard Fusil was covering theBOC Challenge, a solo aroundthe world yacht race, and itsparked an idea to have asimilar race, but for smallteams of men and womenwith no mechanical assis-tance. His concept was tohave coed teams consisting offive people on a “ground”team navigating vast distancesover rugged wilderness, sup-ported by two people on the“logistics” team. The originalrace was held in New Zealandin 1989, much to the delightof John Howard who, alongwith his teammates, thoughtthe whole thing would be agreat way to play in theirbackyard. These set the stagefor a dynasty of racing inwhich Howard would win

Figure 1—Ian Adamson mountain biking in Moab, Utah. Photocourtesy of Linda Moffat.

Figure 2—Rappelling on an adventure challenge race. Photocourtesy of Linda Moffat.

three of every major interna-tional race and then retire toraise a family in his bus withhis Japanese wife.

I asked both competitors how ad-venture racing changed or impactedtheir life, and what value they see inthis (sometimes) wilderness-depen-dent activity. Ian commented:


Adventure racing providedme an opportunity to enjoy alifestyle that incorporates wil-derness backcountry travel,cultural experiences, athletic/mental challenge, and a closerlook at the environment andour impact on it, with an in-come-earning source. I sus-pect that most adventureathletes do not come from acompetitive athletic back-ground, rather they are drawnto the sport from enjoymentof the outdoors and use it asa way to participate in a chal-lenging but social wildernesssport.

Adventure racing does notnecessarily involve wilder-ness, as there are plenty ofurban and even indoor racesaround. That said, two of the

biggest attractions to adven-ture racing (for me) are theinteresting countries and dif-ferent wilderness environ-ments we get to experience.Places like Tibet, Mongolia,Madagascar, Borneo,Greenland, Lesotho, NewZealand, Newfoundland, andLabrador ... the places,people, history and naturalenvironment are all part of theexperience.

I’ve been extremely fortu-nate to [have been] involvedin adventure racing since themid-1980s and consequentlyhave been able to leverage myexperience along with the ex-plosion of the sport in the U.S.over the last five years. Thishas allowed me to base myincome and lifestyle aroundwilderness events as an ath-lete, writer, television pro-ducer, and public speaker. Indoing so, I have had a greatopportunity to expose morepeople to the wilderness andgive them an appreciation forits beauty and value. Hope-fully, this will encourage themto experience it and feel in-vested in preserving the natu-ral environment.

The “off-trail” argumentmay have some reason forconcern. However, no adven-ture racing in the UnitedStates allows off-trail travel inecologically sensitive areas,and virtually all races incor-porate heavy penalties for ath-letes who break these rules.Adventure racing is prohib-ited in designated wildernessareas and is heavily restrictedin national parks. [Bureau ofLand Management] land isopen to use after a permitting

process, and generally onlythrough lands that are opento 4x4 vehicles, [all-terrainvehicles], motorbikes, horses,cattle, and mining.

Adam Chase, a native of Boulder,Colorado, voiced some concerns:

The littering and disregard forthe natural beauty throughwhich we race, as I saw at theNew Zealand Eco-Challenge,didn’t sit well with me froman environmentalist stand-point. That concern only es-calated last year when theSubaru Primal Quest was heldin Telluride, [Colorado,] de-spite the raging forest fires inthe region and the fact that therace created a great demandon what were already over-taxed limited human re-sources when it came torescue/safety personnel. It issad, but many adventure rac-ers and a few race directorscare more about the competi-tion and race promotions thanabout what they are doing andwhere they are doing it.

I don’t want to soundoverly skeptical, because ad-venture racing and the cover-age of the sport motivatespeople in a unique way to ex-perience the natural environ-ments through which theyrace. Last year I did the RaidSeries race in Sweden and Nor-way and, despite the fact thatwe were in those countries foronly four days total, I felt anaffinity and respect for thoselands that I never would havegained had I been on a guidedtour. Seeing the countrysidefrom the perspective of a raceris very different than touringit via motorized transport,stopping at “points of interest”and sleeping in B&Bs. Not thatI didn’t long for a bit of thecreature comforts that comewith all that, but it is so far re-moved that it almost feels cen-sored when compared to the

FYI—Image 3 was too low in resolution to use.

Figure 3—Water travel like kayaking is part of many races.Photo courtesy of Linda Moffat.

To enjoy and ensure the protection of our preciouswild resources and wildlife, we all need to be

accountable for our actions.


raw exposure one gains fromadventure racing. Hopefully,adventure racers and race di-rectors are becoming moresensitive to the environment,and the Leave-No-Trace ethicwill be put into play so that thesport will result in a net ben-efit to the environment be-cause of the inspiration it givespeople for nature.

Despite the obvious financial inter-ests in the business of adventure racing,I believe there is also a conscientiouseffort to ensure that the race environ-ment and terrain are not abused and,hopefully, are respected. To enjoy and

ensure the protection of our preciouswild resources and wildlife, we all needto be accountable for our actions. It’san individual conscious effort. Everyrecreational pursuit will have some en-vironmentally unethical participants.As Adam mentioned, we all need tointegrate the Leave-No-Trace ethic intoour everyday lives. Adventure racersneed to be educators, as Ian has becomethrough his experiences and lifestyle asa true adventurer.

Humans have an amazing ability toadapt. It is one of the great lessons I havelearned through racing. When chal-lenges occur and life gets tough, take adeep breath and keep moving forward.

It is when we adapt to what life throwsat us that we become stronger humanbeings. If we all take a proactive stanceand do a little adapting, we can cometogether as a “team” and make progresstoward saving the “wild.”

LINDA MOFFAT has competed over thepast six years in multiple 24- to 36- houradventure races, as well as two Eco-Challenge Expedition Races in Borneo,Malaysia, in 2000 and New Zealand in2001. Linda has climbed Mts. Kilimanjaro,Rainier, Kinabalu, Shasta and multiplepeaks in Patagonia and New Zealand. Shecan be contacted [email protected].

the condition of that wilderness resourcewill be, is entirely dependent on ourefforts today to educate and investdollars in the education of tomorrow’smanagers and visitors.

REFERENCESAnderson, D. H. 1980. Displacement of visitors

within the Boundary Waters Canoe AreaWilderness. Ph.D. diss., Colorado StateUniversity.

Cole, D. N., and T. E. Hall, 1992. Trends inCampsite Condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness,Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Grand Can-yon National Park. Research Paper INT-453.Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, Inter-mountain Research Station.

Cole, D, N., A. E. Watson, T. E. Hall, and D. R.Spildie. 1997. High-Use Destinations inWilderness: Social and Biophysical Impacts,Visitor Responses, and Management Op-tions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INTRP-496. Ogden,Utah: USDA Forest Service, IntermountainResearch Station.

Flood, J. P. 1999. The influence of site restora-tion programs on wilderness visitor experi-ence and visitor opinions of managers.

Master’s thesis, University of Minnesota,Minneapolis.

Flood, J. P. 2001. The effectiveness of wilder-ness restoration: Perceptions of visitors andmanagers. Ph.D. diss. University of Minne-sota, Minneapolis.

Kaplan, S., and J. F. Talbot. 1983. Psychologi-cal benefits of a wilderness experience. In:I. Altman and J. F. Wohlwill, eds. Behaviorand the Natural Environment. New York:Plenum, 163–203.

Manning, R. E. 1986. Studies in Outdoor Rec-reation: A Review and Synthesis of the So-cial Science Literature in Outdoor Recreation.Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Martin, S. R., S. F. McCool, and R. C. Lucas. 1989.Wilderness campsite impacts: Do managersand visitors see them the same? Environmen-tal Management 13 (5): 623–629.

Rossman, B. B., and Z. J. Ulehla. 1977. Psy-chological reward values associated withwilderness use: A functional reinforcementapproach. Environment and Behavior 9 (1):41–65.

Schreyer, .R., and J. W. Roggenbuck, J. W.1978. The influence of experience expecta-tions on crowding perceptions and socialpsychological carrying capacities. LeisureSciences 1 (4): 373–394.

Stankey, G. H., and R. Schreyer. 1987. Atti-tudes toward wilderness and factors affect-ing visitor behavior: A state-of-knowledgereview. In proceedings—National Wilder-ness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Direction. Gen. Tech.Rep. INT-200. Odgen, Utah: USDA ForestService, Intermountain Research Station,246–293.

Stokes, G. 1990. The evolution of wildernessmanagement. Journal of Forestry, 88 (10):15–20.

Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, and T. A. Heberlein.1980. Perceptions of crowding and resourcequality by early and more recent visitors.Leisure Sciences 3: 367–381.

Watson, A. E., and R. Cronn, R. 1994. Howprevious experience relates to visitors’ per-ceptions of wilderness conditions.Backcountry Recreation Management Trends31 (3): 43–46.

JOSEPH P. FLOOD is an assistant professor,Department of Recreation and LeisureStudies, East Carolina University, 163Minges Coliseum, Greenville, NC 27858-4353, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

From FLOOD article on page 38


IntroductionRural people in Alaska and Finland exhibit strong ties tothe land, including legally designated wilderness areas,for subsistence purposes. These traditional activities re-flect intricate relationships between humans and theenvironment (Endter-Wada 1996; VanZee et al. 1994).Similarities in relationships between the people and landsof the far north include contemporary and historic con-flicts between urban and rural people, conflicts betweenindigenous and nonindigenous people, and conflicts be-

tween subsistence and recreation activities. The overallgoal of this project was to identify components of landuse conflicts in Alaska and Finland wilderness and toexamine how those components interact to create theconflict situations.

Subsistence and WildernessSubsistence activities include fishing, hunting, gathering,and herding animals (particularly reindeer in Finland), and,generally, traditional cultural practices, traditional activi-ties for sustaining life, or traditional occupations that providea minimal livelihood. Subsistence activities typically relyon natural resources, such as land and water, and the ani-mals and plants they contain.

Subsistence uses have long occurred within and adjacentto legally designated wilderness in both Alaska and Finland(Aikio and Aikio 1989; Endter-Wada 1996). In both loca-tions, indigenous and nonindigenous people actively engagein subsistence lifestyles, predominantly based from ruralcommunities. In both locations there are perceived threatsto the continuance of subsistence lifestyles, including threatsto land and natural systems, threats to a continuance of cul-ture, and threats to rights of access and use.

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Interpersonal and SocietalAspects of Use Conflicts

A Case Study of Wilderness in Alaska and Finland

BY JOAN KLUWE and EDWIN E. KRUMPE

Abstract: Wilderness conflicts in Finland and Alaska are multifaceted, with recreation uses increasinglyconflicting with subsistence activities. To investigate these conflicts, over 70 interviews were conducted withsubsistence users, representatives from guide companies, local residents, land managers, and nongovernmentalorganizations in Alaska and Finland. While goal interference and scarcity of resources are factors in manyconflicts, social and cultural factors (e.g., traditional values and rights issues) play important roles too.Conflicts that appear at first to be direct and tangible may be symptoms of underlying societal, judicial, andphilosophical conflicts.

(PEER REVIEWED)

Article coauthor Joan Kluwe above theKanektok River in southwest Alaska.Photo by Larry Barnes.

Article coauthor Ed Krumpe.


Alaska and Finland have relativelynew wilderness legislation. Erämaalaki(The Act on Wilderness Reserves) waspassed in Finland in 1991; it estab-lished 12 wilderness reserves in north-ern Finland, all north of the ArcticCircle. The 1980 Alaska National In-terest Lands Conservation Act estab-lished several special provisions forAlaska wilderness, distinctly differentfrom the 1964 Wilderness Act. In bothcases, legislation was influenced bylocal demand for continued mecha-nized access to areas traditionally usedfor subsistence. In both areas, snow-mobiles and airplanes were allowed,while Alaska also permitted motorboataccess and Finland permitted all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) within wilder-ness. Structures, such as cabins, wereallowed in both Alaska’s and Finland’swildernesses for various uses, includ-ing public recreation. Both pieces oflegislation also acknowledged and al-lowed recreation and tourism uses. Inmany respects, wilderness policy inAlaska aligns more readily with wil-derness policy in Finland than withmuch of the rest of the United States,as many of the above-mentioned useshave been prohibited elsewhere by the1964 Wilderness Act. Subsistence ac-tivities are not a predominant use inwilderness in the lower 48 states(VanZee et al. 1994).

This study focused on the north-west arm of Finland and southwestAlaska between 1999 and 2001. InFinland, people near Käsivarsi andPöyrisjärvi wildernesses were inter-viewed in several communities. Bothwildernesses support subsistence uses,particularly reindeer herding, thoughKäsivarsi wilderness has more recre-ation use. Near the Togiak Wildernesswithin the Togiak National WildlifeRefuge in Alaska, people in threenearby communities were inter-viewed. The predominant subsistence

uses in the area were fishing and hunt-ing along the major river corridors.

MethodsWhile there has been substantial re-search on recreation conflicts (Kajala1993; Schneider 2000), there has beenlittle research on conflicts betweensubsistence and recreation activities(Kajala and Watson 1997; Wolfe1988). Recreation conflict studies his-torically focused on human behaviorsthat interfere with recreation goals,and only more recently on social valueconflicts (Vaske et al. 1995). Whilegoal interference is a factor in manyconflicts, social and cultural issues of-ten go unaddressed.

Snowball sampling with multipleorigins (i.e., interviewees are asked tonominate additional sources of infor-mation) was used to identify keyinformants on conflicts (Miles andHuberman 1994). Semidirected inter-views were conducted with individuals,interest groups, community represen-tatives, and representatives frommanaging/regulatory agencies. Inter-views were conducted with peoplehaving a variety of perspectives con-cerning conflicts between subsistence

and recreation uses: (1) local residentsand community representatives whowere familiar with subsistence uses, tra-ditional lifestyles, and contemporaryuses of wilderness resources; (2) rep-resentatives from tourism businessesfamiliar with past and present recre-ation uses in the area (e.g., dog safariand sport fishing companies); and (3)representatives from managing or regu-latory agencies familiar with policy

Figure 2—Subsistence anglers work with their net in the Kanektok River. Photo by Joan Kluwe.

Figure 1—Larry Barnes practicing catch and release fishing onthe Kanektok River. Photo by Joan Kluwe.


related to subsistence regulations andadministrative aspects of wilderness.

Interview questions focused ontypes of subsistence and recreation usesoccurring, perceptions of the types ofconflict occurrences, who had beeninvolved in conflicts, changes in con-flicts, and roles in conflict situations.Interviews were tape-recorded as per-mitted by the respondent and theinterview location. While the majorityof the interviews were conducted inEnglish, Yup’ik and Finnish translatorswere used during several interviews inAlaska and Finland, respectively. Thetranslators were local residents famil-iar with the respondents and the localarea. The translators in Finland weresocial researchers or students familiarwith qualitative research methods.

In the standard process of qualita-tive research (Marshall and Rossman1999; Miles and Huberman 1994),data collection and analysis occurredconcurrently. An open coding process(Strauss and Corbin 1998) was usedto identify phenomena and group phe-nomena into categories. As conceptsand patterns emerged from the cod-ing process, they were compared withconcepts from secondary sources of in-formation. For example, a patternfound from a personal interview couldbe sought in other interviews as wellas in contemporary media. As patternswere discounted and confirmed, rela-tionships in the data were identified.

ResultsInterview participants identified a va-riety of groups as having a stake in theconflicts. Consistent with the humanpropensity to categorize (Tajfel andTurner 1986), these were often identi-fied as between-group conflicts (usversus them). From this information,five dichotomies of conflicting groupswere identified: local/nonlocal, rural/urban, indigenous/nonindigenous, na-tional/foreigner, and manager/citizen.For example, conflicts were identifiedbetween local indigenous groups andlocal non-indigenous groups.

Between-group conflicts could beclassified along axes of tangibility andsocial scale (see Table 1). Tangible con-flicts have specific, observableepisodes or events that create antago-

nism, such as when a recreational dogmusher disturbs reindeer herded to-gether for subsistence purposes.Intangible conflicts may or may notencompass tangible events; regardless,they involve differences in values orethics—that is, an intangible dimen-sion. The disturbing noise created bythe dog musher may not be viewedmerely as inconsiderate, but as violat-ing an ethic or value. Along the societalaxis, micro refers to an interpersonalor intergroup level, and macro refersto broader societal levels, includingsocietal institutions. Some of theseconflicts seem to fit within prevailingtypologies (e.g., Jacob and Schreyer1980; Vaske et al. 1995), while othersdo not. Thus, this typology encom-passes and expands upon formerconflict research.

Tangible Conflict—Micro LevelIn Finland, there were asymmetricalconflicts between subsistence reindeerherders and recreational users, includ-ing dog mushers and snowmobilers.Reindeer herders were disturbed byrecreationists, but recreationists were notparticularly disturbed by reindeer herd-ers. Reindeer herders felt that sled dogsand snowmobiles spooked the reindeer

Table 1—Examples of Components of Conflict.Tangible Conflict Intangible Conflict

Micro Interpersonal/intergroup conflict Social value conflictlevel Subsistence vs. recreation Clash of value systems

Reindeer herding vs. dog mushing Nonlocals don’t understand orSubsistence fishing vs. sport fishing respect traditional ways.

Macro Societal level interpersonal/ Societal level value conflictlevel intergroup conflict Rights issues

Conflict with agencies Land accessCommercial permit administration Decision making

Self-determination

Figure 3—Midwinter light on the northwestern Finnish landscape. Photo by Joan Kluwe.


herds, dispersing the herds and render-ing weeks of herding useless.

Intangible Conflict—Micro LevelSubsistence users in Alaska and Fin-land felt that outsiders as a group didnot understand or respect traditionalways of life. For example, Yup’ik tra-ditions include respect for animals assentient beings (Wolfe 1988). If ananimal offers itself to be taken for food,the animal is to be respected, taken,eaten, and all parts used. In contrast,the highest ethic of sport fishing in-cludes catch-and-release practices,returning the fish to the water so as tonot impact the fishing resource(Hummel and Foster 1986). The twoethics are perceived to be in opposi-tion to each other. A common Yup’ikview is that the sport anglers are dis-respecting the animal’s spirit. Thus, inaddition to the immediate, tangibleconflict, there is an important intan-gible dimension. The conflict ismanifested in actual interpersonal in-teractions (i.e., at the micro level).

Tangible Conflict—Macro LevelIn Alaska and Finland, conflict involv-ing the management agency wasidentified regarding the number ofrecreational users permitted in an area,particularly the number of commer-cial use permits available. Generally,in both countries, local people did notwant more commercial or recreationalusers, whereas the other groupswanted more access. These are tan-gible conflicts because the permits arecommodities or assets that could beexchanged or assigned value. Manag-ing agencies have the power todetermine uses and use levels on pub-lic lands (rights to access). Whilepublic land agencies have been mak-ing large steps to involve local citizensand to incorporate public comment inthe planning processes (Daniels and

Walker 2001; Loikkanen et al. 1999),there were still many people who felttheir voices were not heard or werelater ignored by the agencies. Con-versely, the agency representatives feltthat some of the issues raised by thepublic were not merely beyond thescope of the planning process, butbeyond the present management au-thority of the agency. These types ofconflicts focusing on how stakeholdergroups contain different intangiblevalues and the differences between thepublic sector and management (Allenand Gould 1986; Shindler 1999).

Intangible Conflict—Macro LevelRights to access, rights to decision mak-ing, and rights to self-determinationemerged as a societal level of conflict andare considered intangible because theyfocus on broad philosophical issues ratherthan identifiable events. The participantsin these conflicts were largely, but notexclusively, aligned by regional and eth-nic identities. The conflicts transcendedagencies and were directed at higher lev-els of government, such as nationallegislatures or global organizations. For

example, in both Alaska and Finland lo-cal indigenous interviewees discussed thepossibilities for Native sovereignty. Theyfelt the existing ownership and manage-ment schemes were not valid—that theindigenous people were the rightful own-ers of the land. Questions were raised bythe interviewees regarding who has theright to act as leader or as participant inthe planning processes.

ConclusionsIt is difficult to neatly separate thecomponents of conflict. All four com-ponents, or some combination thereof,may characterize an individual’s posi-tion. Not all conflicts will display all

Figure 5—Reindeer are fundamental to subsistence lifestyles in northwest Finland. Photo by Joan Kluwe.

Figure 4—Recreational snowmobilers enjoy the spring weatherin northwest Finland. Photo by Teppo Loikkanen.


components. However, complex con-flicts such as intangible conflicts at themacro level may embody all of theother components of conflict. For ex-ample, a debate concerning rights toownership may include moral issuesregarding oppression and dominationas well as examples of past tangibleevents that illustrate oppression anddomination on an individual or soci-etal level.

These four components of conflicthave direct implications for resourcemanagers. Tangible conflicts at the mi-cro level have been extensivelyaddressed by researchers. As a result,agencies have been able to address di-rect conflicts between groups, wheresuch conflicts involve direct interactionamong people with little symbolic con-flict. For example, classic managementtechniques such as zoning (Haas et al.1987) can separate incompatible groupsor draw together compatible uses,thereby alleviating tangible conflict.

Resource managers have often fo-cused on tangible conflicts at the macrolevel, such as those concerning alloca-tion of scarce resources. Planning toolssuch as the Limits of AcceptableChange (Stankey et al. 1985) have as-sisted managers in addressing some ofthe allocation questions (and their ethi-cal implications) with a broader lensthan zoning or carrying capacity deter-minations allowed (Graefe et al. 1984).

Social value differences have alsobeen addressed in a variety of ways inrecent years. The micro level has beenexamined in recreation research (Vaskeet al. 1995), focusing on value differ-ences between groups with differentorientations. Education programs havebeen suggested to increase under-standing of conflicting values as hassegregating user groups by zoning todecrease potential direct encounters.

Rights to access, rights to decisionmaking, and rights to self-determina-tion are intangible macro-level socialvalues that underlie many land useconflicts in wilderness in Alaska andFinland (Kluwe 2002). These appearto be the most complex types of con-flict, often encompassing othercomponents of conflict.

Some techniques of investigatingwilderness conflict may not reveal alldimensions of conflict. If someonementions a tangible or micro-levelconflict, one must probe into whetherthe conflict has deeper philosophicalor societal roots. Some issue-drivenmanagement processes may be limitedby directing efforts toward concrete,trackable actions, addressing conflictsexclusively at the micro tangible level.

Macro-level social value conflicts,including rights issues, are intractablebecause they are much larger thanmost managing agencies have the ca-pability to effectively address. Some ofthe more fundamental rights questionshave been pursued in global forums,

such as the United Nations HumanRights Council, but individual nationscontinue to struggle with indigenousrights issues (Kirsch 2001). Creativeideas are needed to begin to addressthese conflicts in the context of spe-cific subsistence versus recreationconflicts in wilderness.

Managers may need to expand be-yond the confines of agency mandatesand frameworks to consider some ofthe underlying components of conflictrather than merely targeting the morereadily observable tangible conflicts.Acknowledging these larger societalconflicts more accurately representsactual conflict contexts and bringsvoice to the larger issues—possiblyfreeing managers and citizens to thenfocus attention on the more tangibleissues. Managers could establishmechanisms with other agencies, non-governmental organizations, and tribalorganizations to address the intangiblesocial and philosophical issues. Suchforums as working groups, advisorycouncils, and joint projects could beeffective in developing strong relation-ships to understand and address theseintangible conflicts.

In addition, indigenous rightsgroups and others (e.g., Alcorn 1993;Lane 2001) have suggested shifting toa comanagement structure to increaselocal voices in natural resource issues,enhance local self-determination, andaddress conflict at a societal level.Wilderness designation, or other pro-tected area status, has been overlaidon historic indigenous territories.These designations have strong impli-cations for future management ofnatural resources. Micro-level tangibleconflicts have been easier to addressin public planning processes; however,societal, judicial, and philosophicalquestions often remain as underlyingfactors. Wilderness managers dealingwith subsistence issues need to look

Figure 6—Finnish reindeer herders work on the fall round-up.Photo by Joan Kluwe.


for issues transcending tangible con-flicts as they endeavor to understandand manage local situations.

REFERENCESAikio, Marjut, and Pekka Aikio. 1989. A chap-

ter in the history of the colonization of Sámilands: The forced migration of Norwegianreindeer from Sámi to Finland in the 1800s.In R. Layton, ed. Conflict in the Archaeol-ogy of Living Traditions. London: UnwinHyman, 116–130.

Alaska National Interest Lands ConservationAct. 1980. 16 U.S.C. SS 3101 et seq.

Alcorn, Janis B. 1993. Indigenous peoples andconservation. Conservation Biology 7 (2):424–427.

Allen, Gerald M., and Earnest J. Gould, Jr.1986. Complexity, wickedness, and publicforests. Journal of Forestry 84 (4): 20–23.

Daniels, Steven E., and Gregg B. Walker. 2001.Working through environmental conflict: Thecollaborative learning approach. Westport,Conn.: Praeger.

Endter-Wada, Joanna. 1996. Comparison ofsubsistence activities among natives andnon-natives in Bristol Bay, Alaska. Societyand Natural Resources 9 (6): 595–609.

Erämaalaki. 1991. Suomen säädödkokoelma, lakin:o 62. (Finland’s Act on Wilderness Reserves)

Graefe, A. R., Jerry J. Vaske, and F. R. Kuss.1984. Social carrying capacity: An integra-tion and synthesis of twenty years of re-search. Leisure Sciences 6 (4): 395–431.

Haas, Glenn E., Beverly L. Driver, Perry J. Brown,and R. Lucas. 1987. Wilderness managementzoning. Journal of Forestry 85: 38–42.

Hummel, Richard L., and Gary S. Foster. 1986.A sporting chance: Relationships betweentechnological change and concepts of fairplay in fishing. Journal of Leisure Research18 (1): 40–52.

Jacob, Gerald R., and Richard Schreyer. 1980.Conflict in outdoor recreation: A theoreticalperspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12(4): 368–380.

Kajala, Liisa. 1993. The applicability of conflicttheories in outdoor recreation: A case studyof hikers and recreational stock users in theEagle Cap Wilderness. Master’s thesis, Or-egon State University.

Kajala, Liisa, and Alan Watson. 1997. Wilderness—Different cultures, different research needs: Com-paring conflict research needs in Finland andthe United States. IJW 3 (2): 33–36.

Kirsch, Stuart. 2001. Lost worlds: Environmen-tal disaster, “culture loss,” and the law. Cur-rent Anthropology 42 (2): 167–198.

Kluwe, Joan. 2002. Understanding wildernessland use conflicts in Alaska and Finland.Ph.D., University of Idaho. UMI Dissertation

Services, UMI Microform 3050216.Lane, Marcus B. 2001. Affirming new directions

in planning theory: Comanagement of pro-tected areas. Society and Natural Resources14: 657–671.

Loikkanen, Teppo, Timo Simojoki, and PauliWallenius. 1999. Participatory approach tonatural resource management: A guidebook. Vantaa, Finland: Forest and Park Ser-vice, Metsähallitus.

Marshal l , Catherine, and Gretchen B.Rossman. 1999. Designing qualitative re-search, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:Sage Publications.

Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman.1994. Qualitative data analysis: An ex-panded sourcebook, 2nd ed. ThousandOaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Schneider, Ingrid E. 2000. Revisiting and revis-ing recreation conflict research. Journal ofLeisure Research 32 (1): 129–132.

Shindler, Bruce. 1999. Shifting public values forforest management: Making sense of wickedproblems. Western Journal of Applied For-estry 14 (1): 28–34.

Stankey, George H., David N. Cole, R. C. Lucas,Margaret E. Petersen, and Sidney S. Frissell.1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change(LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. Gen.Tech. Rep. INT-176. Ogden, Utah: USDAForest Service, Intermountain Forest andRange Experiment Station.

Strauss, Anselm, and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basicsof qualitative research: Techniques and pro-cedures for developing grounded theory, 2nded. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Tajfel, H., and J. C. Turner. 1986. The socialidentity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.Worchel and W. G. Austin, eds. Psychol-ogy of Intergroup Relations, 2nd ed. Chi-cago: Nelson-Hall, 7–24.

VanZee, Bruce, Henry Makarka, Fred Clark,Patrick Reed, and Lois Sherrick Ziemann.1994. Subsistence in Alaska wilderness. InJ. C. Hendee and V. G. Martin, eds. Inter-national Wilderness Allocation, Manage-ment, and Research: Proceedings of aSymposium During the 5th World Wilder-ness Congress, Tromsø, Norway, Septem-ber 1993. Fort Collins, Colo.: InternationalWilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation,in cooperation with the University of IdahoWilderness Research Center, 115–119.

Vaske, Jerry J., Maureen P. Donnelly, KarinWittman, and Susan Laidlaw. 1995. Inter-personal versus social-values conflict. LeisureSciences 17: 205–222.

The Wilderness Act. 1964. P.L. 88–577.Wolfe, Robert J. 1988. The fish are not to be

played with: Yup’ik views of sport fishingand subsistence-recreation conflicts alongthe Togiak River. Paper presented at Alaska

Anthropological Association, March 3–4,Anchorage, Alaska.

JOAN KLUWE received her doctoral degreefrom the College of Natural Resources at theUniversity of Idaho in May 2002. She maybe contacted at 2108 West 47th Avenue,Anchorage, AK 99517-3165, USA.Telephone: 907-562-2536. E-mail:[email protected].

ED KRUMPE is a professor at the Universityof Idaho, Department of Resource Recreationand Tourism, Moscow, ID 83844-1139,USA; telephone: 208-885-7428; e-mail:[email protected]

REFERENCESBennett, M. A., L. K. Kriwoken, and L. D. Fallon.

2003. Managing bushwalker impacts in theTasmanian Wilderness World HeritageArea, Australia. IJW 9 (1): 14–18.

Chau, K. C., and L. M. Marafa. 1999. Vegeta-tion chronosequence in Hong Kong: Soilproperties and successional development.Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography20 (1): 24–35.

Han, K. T. 2001. Traditional Chinese site selec-tion—Feng shui: An evolutionary/ecologi-cal perspective. Journal of CulturalGeography 19 (1): 75–96.

Hayashi, A. 2002. Finding the voice of Japanesewilderness. IJW 8 (2): 34–37.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for protected areamanagement categories. Gland, Switzerland;IUCN Commission on National Parks andProtected Areas.

Lucas, P. H. C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: AGuide for Policy-Makers and Planners. London:Chapman & Hall.

Martin, V. G. 2001. The World WildernessCongress. IJW 7 (1): 4–9.

Man-ho K., and J. O’Brien. 1991. The Elementsof Feng Shui. Shaftesbury, Element,Melbourne Victoria.

Miller, K. R. 1999. International wilderness pro-vides ecological services for sustainable liv-ing. IJW 5 (3): 35–39.

DR. LAWAL M. MARAFA teaches andconducts research in the Department ofGeography and Resource Management atthe Chinese University of Hong Kong onsuch topics as ecotourism, sustainabledevelopment, and natural resourcesmanagement. He can be contacted [email protected].

From MARAFA article on page 42


SCIENCE and RESEARCH

P E R S P E C T I V E S F R O M T H EA L D O L E O P O L D W I L D E R N E S S R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

On August 21, 1993, high-ranking officials from the U.S.Department of the Interior and the Department of Agricul-ture, along with representatives from universities andnongovernmental organizations, joined Minnesota congress-man Bruce Vento in ceremonies dedicating the newlyestablished Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute inMissoula, Montana. Envisioned as the focal point for thedevelopment and application of information necessary tounderstand and manage wilderness ecosystems and theiruse, the institute provided a mechanism for the federal agen-cies charged with wilderness management responsibilitiesto address their research needs (Bureau of Land Manage-ment, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and NationalPark Service). Although the Leopold Institute was initiallyformed from the Forest Service’s pre-existing WildernessManagement Research Work Unit, the intent was that allfour agencies would be active partners in support of projectsand programs to provide the science necessary to addressimportant wilderness management issues.

Now that 10 years have passed since the Leopold Institute’sestablishment, it is instructive to reflect on what has been ac-complished during this time. Perhaps most significantly, theinstitute’s programmatic scope has broadened considerablyfrom its original focus on recreation use, impacts, and man-agement to include such issues as the understanding andmanagement of fire, nonnative species, and wildlife, as well asthe understanding of the role wilderness plays in larger socialand natural systems. This expanded scope has been respon-sive to the needs expressed by the partner agencies. It has ledto the study of such diverse topics as the effects of recreationfee programs, subsistence use, the risks and benefits of restor-ing natural fire, surveys of invasive species, the effects ofstocking nonnative fish in mountain lakes, and the causes ofdeclining amphibian populations. Institute scientists have

helped to articulate research needs as well as conduct researchand serve as brokers to engage university and other federalscientists in cooperative and collaborative studies. A signifi-cant program of research application, the linking of science tomanagement through improved understanding of the needfor and use of research information, has also been developed.However, the fact that this increased breadth has come largelywithout increased financial or staffing support has nowstretched limited resources to the point that the institute’s abilityto continue its current level of activity may soon be threat-ened. Compounding this dilemma is the interest of the partneragencies in the institute expanding its effort into a collabora-tive or coordinating role with scientists working on topics suchas air, water, wildlife, and global change—areas for which theInstitute has only limited expertise. To achieve this goal, ef-forts would need to focus on identifying and developing newpartnerships and funding sources.

In developing a program of work, institute staff has workedclosely with representatives from the wilderness agencies to as-sure that research and application priorities address importantmanagement needs of all the agencies. The 1999 establishment

A Decade of CoordinatedWilderness Research

BY DAVID J. PARSONS

Continued on page 23


EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

managers struggle with thequestion: How is visitor experienceaffected when the idea of a naturalenvironment is different from whatwas found during a previouswilderness visit? A benchmarkexperience occurs the first time avisitor arrives at a wilderness settingand identifies with the condition ofthat setting (Vaske et al. 1980;Watson and Cronn 1994).

This experience suggests thatduring future visits visitors mayhave a predisposed perception ofthe conditions they expect prior to their arrival. Theseconditions may include, but are not limited to, the level ofimpact on trails and campsites as well as the number ofpeople they may encounter. Studies have underscored theimportance of visitor expectations in influencing theirwilderness experience, specifically with regard to effects onthe perception of resource conditions in the environment(Cole et al. 1997; Rossman and Ulehla 1977).

According to Stankey and Schreyer (1987), the primaryreasons people want to participate in a recreational pursuitexplain their motives. These motives must be translatedinto behavior through some choice process, which in turnis influenced by many situational factors. The object ofchoice might be a particular recreation environment, abehavior, or a desired psychological condition. Thepreference for a particular wilderness environment dependson the attributes in the environment being perceived assuitable for fulfilling the needs that motivated the behavior.For example, visitors might expect to see little evidence ofhuman impacts in the remote portions of a wilderness.

Evaluations of on-site conditions in the form of impacts atcampsites can vary depending on the individual. For instance,research conducted by Vaske et al. (1980) demonstrated that

Wilderness BenchmarkingIs Visitor Acceptability Creep a Concern or Not?

BY JOSEPH P. FLOOD

IntroductionIn recent decades, heavy visitor use in many wildernessareas and subsequent impacts to the wilderness resourcehave changed the focus of wilderness management. Hu-mans are amazingly adaptable and prone to perceiving afirst experience as the “norm,” and, as a consequence, es-tablishing a benchmark for acceptable conditions. Thisconceptualization suggests that a chronological pattern cantake place for both new visitors and new managers. As wil-derness areas become increasingly crowded and impactedthrough use, degraded resource conditions can become thebenchmark for new visitors or managers. Some researchsuggests that both visitors and managers may be acceptinghigher levels of degradation based on two things: the con-cept of initial benchmarking and the gradual acceptabilityof changing resource conditions in wilderness over time.

Recreational impacts on biophysical resources of wilder-ness are a worrisome problem to managers charged withthe responsibility of maintaining natural conditions. Forthe purpose of this article, impacts to the biophysical re-source are defined as loss of vegetative cover and soilcompaction and erosion at campsites, lakeshores, mead-ows, and along trails. Natural or pristine conditions areareas predominately influenced by acts of nature and notby impacts related to recreational use. The purpose of thisarticle is to expand discussion of the concept of cognitiveand perceptual benchmarking as it relates to perceived qual-ity, experiential expectations, and rating the perceivedquality of wilderness resources.

BackgroundSince the 1960s, wilderness researchers have struggled withvisitor perceptions of natural or pristine environments. Whilemany visitors enter wilderness with an appreciation of thenatural environment (Kaplan and Talbot 1983), it is not clearhow these visitors actually assess the quality of theenvironment they are seeking. For example, wilderness

Article author Joseph P. Flood


people who first visited an environmentseveral years before tended to evaluateenvironmental conditions morenegatively than those whose first visitoccurred close to the time of evaluatingthe environmental conditions. Anderson(1980) measured changes in the behaviorof users in response to perceivedconditions. She discovered that visitorswhose expectations differed from theactual conditions either made apsychological adjustment to the differentconditions or were displaced to a differentarea better able to meet their needs.

Visitor benchmarking is defined asany perception or previous experiencethat defines the campsite conditionexpected at a wilderness destinationcampsite (Vaske et al. 1980). Socialpsychologists have documented thatstandards people use to evaluate asetting are highly influenced by theirexpectations for that experience,which implies that differentindividuals will bring different

expectations for the same activity orsetting. When a situation differs fromwhat a person deems appropriate, theexperience is more likely to beevaluated negatively (Vaske et al.1980; Watson and Cronn 1994).

Some research has shown thatvisitors with a more extensive historyof visiting wilderness generally perceivemore social and resource problems(Watson and Cronn 1994; Cole andHall 1992). This information isencouraging because it suggests thatthese longer-term visitors are moresensitive to changing social andresource conditions and will betterassist managers in understanding manyof the problems visitors report.Wilderness areas with a high percentageof repeat visitors may find generalvisitor surveys more helpful in assessingresource conditions. However, somerecent research suggests that futuregenerations of wilderness visitors mayhave different expectations about what

management actions are appropriate(Cole et al. 1997; Vaske et al. 1980;Watson and Cronn 1994). In someinstances impacted campsites are beingrestored, while in other areas, campsiteimpacts have steady increased over timeand little has been done to address theimpacts. Stokes (1990) argued thatvisitors can provide important insightsabout the condition of wilderness andthat they should be considered a keysource of information and support formanagement practices.

Revisiting VisitorBenchmarking in theMission MountainsWildernessWilderness is often examined in twodimensions: the psychological and thebiophysical. Psychological dimensionsinvolve perceptions, attitudes, values,and responses visitors have aboutwilderness conditions. The biophysicalcharacteristics of wilderness encompassthe vegetation, wildlife, and interrelatedgeographical settings. The followingcase study focuses on visitor observationof heavily impacted biophysicalconditions at campsites and howmeasures taken to restore them influencethe quality of visitor experience. Bothvisitor and manager perceptions ofthe wilderness resource are examinedin order to understand the influenceof management actions on quality ofvisitor experience.

Research was conducted in theMission Mountains Wilderness(MMW), located in western Montana,where campsite restoration has beenongoing for the past 20 years. Theresearch process included exit surveys,interviews, and focus groups with 350MMW visitors (Flood 1999, 2001). Inaddition, a national survey wasconducted with 33 selected U.S. ForestService wilderness managers havingFigure 1—Perceptions of on-site conditions: Visitor and manager perceptions of quality flow model.


direct experience with campsite andtrail restoration.

Some findings illustrated the manyreasons visitors listed for visitingwilderness. Although reasons forvisiting are similar to those found inprevious research, the order ofimportance was different. Manning’s(1986) research findings indicated thatvisitors ranked engaging in recreationalactivities as their number-one reason forvisiting wilderness, closely followed byspending time with family and friends.Although MMW visitors also rankedengaging in recreational activities astheir number-one choice, the remainingreasons for visiting the MMW were:experiencing solitude, spiritual renewalor nature appreciation, and spendingtime with family and friends (Flood1999). Increased emphases onexperiencing solitude, spiritualrenewal, and nature appreciation wereevident in all of the data sets.Underscoring the significance of whatmattered most to MMW visitors wasbest stated by eight of the longtimeMMW visitors who were in a focusgroup interview. These individualsindicated that their reasons for visitingwere motivated by desire to experiencea sense of peace, passion for wildness,tranquility, healing, and opportunitiesfor solitude (Flood 2001).

Findings from exit surveys,manager questionnaires, interviews,and focus groups suggest that visitorperceptions of on-site conditions inwilderness are inextricably tied to theidea of benchmarking (Flood 1999,2001). This research identified threetypes of visitor benchmarking, andthese are diagrammed in Figure 1. Thefirst type of benchmarking occurswhen repeat visitors return to the samewilderness and evaluate on-siteconditions based on observationsmade during prior visits. Onsubsequent trips, repeat visitors reflect

upon the change in conditions at aspecific campsite and compare theirexpectations to what they find in thecurrent trip. The second type ofbenchmarking occurs prior to enteringa wilderness, when first-time visitorsevaluate the conditions of a campsitebased on what they think it shouldlook like. The third type of visitorbenchmarking happens whenwilderness visitors compare andevaluate campsite conditions found inone place with those observed at otherwilderness areas they have visited.

A summary of findings from thesestudies (Flood 1999, 2001) suggests thatvisitors with the fewest number of yearsvisiting the MMW were least affected by

seeing other people and impacts, but mostaffected by observing litter. Although theylacked a benchmark for comparing theappropriateness of campsite impacts theyobserved or the restoration activities toaddress these impacts, they registeredstrong negative reactions to observing litter.In general, the written comments fromMMW visitors and interviews show thatmany of the visitors’ positive reactions toobserving restoration activities resultedfrom: (1) seeing heavily impactedcampsites being restored in the MMW and(2) their visits to other wilderness areaswhere little or nothing was being done torestore these areas. Results from the MMWsurvey, interviews, focus groups, andmanager questionnaire suggest that visitors

Figure 2—Restoration signs for former camping areas in the MissionMountains Wilderness. Photo by J. Flood.

Figure 3—Marking the boundary of a restoration site. Photo by J. Flood.


do indeed establish benchmarks based oncampsite conditions.

Various factors influence visitorexperiences once they arrive at theirdestination campsite (Flood 1999). Thesefactors include visitor reactions to level ofimpact at campsites and the extent ofmanagement activities, or the lack thereof.

On-site observations by visitors werevaried and included such factors asacceptable campsite conditions, heavilyimpacted campsites that are devoid ofnative vegetation and seriously eroded,and/or observing evidence of managementactions to restore them. Restorationactivities may include information signslocated at trailheads and at campsites,contact with wilderness rangers whoprovide on-site restoration education,evidence of stakes and twine, and visitorrestrictions. Findings illustrate that visitormotivations to engage in specificwilderness experiences, and whether it ispossible for them to attain a desired levelof quality, are heavily dependent on priorperceptions of campsite conditions theyexpect to find at their wildernessdestination campsites (Flood 2001).

ConclusionsThis research shows that visitorexperiences are influenced by what theyfind at their campsite. These findings arestrongly supported by previous research(Cole et al., 1997; Martin et al. 1989).Previous research in the MMW (Flood1999) suggests that when managerschose to restore heavily impactedcampsites, the quality of visitor

experiences was improved, visitoropinions of managers tended to be verypositive, and visitors felt that the areawas well cared for by managers. Whenmanagers did little or nothing to addressheavily impacted campsites, the qualityof visitor experience was greatly reduced,visitor opinions of managers were verynegative, and visitors felt that the areawas neglected (Flood 2001).

Whether managers choose to ignoreor restore heavily impacted campsites,their decisions have a significant effecton the quality of visitor experience.Moreover, visitor perceptions andexpectations of campsite conditionsthey will encounter in future visits areaffected. The results provide a yardstickfor assessing the relationship betweenconditions found at campsites and theinfluence these conditions actually haveon the quality of visitor experience.

Findings from this study underscorethat managers need to do a better job ofproviding wilderness education to visitors,which can be accomplished by continuingwilderness ranger presence in wilderness,providing up-to-date managementinformation on wilderness websites, anddistributing wilderness managementnewsletters and brochures to visitors.Making this information available willimprove the public’s understanding ofwilderness management.

Wilderness education for visitorsand training workshops for managerscan go a long way toward addressingthe best methods for providinginformation to the public and teachingthe latest techniques for developing andimplementing well-designed campsitemanagement programs. The mosteffective way to guarantee that the wildremains in wilderness is to invest inwilderness education efforts for thepublic and for managers. Whetherwilderness exists in the future, and whatFigure 5—Campsite restoration activities are supported by

visitors, especially when the area is obviously impacted. Photoby J. Flood.

Figure 4—Reestablishing waterfront vegetation requires excluding visitors. Photo by J. Flood.



INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

IntroductionWilderness is a very subjective concept, and the growingdemand for wilderness makes it a contemporary issue ofimportance as it is sought by conservationists, recreationists,adventure enthusiasts, and others. As wilderness continuesto draw attention, forums such as the World WildernessCongress provide a basis for diverse participation and createan international agenda for wilderness itself (Martin 2001).For society to continue to survive in a sustainable manner,we will need to revisit our perception and attitude towardwilderness and nature. There is a different perception ofwilderness in various communities.

Although worldwide views on wilderness might differ,some views are in tandem with the need for its perpetuation.Historically, Easterners (e.g., Japanese and Chinese) viewhumans as part of nature. The Chinese believe in the artand science of feng shui, which purports that human destinyis enhanced if we live in harmony with nature. The commonpoint between traditional and contemporary resourcemanagers, however, is to try to protect the wildernessresource and the experience it provides. For example, theU.S. Wilderness Act of 1964 specifies that wilderness“generally appears to have been affected primarily by theforces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantiallyunnoticeable, and has outstanding opportunities forsolitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.”Furthermore, as Martin (2001) indicated, the issue ofwilderness has attained international importance and hassucceeded in integrating diverse cultures and races in anature conservation dialogue.

While the concept of wilderness is not new, the past fewdecades have shown a dramatic increase in the use ofwilderness as a unique and attractive recreation setting (Bennett

et al. 2003). In many countries,wilderness is now being used fornonconsumptive purposes.

With the growth of urbani-zation and development, thedistance between the city and thebackcountry continues todiminish. As a result, there is alsoa growing concern about the fateof wilderness, particularly whererapid development is happening,like in Hong Kong. In many urbanenvironments, wilderness is noteasily accessible. What is interesting is that in Hong Kong,wilderness is often juxtaposed at the periphery of the urbanarea. While wilderness in other countries tend to be far anddemands long hours of travel, it is less than an hours’ drivefrom Hong Kong, making it easily and readily accessible.

Although wilderness is often equated with protected areas,this is not entirely a new phenomenon. Ancient cultures haveprotected certain places from human-caused change sincethe earliest of human times (Miller 1999). According to Miller,designation of wilderness and other special places and sacredareas is not a new idea. Some of these wilderness areas,mosaics of different landforms, have been designated asnational or country parks, putting them in the realm ofprotected area systems. In some places they are referred to asnatural reserves. In this regard, the country park system inHong Kong is unique. One of the places where preservation,conservation, and sustainable development ideals arepromoted is in the protected areas. In Hong Kong, this processhas been going on in the protected areas that have beendesignated as country parks (see Table 1).

Identifying Wilderness in theLandscapes of Hong Kong

Urban PeripheryBY LAWAL M. MARAFA

Article author Dr. Lawal M. Marafa.


Earlier, the International Union forConservation of Nature and NaturalResources (IUCN) defined a nationalpark and protected areas as a relativelylarge natural area, not materially alteredby human occupation, where humanuse is for inspirational, educational, cul-tural, and recreational purposes (Lucas1992). In many countries, these pur-poses are practiced, and the IUCN hasclassified categories of protected areasystems specifically by their primarymanagement objectives. Within thebroad definition provided by the IUCN,protected areas are in fact managed formany different purposes (see Table 2).

While substantial changes in landuse and development patterns haveemerged since the passage of the 1976Country Park Ordinance in HongKong, some of the wilderness areas inthe country parks and patches of oldnative forests dating back to ancestraltimes remain intact. Historically, thevegetation in these forest groves wasused for fuel, medicine, and even ac-corded such status as temples ormeeting points.

Now, many societies do not usewilderness for consumptive purposes.Consequently, there are growing alter-native uses and values that peopleattribute to wilderness including ex-periential, mental and moralrestoration, and scientific activities(Hayashi 2002; Bennett et al. 2003).Some of the wilderness environmentsare treasured as historic resources andreflect evidence of human continuityand civilization. Where this is the case,wilderness then assumes the role of ahuman and natural environment. Theantecedents of such environments re-flect traces of past subsistencepractices and rituals, making them

unique and important cultural land-scapes worthy of understanding,preservation, and conservation.

Most wilderness and cultural land-scapes are juxtaposed with countryparks that are protected as a result ofthe Country Park Ordinance in HongKong. These parks are often the mostaccessible wild environment thatpeople can patronize and utilize with-out fear of breaking the law. To mostpeople, these parks represent an envi-ronment to be feared, revered,conserved, or studied as they containa large ecological resource and havebeen impacted by humans.

In Hong Kong, and some parts ofsouth China, such landscapes assumea feng shui status because of previoushuman intervention (see Figure 1).These feng shui landscapes particularlyare based on the spatial juxtapositionof villages, woodlands and forests,and, in some instances, graveyards. Inhistorical terms, feng shui explicitlystates that human beings should livein harmony with nature, contrastingthe notion that humans are separatefrom nature alluded to by the West-ern view (Hayashi 2002).

In view of feng shui, this article ex-plores the status of natural andwilderness landscapes located at theperiphery of urban Hong Kong. It alsohighlights the potential use of these cul-tural and natural landscapes forexperiential benefits to the community.This region is similar to other regions

Table 1—Objectives of Country Park System in Hong Kong.

Country Park FunctionsObjectivesConservation Protection of natural resources

LandscapesEcological resourcesSites of geological interestWater catchmentsSites of cultural and archaeological interestsPark’s tranquility

Recreation Provide optimum range of outdoor recreation compatible withconservation objectives

Minimize conflict of activitiesProvide for changes in demandEncourage other agencies to provide environmentally compatible

activitiesProhibit such activities that are not compatible with conservation

objectives

Education Educate the public of the need to learn and conserve its countrysideIncrease the public’s enjoyment by giving them a deeper understanding

of the countryside environmentProvide information on the location of facilitiesProvide opportunities for field studies

Table 2—Categories of Protected Areas.

Strict Nature Reserve (i.e., nature reserve/wilderness area mainly for science orwilderness protection)

National Park (i.e., ecosystem conservation and recreation)

Natural Monument (i.e., conservation of specific natural features)

Habitat/Species Management Area (i.e., conservation through management intervention)

Protected Landscape/Seascape (i.e., landscape/seascape conservation and recreation)

Managed Resource Protected Area (i.e., sustainable use of natural ecosystems)Source: IUCN 1994.


around the world where attempts havebeen made to promote the use of suchwild, bucolic, rural, and peripheral land-scapes as destinations for ecotourismand other nonconsumptive uses.

The Role of Feng Shui andGeomancyIn different societies, people’s viewsand acts on nature influence the over-all natural environment. As a result,the survival of humans is, in part, aresult of the way we view and act uponnature and indeed wilderness.

If we want to promote contempo-rary environmental concerns such assustainable development, environmen-tal conservation, environmentaleducation, ecotourism, and experien-tial learning, there is the need to furtherstudy and reconsider the relationshipbetween humans and nature. Our abil-ity to navigate through these globalconcerns will be shaped largely by theknowledge and wisdom we acquire andpass along to future generationsthrough active promotion of these sitesand appropriate education programs inorder to understand, study and con-serve wilderness and nature.

Although we have houses near for-ests with rich cultural history anddiversity, the forests are still consid-ered wild. Indeed one of the currentpolicies in perpetuating these semi-wilderness areas is to foster clearawareness and concern about thesecultural landscapes that have in partbeen modified and bequeathed to usby past generations.

Although countryside landscapes atthe urban periphery were mostly usedfor agriculture, such as tea terraces andpaddy fields, there is a diminishingrole and significance of agriculture inthe local economy (see Figure 2). Thecultural and natural landscape (rep-resented by feng shui groves) in southChina has been modified as a result of

the adherence to feng shui belief in spa-tial placement and geomancy. Forcenturies, geomancy have been ap-plied to the Chinese practice of fengshui by which the location and orien-tation of houses and tombs wasdetermined with close regard to thetopography of the local landscape.

It is natural to refer to the feng shuilocations of the countryside as wilder-ness because these locations are oftensurrounded by mountains and natu-ral areas. The feng shui sites have clearlydefined configurations. Indeed, Han(2001) had described the ideal fengshui location as a semi-enclosed spacethat is surrounded by mountain at theback, on the left, and on the right, andis open with flat land at the front. Theopen land in front of the houses iswhat was traditionally used for agri-cultural purposes.

Feng shui is often referred to asgeomancy—more popularly known inthe West as earth magic (Man-ho andO’Brien 1991). In Hong Kong, it isonly within these feng shui locationsthat thriving and mature vegetation

can be found around some of the na-tive villages. These areas are mostlynative vegetation communities thathave survived hundreds of years offire, cutting, vegetation destructive,and consumptive activities by pastcivilizations.

The Ecological Integrity ofCultural and NaturalLandscapesThe transformation of the forest hasbeen historically defined by the struggleover competing uses and contrastingdiscourse of place, through which itsgeographical and cultural features havebeen shaped. Despite this fact, the con-cept of wilderness is still looked up toin communities, rural or urban. As avindication of the Eastern perceptionof wilderness and nature, Martin (2001,p. 9) observed that “we are a part ofnature, not apart from nature.”

In terms of ecology and landscapestatus, these feng shui wilderness envi-ronments can be considered a relict thatrepresents a patch of continuing

Figure 1—Evidence of human habitation and subsistence agriculture at the edge of dense feng shui vegetation.Photo by L. Marafa.


agencies. The Hong Kong government’spolicy is to create outline zoning plans(OZP) that identify the significance ofsuch landscapes. These OZPs are inaddition to the country park structurewhere zoning tends to divide the parksinto recreational, conservation, andwilderness zones to accommodatemyriad demand as indicated in thecountry park objectives (see Table 1).

However, manipulating wildernessconditions is philosophically and prac-tically difficult. Ancient cultures haveprotected certain places from human-caused change since the earliest humantimes; those places that are protected areoften sacred and revered. Because theseareas have limited impact by humans,they represent the remnants of ecologi-cal biodiversity and processes andinclude rare or endangered species(Chau and Marafa 1999).

As wilderness is becoming more andmore important and some of it is beingplaced under protected area systems,about 9% of the Earth’s terrestrial sur-face is now under protection (IUCN1994), according to one of the numer-ous objectives stipulated by the IUCNguidelines (see Table 2). In a societywhere wilderness is well managed, itcan make contributions to the eco-nomic and social development of acommunity. Additionally, wildernessprovides good subjects for environmen-tal and ethical education whilesimultaneously promoting the virtuesof conservation (see Figure 3). Conse-quently, if societies want to worktoward sustainable livelihoods, we willneed to invest in wildlands and wilder-ness. We will need to manage themactively to provide the full range of eco-system goods and services. Also, thereis the need to consider the theme ofwilderness further, particularly as itborders on the interface of the relation-ship between people and nature.

ecological processes that should be con-served, maintained, and studied. Asthese landscapes are the closest repre-sentatives of wilderness in Hong Kong,there is the need for a commitment toprotect in perpetuity a portion of thelandscape and its related human heri-tage. Such a commitment couldeducate and encourage people to real-

ize the importance of the continuousexistence of wilderness environmentsin an urban periphery.

In most countries, wilderness is un-der some sort of managementframework. In order to perpetuate wil-derness, there is the need to forge anintegrated and collaborative systemacross the wilderness management


Figure 2—Rural homes at the foot of a mountain range with abandoned agrarian fields in front. Photo by L. Marafa.

Figure 3—Interpreting wilderness on a planned trail. Photo by L. Marafa.


Submit announcements and short news articles to STEVE HOLLENHORST, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected].

Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Europe: Treaty ConservesLargest RemainingWildernessEnvironment ministers from five eastEuropean countries signed a newenvironmental agreement in Kiev,Ukraine, that aims to protect thecontinent’s largest reserve of naturalforests and large carnivores. Hungary,Romania, Serbia and Montenegro,Slovakia, and Ukraine signed theFramework Convention on theProtection and Sustainable Developmentof the Carpathians at a United Nationsconference of 55 countries. Themeeting’s purpose was to strengthencooperation in protecting and improvingthe environment in Europe and centralAsia. Representatives from the CzechRepublic and Poland are expected to signthe agreement.

The Carpathian Mountains, archingacross eight countries and covering about78,000 square miles (202,020 squarekilomters), are Europe’s last region outsideRussia to boast large tracts of untouchedforest, as well as large populations of brownbears, wolves, lynx, European bison, andthe threatened imperial eagle. TheCarpathians are home to one-third of allEuropean plant species, including 481species found nowhere else in the world.The area includes nearly half of Europe’s

wolves outside of Russia, with more than4,000 animals living in the CarpathianMountains. About 16 million to 18 millionpeople of various ethnic groups andnationalities live in the region.Unemployment and poverty haveworsened in the region, posing a significantthreat to the Carpathians. “A greatemphasis of the convention is on providingbenefits to local people, while developingsustainable tourism in and aroundprotected areas and working together onmanaging these areas,” said Achim Steiner,director general of the Switzerland-basedWorld Conservation Union. “Only bysecuring livelihoods can the long-termsustainable development of the region beassured.” Source: Greenwire—http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire.htm.

Third InternationalProtected AreaManagement SeminarThe 2003 International Seminar on theManagement of Parks and protectedareas was held from August 7 to 23,2003, in the Rocky Mountains of thewestern United States. Designed formidcareer planners and managers ofnationally significant protected areasworldwide, this integrated state-of-the-art course examined strategies toconserve the world’s most special

places. The program is sponsored bythe Consortium for InternationalProtected Area Management (CIPAM),which includes the USDA ForestService International Programs, theUniversity of Montana, the Universityof Idaho, and Colorado State University.Led by Dr. Bill McLaughlin from theUniversity of Idaho and Dr. WayneFreimund at the University of Montana,the course evaluated policies andinstitutional arrangements that sustainboth people and natural resources. Theseminar stimulated deliberations andinteractive problem solving for issuesrelated to protected area and naturalresource management. Programactivities took advantage of the richexperiences and multiple culturalperspectives of the participants, as wellas the unique heritage and resourcesavailable in the northern RockyMountain region. Themes includedIntegrated Planning for Protected Areas;Community Involvement; Tourism,Concessions, and Visitor Management:and Communication, Marketing, andEnvironmental Education. Forinformation on next year’s seminar, visitthe USDA Forest Service InternationalPrograms website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/global/. For moreinformation on CIPAM, visit http://working.wilderness.net/protectedareas/.


Fortieth Anniversary ofthe 1964 Wilderness ActThe year 2004 marks the 40thanniversary of passage of the 1964Wilderness Act in the United States andis a presidential election year. Theseevents present a unique opportunity inhistory to launch efforts to increasepublic awareness, understanding, andsupport of our nation’s wildernessheritage. To capitalize on thisopportunity, representatives from thewilderness stewardship agencies,nongovernmental organizations, usergroups, and funding organizations havecome together to advance nationwidewilderness outreach efforts.

Representatives from a number oforganizations and agencies arecurrently working together throughmonthly conference calls to advancethese and other wilderness awarenessefforts. The primary focus of this groupis to identify and capture the talent andresources needed to complete 40thanniversary projects by leveragingexisting resources and ensuring thatefforts complement rather thancompete with each other. It is intendedthat the group expand to includerepresentatives from the hunting andfishing and river and horse outfittingcommunities, among others. Inaddition to the multi-organizationalcoordinating team, a team made up ofthree to five representatives from eachagency and the NGO community willbe responsible for planning and hostingthe National Wilderness Summit andEXPO. To the degree time and resourcesallow, this team will also work on localand regional activities to increase publicawareness of wilderness.

A Wilderness Education and Steward-ship Summit has been scheduled forDenver, Colorado, from October 1 to 7,2004. This event includes an EXPO as apublic outreach component October 1 to

3 to raise public awareness and under-standing of wilderness and a summit orconference component October 4 to 7 tocelebrate the public values and benefitsfrom wilderness; discuss necessary actionsto steward Wilderness resources; and toexpand partnerships to enjoy and supportWilderness programs. For more informa-tion, see www.wilderness.net/40th/.

New Technology Promisesto Tame Our Sense of Self-RelianceAn editorial in the Missoulian newspaperlamented the introduction of a small newdevice to carry with you into the wildestcorners of Montana or the world. Called apersonal locator beacon, it’s much like thelocator beacons carried by most aircraft.With the flick of its switch, the pocket-sizedbeacon sends out a digital distress signalencoded with information about you andpinpoints your location. The signal will bepicked up by a National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA)satellite and relayed to NOAA’s MissionControl Center in Suitland, Maryland.Someone there will route the signal to theAir Force Rescue Coordination Center atLangley Air Force Base in Virginia. The airforce will then alert local police or a searchand rescue team in the area from which thesignal was sent and tell your rescuers exactlywhere to find you. It’s up to you to decidewhat level of emergency calls for flippingthe switch and summoning help. “We wantrecreationists who venture into America’sremote wilderness to be safe and preparedif an emergency arises,” declares a NOAAadministrator on the agency’s website. “Thebest way to do that is to carry an S=9Dpersonal locator beacon.” In lament, theMissoulian editorial states that today’s“rugged individualists” may “find their wayto the last vestiges of frontier, but [they] neednot worry about finding [their] way out.He or she can roam the wilderness but won’tknow wildness—not while connected by

electronic umbilical to teams of rescuersstanding by.” For more information on thepersonal locator beacon, see http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s1168.htm.

Walk For Wilderness PlannedTo celebrate the 40th anniversary of TheWilderness Act in the United States(1964–2004), cities, towns, andcommunities across the country areencouraged to sponsor a “Walk forWilderness” event to bring a broad cross-section of local residents together to learnmore about the benefits of an enduringwilderness resource. It can also helppromote the National WildernessSummit and EXPO to be held in Denver,Colorado, October 1 to 7, 2004. Walksare encouraged on or near the 40thanniversary date of the signing of theWilderness Act (September 3). The walksdo not take place in congressionallydesignated wilderness, but in thecommunities that surround wilderness.For more information on hosting a Walkfor Wilderness event in your community,contact Ralph Swain, RegionalWilderness Program Manager, 740Simms Street, Golden, CO 81401; (303)275-5058; e-mail: [email protected].

A Professional Society forWilderness Stewardship?In the April 2003 issue of the IJW,Wayne Freimund and Connie Myerswrote an article proposing the creationof a professional society for wildernessstewardship. Following the article wasa commentary on the proposal fromIJW editor in chief John C. Hendee.Freimund and Myers proposed “theestablishment of a membershiporganization for wilderness stewardshipto provide a valuable forum for linkingwilderness managers, scientists, andothers to address common stewardshipchallenges and bring focus to the


profession of wilderness stewardship.Within such a venue, we could movetoward an integrated and collaborativesystem of wilderness stewardship. Thisorganization would serve as aprofessional home for people who wishto see themselves as wildernessprofessionals.” The article is availableonline at http://www.wilderness.net/feature.cfm. To join a discussion onthe topic, visit the Wilderness.Netdiscussion page at http://www.wilderness.net/forum/.

Canada Creates 41stNational Park in NunavutThe government of Canada announcedthe creation of Ukkusiksalik NationalPark in Nunavut. Canada’s 41stnational park protects 20,500 sq km(7,915 sq. mi.) of wilderness, includingWager Bay—a vast arm of the sea thatextends 100 kilometers (38 miles)inland from the northwest corner ofHudson Bay. “The creation ofUkkusiksalik National Park is theresult of many years of work on thepart of Inuit communities and ParksCanada, and we applaud theircommitment and vision in protectingthis magnificent wilderness area forfuture generations,” said StephenHazell, national executive director forCanadian Parks and WildernessSociety (CPAWS). UkkusiksalikNational Park protects importanthabitat for caribou, musk ox, polarbears, grizzly bears, golden eagles, andmany other arctic wildlife species. Thenew park includes a major marinecomponent—home to bearded andringed seals and beluga whales. Itencompasses a landscape of rollingtundra, cliffs, and unique phenomenasuch as a reversing waterfall, createdby the impressive eight-meter (26 foot)tides in the area. It is the first nationalpark to encompass almost an entire

watershed. Wager Bay is important tolocal Inuit communities as a huntingground and because of its culturalsignificance. More than 500archaeological sites are found withinthe park. The signing ceremony washeld in Iqaluit and attended by PrimeMinister Jean Chrétien, Nunavutofficial Nancy Karetak-Lindell, andNunavut leader Paul Okalik, as wellas Tongola Sandy, president of theKivalliq Inuit Association. Source: TheCPAWS—http://www.cpaws.org/news/ukkusiksalik-2003-0823.html.

Wilderness Ranger AcademyA training program to provide a “tool box”of professional wilderness managementskills to field level wilderness rangers,seasonal rangers, wilderness managers,and volunteers will be held in Aspen,Colorado, from May 18 to 21, 2004. Theprogram theme is the 40th Anniversaryof The Wilderness and is hosted by theForest Service, Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM), National Park Service (NPS),and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Theprogram includes a review of wildernesshistory, philosophy, values, and The Wil-derness Act; understanding thewilderness ranger’s roles and responsibili-ties; a focus on wilderness as an enduring

resource; information about technology;agency and academic research results; anddiscussion of the recent issues facing wil-derness managers. The registration fee is$450/person. A limited number of open-ings for community residents who wishto attend the workshop, but will not re-quire lodging or meals, will be availablefor $25/person/day. Forest Service em-ployees must register via TIPS at http://fsweb.r2.fs.fed.us/hr/index.html and sub-mit a job code and override number toBarb Sumpter at [email protected]. Forregistration by other government employ-ees (BLM, NPS and FWS) andnongovernment attendees, contact RalphSwain at [email protected], or telephone:(303) 275-5058.

Correction on Newman et al.article in August 2003 IJWIn the previous issue of IJW (Volume 9Number 2), the paper by Newman,Manning, Bacon, Graefe, and Kyle, “AnEvaluation of Appalachian Trail Hikers’Knowledge of Minimum Impact Skillsand Practices” contained a typeset errorin Table 1 on page 36. The incorrectanswers for the “minimum impactquiz” were highlighted in bold. Belowis the corrected table.

Corrected Table from Newman et al. August 2003 IJW.


Wilderness Task ForceLaunched at World ParksCongressThe Wilderness Task Force, establishedby the International Union for Conser-vation of Nature and Natural Resources(IUCN) World Commission on ProtectedAreas (WCPA), recently made its debutat the Fifth World Parks Congress inDurban, South Africa. Every 10 yearssince 1962, the world’s protected arealeaders gather at the congress to assessachievements, problems and issues, andchart goals for the future. This year theCongress focused on demonstrating howprotected areas are relevant to the broadereconomic, social and environmentalagenda for humankind in the 21st cen-tury. The end result was the “Durban

Accord,” a call to action for protected areaconservation constituents that encouragesa series of new dialogues and agreementsto recognize how protected areas benefitsociety. Previous congresses have had atremendous impact in assisting nationalgovernments to create new protected ar-eas and direct more resources towardconservation of biodiversity.

Wilderness was first officially recog-nized as an IUCN protected area categoryin 1992, when the WCPA took the im-portant step of establishing Category 1(b).Nonetheless, there has been a need formore formal discussion of wilderness is-sues at WCPA meetings in IUCNpublications. In response, WILD Foun-dation President Vance Martin proposedthat a Wilderness Task Force (WTF) beestablished as an IUCN focal point for

the wilderness concept and to providemore formal representation in WCPA ac-tivities. In consultation with wildernessleaders from around the world, TheWILD Foundation prepared terms of ref-erence for the WTF, which were approvedby the WCPA in March 2003.

The WTF had two formal meetings atthe World Parks Congress. At the firstmeeting, attended by over 80 delegates,Mr. Martin presented the terms of refer-ence and led a discussion of the next steps.Ian Player provided inspiring words aboutthe importance of elevating attention towilderness in international conservationcircles. The second meeting, attended byapproximately 60 delegates, had a two-fold purpose: (1) to present in more detail“The Wild Planet Project: Making theCase for Wilderness and People,” an ini-

Dr. Alan Ewert, one of the foundingexecutive editors of IJW, has resignedfrom that position in order to devotemore time to his new duties atIndiana University. Dr Ewert, aprofessor and endowed chair in theDepartment of Recreation and Park

Administration recently assumedadditional duties as associate dean inthe School of Health, PhysicalEducation and Recreation. Alan’s keeninsight and sound advice will be sorelymissed on the IJW editorial board, aswell as his expertise and experiencein adventure recreation in wilderness.

Dr. Ewert has exceptional andvaried experience in wilderness-related positions. After three years asa faculty member at Ohio StateUniversity, he became the director forprofessional development for thePacific Crest Outward Bound School.From there he joined the U.S. ForestService as project leader of theWildland and Urban InterfaceResearch Unit based in Riverside,California, and within a few years waspromoted to branch chief ofRecreation, Wilderness, and UrbanForestry Research for the USDA ForestService in Washington, D.C. In 1996,he became professor and head of the

Alan Ewert Leaves IJW Editorial Board

Dr. Alan Ewert climbing near the top of Mt. Ellen,Utah. Photo by Amy Shellman.

Resource Recreation and TourismDepartment at the University ofNorthern British Columbia in PrinceGeorge, British Columbia. In 2000,he moved to Indiana University andheld the Patricia and Joel MeierEndowed Chair in OutdoorLeadership.

Dr. Ewert has authored numerousarticles in scientific journals andbooks on a variety of topics includingnatural resource management,outdoor adventure, and resource-based tourism. We look forward tohis continued involvement withwilderness and the IJW.

ALAN EWERT can be contacted atIndiana University, Department ofRecreation and Park Administration,HPER Bldg., Room 133, 1025 EastSeventh Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-7109; or by phone at (812) 855-8116,or e-mail at [email protected].

—John HendeeIJW Editor in Chief


tiative The WILD Foundation is prepar-ing for the 8th World WildernessCongress (WWC) in 2005 in Anchorage,Alaska; and (2) to solicit input on addi-tional functions the WTF could provide.

Cyril Kormos, vice president forpolicy at the WILD Foundation pre-sented “The Wild Planet Project.” Theobjective is to assemble working groupson biodiversity, ecosystem functions,social issues, law and policy, and eco-nomics that will each make a case forwilderness protection, and present thatcase at the 8th WWC. Mr. Kormosemphasized that this was intended as aparticipatory effort. WILD will take aleadership role in coordinating this ef-fort and will chair the social and lawand policy groups, but he invited oth-ers to take on the remaining workinggroups. He emphasized that this workwas intended as an applied initiative to

assemble the state-of-the-art knowledgeon the many benefits of wilderness, butalso to use that information to gener-ate new conservation outcomes.

Discussions included the possiblefunctions the WTF could assist with viathe website and via the upcoming 8thWWC. A central component of the dis-cussion was the need for bettercommunication on wilderness issues.Participants suggested that the WTFdevelop a communications strategy todisseminate wilderness informationmore broadly and more effectively. Par-ticipants noted that NGOs around theworld would need as many tools as pos-sible to make the wilderness concepttangible in their countries (e.g., The WildPlanet Project), particularly in non-En-glish speaking countries unfamiliar withthe concept and in countries where littlewilderness is left. Emphasis was placed

on the need for the WTF and WWC tocontinue to celebrate wilderness withenergy and enthusiasm and withoutapology. Finally, a request was made todevelop a forum at the WWC to bringtogether high level wilderness manag-ers from around the world to exchangelessons learned and experiences—gov-ernment representatives from India andthe United States pledged to work to-gether to organize this forum.

For more information, contact theWilderness Task Force—http://www.wild.org/international/iucn.html; WildPlanet Project—http://www.wild.org/ in-ternational/wpp.html; WorldCommission on Protected Areas—http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/; and WorldParks Congress—http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/index.htm.Source: Steve Hollenhorst, Cyril Kormos,and Vance Martin.

Dr. Perry Brown, dean of the College ofForestry and Conservation, director of theMontana Forest and ConservationExperiment Station, and professor ofForest Resources at the University ofMontana in Missoula, has accepted anappointment to the IJW editorial board.He will replace Alan Ewert, a foundingIJW board member who is resigning dueto increased administrative responsibilitiesat the University of Indiana. “Perry is afine addition to the board,” said John

Hendee, IJW editor in chief. “He will bringexperience, insight, and leadership to theboard to help us in our mission of providinginformation to wilderness planners andmanagers, scientists, educators, advocates,and users.”

Perry Brown earned his Ph.D. from UtahState University in 1971. Early in his careerPerry was a noted for his teaching, research,and outreach in the areas of natural resourcepolicy and planning and in recreationbehavior and planning at Colorado StateUniversity and then at Oregon stateUniversity, before becoming associate deanof the Oregon State University School ofForestry. In 1994, Dr. Brown was nameddean of the University of Montana’s ForestrySchool, now the College of Forestry andConservation. The name change reflects thebroader direction that has evolved underhis leadership. Dean Brown has long beena supporter of IJW (U of M is one of oursponsors) and under his leadership at theUniversity of Montana wilderness hasprospered in their education programs. For

example, their Wilderness Center hasflourished, Wilderness.Net has evolvedinto the prime wilderness Internetsource, international wilderness studyprograms have been developed, and amajor wilderness research conferencewas cohosted in 1999. In 2001, Perrywas selected to chair a major Task ForceReview of federal agency wildernessstewardship, culminating in what isnow known as “The Brown Report”(see IJW, April 2002). Earlier this yearPerry presented the IJW-CorrigallStewardship Award to recipient BillWorf on behalf of IJW.

As an IJW board member, Dr. Brownwill help us focus on strategic rather thaneditorial matters, helping IJW strengthensuch things as our sponsorship base,wilderness awards programs, sub-scriptions, international distribution, andservice to a broader wilderness clientele.Welcome to the IJW team, Perry.—John Hendee, IJW Editor in Chief

Perry Brown Named toIJW Editorial Board


WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews

Confronting Consumptionedited by Thomas Princen, MichaelManiates, and Ken Conca. 2002.MIT Press. 390 pp., $26.95 (paper).

Wilderness has no lack of enemies. Bynecessity, defenders of wilderness tend todeal with frontline issues such as recalci-trant legislators intent on antiwildernesslegislation, the environmental and socialimpacts of overuse, special interest groupsintent on inappropriate use, or resourceextraction activities. As a result, thebroader social forces that initiate these andother threats—obscured as they are bytheir own pervasiveness—can be forgot-ten in the heat of battle.

Confronting Consumption brings oneof these obscured forces into muchsharper focus. The central issue ad-dressed is the Western nations’ obsessionwith consumption and its impact on theenvironment and on the consumersthemselves. By consuming “things,” wealso consume less tangible goods suchas wilderness or ecological integrity.

The authors suggest that the envi-ronmental movement has tiptoedaround the issue of consumption, per-haps in part because—as primarilymiddle-class-based organizations—they too felt it necessary to rely onconsumption (e.g., selling member-ships in their organization in order tolobby governments) to exist. Indeed,one of the central themes of the bookis that the calls for spiraling consump-tion are deeply entrenched withincontemporary society. While traditionaleconomic theory ascribes responsibil-ity for all consumption-relatedproblems to individuals (e.g., calls for

voluntary simplicity or recycling), thisbook highlights “the need to see con-sumption not just as an individual’schoice among goods but as a stream ofchoices and decisions winding its waythrough the various stages of extraction,manufacture, and final use, embeddedat every step in social relations of powerand authority” (p. 12).

Confronting Consumption is dividedinto three sections. The first two sectionsreview and analyze the status quo—theexisting economic and political struc-tures that champion consumption—andthe primary characteristics of the con-sumer society. These sections alsoprovide a detailed critique of our society’sfocus on production and consumption,discussing, for example, the concept ofdistancing (i.e., the increasing social andgeographical distance between resourceextraction and consumption, and theinability of consumers to see the eco-logical impacts of their consumption),commodification (i.e., our increasingability to bring new goods and servicesinto consumption), globalization, andthe growing North-South divide. Thefinal section provides five chapters thatprovide specific examples of how thejuggernaut of consumption might bechallenged. The voluntary simplicitymovement, forest certification,Adbusters, and the home power move-ment are critically examined—warts andall. A social response incorporating bothcautious consumption and better pro-ducing is suggested as a possible curefor our addiction to consumption.

Confronting Consumption is an excel-lent reminder of our society’s fixation

on consumption, and how the ecologi-cal and social impacts of this fixationcontinue to reverberate around theglobe. It clearly links wilderness andconsumption and identifies the grow-ing schism between consumers and thewild. For wilderness is not only con-sumed by extractive industries, it is alsoconsumed by recreation and indirectuse of wilderness.

Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS

Driven Wild: How the FightAgainst AutomobilesLaunched the ModernWilderness Movementby Paul Sutter. 2002. University ofWashington Press. 360 pp., $35.00 (cloth).

The theme of consumption addressedin the previous book review (Confront-ing Consumption) is echoed in DrivenWild, which traces the cultural andintellectual history of the wildernessmovement. Paul Sutter focuses on theyears 1910 to 1930—a period oftenignored in previous historical analy-ses—and addresses his topic byidentifying the roles and rationales offour of the eight founding membersof The Wilderness Society: AldoLeopold, Robert Sterling Yard, BentonMacKaye, and Bob Marshall.

Sutter argues that these and otherwilderness leaders were not primarilyresponding to the dangers posed by thetraditional extractive industries (e.g.,forestry and mining) when they createdThe Wilderness Society. Rather, most oftheir arguments were organized around


Documents

International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 09 No 3, December 2003