international journal of wilderness, vol 08 no 1, april 2002

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONRunning with the Wild DogsGlobal Wilderness Management Education in AfricaBY MALCOLM DRAPER and ALAN WATSON

School Of Lost BordersEstablishes International

“Wilderness Passage Rites” Degree

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVESThe Zambezi RiverWilderness and TourismBY SALLY WYNN

One Year in the Arctic WildernessA Surgeon’s Vision for Youth ExpeditionsBY MARK EVANS

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements and Wilderness Calendar

Letters to the Editor

Book ReviewsPlundered Promise: Capitalism, Politics and the Fate

of the Federal LandsBy Richard BehanREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS

The World and the Wild: Expanding WildernessConservation Beyond Its American RootsEdited by David Rothenberg and Marta UlvaeusREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESWilderness and IJW as the Century BeginsBY JOHN C. HENDEE

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSThe 7th World Wilderness CongressWilderness and Human CommunitiesBY VANCE G. MARTIN and ANDREW MUIR

STEWARDSHIPA Summary of the ReportEnsuring the Stewardship of the NationalWilderness Preservation SystemBY PERRY J. BROWN

Keeping It WildBe Involved in Wilderness Management!BY TINAMARIE EKKER

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHPERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTEManaging the Density of Recreation Use

in WildernessBY DAVID N. COLE

Restoring Wildness?Conservation Management on The Isle of RumBY BRIAN WOOD

Wilderness Attribute Mapping inthe United KingdomBY STEVE CARVER, ANDY EVANS, and STEFFEN FRITZ

Rocky TerrainA Look at the Risks in the Outdoor Adventure IndustryA Research Report by the ST. PAUL INSURANCECOMPANIES and OUTWARD BOUND, USA. Reviewed bySTEVE HOLLENHORST and KEITH RUSSELL

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

Journal of WildernessAPRIL 2002 VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1

13

20

24

30

33

34

40

46

43

47

3

4

10

31

19

The large FRONT COVER photo shows yuccas at 1,636 m. elevation inSierra Peña Nevada, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. INSERT PHOTO is of a delicatebut pointy cactus in flower, Sierra Madre Oriental, San Luis Potosi, Mexico.Both photos © 2001 courtesy of Alan Watson/Forest Light.

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2002 • VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1

EXECUTIVE EDITORSAlan W. Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., 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., Canada

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

CO-MANAGING EDITORSChad Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

Steve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA

WEB MASTERWayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONALGordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Les Molloy,Heritage Works, Wellington, New Zealand; Andrew Muir, South African Wilderness Leadership School, Durbin, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa NationalParks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; WonSop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Pamela Wright, BamfieldMarine Station, Bamfield, B.C., Canada; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State Univer-sity, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Dr. William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. ForestService, 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 Management, 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, Washington, D.C.; Christopher Monz, Dean, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vt.; Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.;Connie Myers, 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 and the Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Vir-ginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison,N.Y.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Jerry Stokes, U.S. ForestService, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.

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: University of Idaho, Wilderness Research Center,Moscow, ID 83844-1144, USA. Telephone: (208) 885-2267. Fax:(208) 885-2268. E-mail: [email protected].

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

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 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© 2002 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 editors.

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 Inquiry • 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 APRIL 2002 • VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1 3

FEATURES

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

Wilderness and IJW as theCentury Begins

BY JOHN C. HENDEE

reflected in the preceding sevenyears of the IJW. This issue dem-onstrates the diverse and inter-national wilderness interests thathave evolved. Vance Martin,USA, and Andrew Muir, SouthAfrica, report on the November2001 7th WWC. Perry Brown,leader of a U.S. wilderness stew-ardship evaluation committeepresents a summary report oftheir review and recommenda-tions. Tina Ekker of WildernessWatch, USA, describes how citi-zens can—and must—get in-volved in wilderness stewardship to support and critiqueagency efforts. David Cole, eminent wilderness scientist, USA,provides perspective on managing density of wilderness rec-reation use.

International articles report on restoring wilderness on theIsle of Rum (Brian Wood); wilderness attribute mapping inthe United Kingdom (Steve Carver, Andy Evans, and SteffenFritz); global wilderness management training in Africa(Malcolm Draper and Alan Watson); and wilderness and tour-ism on the Zambezi River (Sally Wynn). Mark Evans gives his“surgeon’s vision” of one year in the Arctic wilderness, andKevin Proescholdt reports on what 75 years of protection can do(in the Boundary Waters Wilderness of Northern Minnesota).

Enjoy this issue, and stay involved in the wildernessmovement with the IJW.

JOHN C. HENDEE is IJW editor-in-chief, Professor and Director ofthe University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center. E-mail:[email protected].

This issue of the IJW (vol. 8, no. 1) begins our eighthyear of publication. When the IJW began in 1995,there was excitement and optimism for the role of

wilderness in the expanding environmental movementworldwide. Many important wilderness events followed.

The past seven years have seen important growth in wil-derness systems in the United States and around the world.Two more World Wilderness Congresses (WWCs) have beenheld—the 6th WWC in 1998 held in Bangalore, India, andthe 7th WWC in 2001 held in Port Elizabeth, South Africa,substantially contributing to the wilderness cultural and tech-nical literature with their proceedings, and expanding the rel-evance of wilderness internationally. In the United States, theArthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center has trained hun-dreds of federal resource managers in wilderness stewardshipnationwide, and they now are assisting other countries. TheAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute provides leader-ship for wilderness research nationwide and internationally,and it sponsored the largest ever wilderness science confer-ence in 1999, generating a five-volume proceedings. TheUniversity of Montana Wilderness Institute established anonline network for easy access to wilderness information formanagers, scientists, citizens and students (www.wilderness.net). Wilderness advocates, led by The Wilderness Society(but including many local and regional groups) have strength-ened the sophistication and information base of their propos-als, making wilderness initiatives all the more compelling.Wilderness experience programs aimed at personal growthand inspiration, led by organizations such as Outward Bound,the National Outdoor Leadership School, and WildernessInquiry, have created a movement now involving hundredsof programs worldwide for youth and adults.

Today wilderness has a stronger presence in natural resourceconservation than ever before. This progress and promise is

Article author John C. Hendee.


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

The 7thWorld Wilderness Congress

Wilderness and Human Communities

BY VANCE G. MARTIN and ANDREW MUIR

Africa (Port Elizabeth), 2001—and is the longest-runninginternational public environmental forum. A project of TheWILD Foundation, each WWC is hosted by a local non-governmental organization (NGO) in partnership withWILD and a number of relevant host-country organizations,agencies, and companies. The WWC has no central, ongo-ing budget and must raise its funds each time from local,regional, and international sources. It meets when timing,issues, needs, and resources converge.

In the recognition that the world is only diversifying morerapidly and in all ways, an important principle in planningand implementing the WWC is “focused diversity.” Despitethe difficulties inherent in such an approach, solutions areultimately more effective and long-lasting when crafted bydiverse but focused input—including technical, cultural,political, financial, social, and spiritual—and through aprocess that utilizes different methods of thinking, assimi-lation, and living. Therefore, the WWC is multidisciplinaryand involves a range of people and perspectives—from min-isters of state to philosophers, scientists to game rangers,businesspeople to artists—representing government, edu-cation, the private sector, and NGOs.

In planning the 7th WWC and aiming for quality objec-tives and accomplishments, an even higher priority thanusual was placed on professional, racial, and gender diver-sity. This began with the membership of the Executive Com-mittee itself, which was charged with overseeing all aspectsof the 7th WWC, and included senior figures in politics,finance, business, and culture from government, private,and NGO sectors—both men and women, the majoritybeing nonwhite. The body of 7th WWC delegates—700

The World Wilderness Congress (WWC) returnedto its African roots in November 2001 when it metin Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The 7th WWC—

after a planning period beset with political, financial, tim-ing, and terrorism-related issues—was arguably the mostproductive of the WWC series, which began in Africa in1977. And, by unanimous agreement, both the debate andthe after-hours sessions were filled with an enlivening spiritthat overpowered the issues and obstacles, making the roadto practical accomplishments both productive, enjoyable,and full of hope and anticipation.

The WWC has convened seven times—South Africa(Johannesburg), 1977; Australia, 1980; Scotland, 1983;United States, 1987; Norway, 1993; India, 1998; South

FEATURES

Article co-authors (left to right) Andrew Muir and Vance G. Martin.


people from 45 nations—included al-most 250 nonwhite field profession-als, community activists, and otherson full scholarship provided by the 7thWWC. Also among the delegates were25 to 30 members of South Africa’s Na-tional Parliament from the Environ-ment Portfolio Committee—atremendous symbol of South Africapolitical interest in the 7th WWC.

The program also reflected significantprofessional and racial diversity. Thecontent was presented by a majority ofeither nonwhite professionals, or bymultiracial partnerships. Female pre-senters were encouraged and includedas often as possible. Further, the struc-ture of the program was designed to useboth right and left brain functions, theheart as well as the head, by interspers-ing cultural elements, outdoor socialfunctions, and field trips with the nor-mal plenary, working sessions, and pan-els. In addition, the service aspects ofthe 7th WWC included, and directedbenefits to, many local communities inthe local area and in South Africa as awhole—such as the making of delegatebadges, briefcases made of native mate-rials, special taxi-driver training, dailycultural programs, community work-shops, craft production and sales, andmore.

As much as it emphasizes a holisticapproach to creating conservation so-lutions, the WWC is also action-ori-ented and strives to produce practicalresults through collaboration and coop-eration. Some notable results include:

• Immediate Funding—The Glo-bal Environmental Facility of theWorld Bank announced grants of$1 million each to the Baviaan-skloof Wilderness Area in the East-ern Cape Province of South Africa,and to Angola to assist the KissamaFoundation’s work to rehabilitateAngola’s Quiçama National Park.

• Private Sector Wilderness—Shamwari, a private game reserveoutside Port Elizabeth, announcedthe first private sector wilderness inAfrica, and a unique and creative le-gal structure for its designation. Thereserve’s lawyers worked with ownerAdrian Gardiner to draft legal titlerestrictions to declare and protectover 3,000 hectares (7,500 acres)—

or 16% of Shamwari—as wilder-ness, placed under legal servitudeto the Wilderness Foundation ofSouth Africa, founded by Ian Playerand headed by Andrew Muir.Within 24 hours, other privatelandowners at the WWC an-nounced that they would do thesame, including two from Namibia,Carl Hilker and Albie Brueckner.

Murphy Morobe, (Chairman, SA National Parks), Chairman of the 7th WCC. Photo © The WILD Foundation.

Credo Mutwa, Zulu prophet and healer, with Gwen Mhlangu and other SA Parliamentarians. Photo © The WILD Foundation.


of South Africa, all the way throughNamibia, into southern Angola.

• New Fundraising Initiatives—Additional funding for wildernesswill come through three new ini-tiatives: My Acre of Africa, the Af-rican Protected Areas Initiative,and the Ian Player Wilderness Ex-perience Scholarship Fund. MyAcre of Africa is an Internet-basedpublic fundraising strategy forsouthern African parks, protectedareas, and local communities. (De-tails are available at www.myacreofafrica.com.) The African ProtectedAreas Initiative is a strategy to bedeveloped and launched at the 5thWorld Parks Congress in Durbanin June 2003 with numerous in-ternational agencies, funders, andNGOs to address the need foradditional funding for all Africanprotected areas. Finally, a newscholarship program to supportmembers of economically and so-cially disadvantaged communitiesin experiencing wilderness areas—the Ian Player Scholarship Fund—was launched and initially fundedduring the 7th WWC.

• Conservation Education—Privatesector support for environmentaleducation came from JohnnicHoldings Ltd, South Africa’s mediagiant and one of the country’slargest black-controlled compa-nies. Chairman Cyril Ramaphosaannounced that conservation edu-cation was now one of only twotop priorities in his group’s corpo-rate social and community out-reach program.

• Tropical Forests—PotentialUnited States legislation to helpprotect tropical forests was also an-nounced at the WWC. Congressman

• Wilderness Legislation—Wilder-ness conservation efforts in Africareceived a boost through an an-nouncement at the WWC by thegovernment of Namibia that it wasin the process of drafting nationalwilderness legislation to cover both

public parks and private conserva-tion areas. There are also plans for anew wilderness national park insouthwestern Namibia, as well as athree-country transfrontier park(with wilderness zones) stretchingfrom the Northern Cape Province

Linda Tucker, author, discusses a session with Patience Koloko, (President, SA Traditional Healers Association).Photo © The WILD Foundation.

Dr. Wangari Maathai (Kenya) and Edward Posey, (Gaia Foundation, UK). Photo © The WILD Foundation.


Port Elizabeth Accordof the

7th World Wilderness Congress8 N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 1

At this time in our history, when the shadow of uncertainty pervades ourthoughts and the presence of peril dictates our actions, all of our aspira-tions and initiatives must by necessity be positive, determined, visionary,collaborative.

It is with this realization that 700 delegates from 42 nations convenedin Port Elizabeth, South Africa, for the 7th World Wilderness Congress.

During the course of a week of presentations, consultations, debates,and decisions by a diverse array of people, cultures, professions, and per-spectives, covering both challenges and solutions, some certainties wereconfirmed, namely that:

• Wilderness, wildlands, and wildlife—on land, in the sea, and in theair—are a resource of fundamental, irreplaceable value and substancein all human endeavor; and

• Wild nature is essentially more than a resource, rather being The Sourceof a particular gift of strength, sanity, and inspiration in a modern andfragmented world; and further,

• Wilderness—all of its many services and values—undeniably informsand supports human communities and is an essential element of thespirit and practicality of the 21st century.

HOWEVER, our convention recognized the inescapable truth: wherevast wilderness once surrounded and supported humankind, pervad-ing and persisting with ease, it is now small and dispersed islands in asea of humanity, retreating daily while assaulted by human numbersand greed, and cloaked by an atmosphere which is not of its own making,nor life-giving.

AS A RESULT, our convention reconfirmed the basic principles of inter-national collaboration, cross-cultural cooperation, human equity, and free-dom, combined with direct personal responsibility for the present andfuture well-being of wilderness, wildlands, and wildlife, on land, in thesea, and in the air.

THEREFORE, in light of this reality and these principles, we are RESOLVEDto act decisively, with intention, power, and determination, on the agree-ments, resolutions, and actions of this 7th World Wilderness Congress.

E. Clay Shaw announced the immi-nent introduction into the U.S. Con-gress of a bill addressing the needto stem the tide of unsustainablelogging of tropical forests, using anumber of different financial mecha-nisms such as debt swaps and thebuyback of logging rights.

• Wilderness Training—A groupof 20 wildlands managers and war-dens from 13 countries graduatedfrom a special training course onwilderness management, whichwas held in the week before theWWC (see article by Draper andWatson in this issue). This coursewas accredited and advised by theUniversity of Natal, led by theWilderness Action Group, andfunded by the Sierra Club, WILD,and others, with participation bythe Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute, University ofMontana, and U.S. Forest Service.

• Resolutions and The Port Eliza-beth Accord—Over 30 resolutions,targeted at specific wilderness andenvironmental issues, were adoptedby the 7th WWC for use in local,national, and international cam-paigns, addressing issues from Asiato Africa to the Americas. Embrac-ing these specific concerns andmore, The Port Elizabeth Accord(see sidebar) reconfirmed the im-portance, urgency, and possibilitiesfor constructive action in all the is-sues presented and discussed at the7th WWC.

In addition to the above practicalaccomplishments, The WILD Founda-tion presented its most recent GreenLeaf Award. Awarded twice previously(to the People’s Republic of China, andto the people of the Tamyr Peninsula,Russia), the Green Leaf Award goes to


an individual, group, or country forexemplary action on behalf of wilder-ness, wildlife, and environmental pro-tection. The 7th WWC Green LeafAward winner was “The people ofAngola and the Fundacao Quicama,for vision and perseverance on behalfof wilderness and wildlife in Angola,”

and was presented at the WWC toAngola’s minister of fisheries and en-vironment, Ms. Fatima Jardim, repre-sented by Angola’s ambassador, Sr.Rodriquez.

Port Elizabeth (Eastern Cape, SouthAfrica) was an excellent venue andhost. The first two days of the 7thWWC—The World Wilderness Sum-mit—were held in the beautifully re-stored Feather Market Hall (a19th-century packing and auctionhouse for ostrich feathers!). After a dayof field trips to local natural and cul-tural areas, the final four days—theWilderness Working Sessions—con-vened at the new Board Walk Confer-ence Center, facing the beach. Inaddition to plenary sessions focusedon international and regional wilder-ness issues, the afternoon technicalsessions and workshops included:

• Science and Stewardship to Protectand Sustain Wilderness Values (Dr.

Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wil-derness Research Institute)

• Wilderness and Jurisprudence(The Gaia Foundation)

• The Role of Legislators in Protect-ing Wilderness Areas (GLOBE,Southern Africa)

• Wilderness of the Mind and Spirit(Bill Petrie)

• Wilderness and Public Involve-ment—The Sierra Club Model(Bruce Hamilton)

• Sustainable Tourism—Africa(Michael Sweatman)

• The Open Council (Marilyn Riley, Dr.John Hendee, and Patrick Marsh)provided a daily space for delegatefeedback and sharing of personal andprofessional insights and experiencesfrom their wilderness work.

The illustrated and published pro-ceedings of the plenary presentationswill be available late in 2002 atwww.fulcrum-books.com (where onecan currently also purchase the pro-ceedings of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6thWWC). The Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute will also publish theproceedings of their technical session,Science and Stewardship to Protectand Sustain Wilderness Values.

Wilderness and Human Communi-ties: The 7th WWC demonstrated thatnot only is this topic important, but thewill and expertise are available and eagerto be applied in helping wilderness andhuman communities work together.Cooperation and collaboration are thecatalytic factors. Let’s get on with it!

VANCE MARTIN is president of The WILDFoundation and has been the director(International) of the WWC since 1983; heis the executive editor for internationalmatters in the IJW and can be reached bye-mail at [email protected] MUIR, executive director of theWILD Foundation (South Africa), wasexecutive director of the 7th WWC.

Panel members Dr. Iain Douglas-Hamilton (Save the Elephants); and Laurie Marker and Matti Nghikembua(Cheetah Conservation Fund). Photo © The WILD Foundation.

“Wilderness has never been as important as it istoday. But it is not as important today as it will betomorrow.”

—Vance Martin, President, The WILD Foundation

Dr. Michael Soule, conservation biologist (The Wildlands Project).Photo © The WILD Foundation.


Dancers look atpictures taken ofthem during theirperformance onCharlotte Baron’sdigital camera.

Policy, Perspective, Culture and Action—the 7th WWC

Dr. Vandana Shiva.▲

Philemon Malima (dark suit,Minister of Environment and

Tourism, Namibia) and some ofhis staff.

▲

The Soweto StringQuartet.

▲

▲

Members of severalsouth African dancetroups take a breakbetween performances.

▲

Not all of the culturalentertainment was ofAfrican origin.

▲

Dr. Ian Player,founder of the WWC.

▲

Dr. Walter Lusigi,Global Environmental Facility

of the World Bank.

▲


A Summary of the Report

Ensuring the Stewardship of theNational Wilderness Preservation System

BY PERRY J. BROWN

grown from 10 million acres in 54 units to nearly 105 millionacres in over 600 units. We find that the NWPS is more im-portant to the American people than ever before.

The report identified the need to forge an integrated andcollaborative system across the four wilderness managementagencies as its fundamental conclusion. Given the importanceof wilderness as part of a land use spectrum, its historical,scientific, recreational, philosophical, and spiritual signifi-cance, and the lack of a true system of wilderness, the re-port offered an agenda and specific recommendations to thesecretaries of agriculture and the interior, those officials des-ignated in TWA as primarily responsible for ensuring an en-during resource of wilderness.

When wilderness is designated, myriad responsibili-ties to maintain and enhance the wilderness character areexplicit. While there are many necessary management ac-tions, to be true to wilderness as untrammeled ground,many scholars and managers have called for the use ofstewardship as an appropriate perspective for the future.Stewardship implies working with nature to perpetuatewilderness for the future, and any actions taken need tobe understood from diverse philosophical, legal, and tech-nical perspectives.

The NWPS is growing in size and complexity, and ourunderstanding of the system is broadening. At the same time,there are questions as to whether the leadership for wilder-ness stewardship has embraced and understands this grow-ing complexity. There are good examples where it isunderstood, but there are equally illustrative examples ofwhere understanding is lacking. Also, there are several issuesthat exemplify some contemporary dilemmas of stewardship.One of these is ensuring both naturalness and wildness, whileanother is realizing and acting in recognition that wilderness

The passage of the Wilderness Act (TWA) (PL 88-577)in 1964 created a National Wilderness PreservationSystem (NWPS) and signaled a commitment to pro-

tect in perpetuity a portion of our landscape and its relatedhuman heritage. However, this requires active stewardship inthe face of population growth and environmental change. Ac-tive stewardship for a system of wildernesses requires that thefour federal agencies—U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, National ParkService—cooperate and col-laborate, and that they do thebest they can for the land withinthe human, knowledge, tech-nological, and financial re-sources available to them.

In recognizing that thestewardship of wildernesscould be enhanced in the com-ing century, the wilderness co-ordinators in the four federalwilderness agencies asked thePinchot Institute for Conserva-tion in late 1999 to convene a

diverse group of people outside of government to examineour stewardship of wilderness over the previous 35 years andto recommend how we might be better stewards in the 21stcentury. The final report by the Wilderness Stewardship Panelof the Pinchot Institute for Conservation outlined the issuesof stewarding the NWPS, a system that is truly American inorigin, but that has caught the attention of many people aroundthe world. This report was released in September 2001, 37years after the passage of TWA. We find that the NWPS has

STEWARDSHIP

Article author Perry J. Brown.


is not isolated from the surroundinglandscape. Manipulating wildernessconditions is philosophically and prac-tically problematic. Also, how we de-fine minimum requirements and toolsfor management is important in select-ing actions and tools to use. The placeof recreational use has not been madeparticularly clear. Agency organizationand commitment to stewardship areneeded for success, but in many in-stances they seem lacking. Lastly, effec-tive information exchange implementedthrough modern information technolo-gies is a new opportunity for steward-ship. Each of these issues presentssignificant challenges for how we stew-ard wilderness for the future.

To enable land management agen-cies to meet the challenges, some prin-ciples for stewardship are offered forconsideration:

• adhering to TWA is a fundamen-tal principle for wilderness stew-ardship in the NWPS;

• NWPS wilderness is to be treatedas a system of wildernesses;

• wildernesses are special places andare to be treated as special;

• stewardship should be science-in-formed, logically planned, andpublicly transparent;

• nondegradation of wildernessshould guide stewardship activities;

• preservation of wilderness charac-ter is a guiding idea of TWA;

• recognizing the wild in wildernessdistinguishes wilderness frommost other land classes; and

• accountability is basic to soundstewardship.

In shaping the future for successin wilderness stewardship, there areseveral things that the federal agen-cies responsible for wildernessshould consider. Implementing theserecommendations will assist the sec-retaries and the agencies under their

professional expertise, and publicsupport for wilderness steward-ship.

• The four federal agencies shouldcreate wilderness stewardship posi-tions and career opportunities fromtop to bottom and deploy financialresources for the explicit steward-ship and support of wilderness.

• Accountability for the mainte-nance and sustainability of theNWPS must be embraced by thefour federal agencies.

It is possible to move forward andensure an NWPS for the future. Thisrequires doing those things necessaryto build an integrated, collaborativesystem across the two departmentsand the four federal agencies. To man-age the wilderness as a system meansthat each area is a part of a whole, nomatter who administers it. It means

purview to better steward the re-source of wilderness.

• The four federal agencies andtheir leaders must make a strongcommitment to wilderness stew-ardship before the wilderness sys-tem is lost.

• The four federal agencies must or-ganize to maximize stewardshipeffectiveness and to develop a fullyintegrated stewardship systemacross the NWPS.

• Wilderness planning must be ac-celerated and plans prepared forthe guidance of stewardship activi-ties to enhance opportunities forevaluation and accountability, andto increase the probability that theNWPS will be sustained.

• Science, education, and trainingprograms should be enhanced andfocused to provide information,

The report identified the need to forge an integratedand collaborative system across the four wildernessmanagement agencies as its fundamental conclusion.

Bandelier Wilderness in New Mexico. Photo by Chad Dawson.


that all wildernesses are subject to acommon set of guidelines, and thussuch guidelines must be developedand administered.

There exist today several system-oriented institutions that either are ex-amples of what might be tried forwilderness or that are current wilder-ness stewardship activities that can beused to move administration and stew-ardship of wilderness toward an inte-grated system. The relatively newWilderness Policy Council of the fourfederal agencies and the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey is one of these examples. Itcould be an important body for dis-cussion of leading wilderness issuesand for making recommendations tothe agencies and the secretaries.

The Wilderness Information Net-work (www.wilderness.net) is a net-work for compiling and disseminating

information about wilderness over theInternet. It draws together the infor-mation developed by stewards of in-dividual wildernesses; research byfederal agencies, university professors,and others; information disseminatedin periodicals and other media; andinformation from groups that careabout wilderness and stewardship.The Arthur Carhart National Wilder-ness Training Center and the AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Instituteare interagency organizations designedto bridge the training and researchneeds of the four federal wildernessstewardship agencies.

Collaborative and cooperative ac-tivities among federal agencies inAlaska also are instructive for illustrat-ing possibilities. The Alaska Coopera-tive Planning Group, the Alaska IssuesGroup, the Alaska Land Manager’s

The report identified the need to forge an integratedand collaborative system across the four wildernessmanagement agencies as its fundamental conclusion.

Forum, and the Alaska Public LandsInformation Center all are institutionsthat demonstrate that integrative, col-laborative wilderness stewardshipmight be possible.

These institutions help lead towarda NWPS as a system. Combining strongleadership from the secretaries of agri-culture and the interior, from the agencyheads and their staffs, and with the ef-forts of dedicated wilderness stewardsand advocates, the potential exists forbringing all of the pieces together to en-sure that a system of wilderness will con-tinue to exist. Four specificrecommendations are offered for con-sideration by the secretaries and othersresponsible for ensuring a continuing re-source of wilderness.

1. The secretaries should issue jointpolicies and regulations specifyingcommon interpretations of law andthus provide broad guidelines for thestewardship of wilderness in theNWPS.

2. The secretaries should devise anorganizational structure to makestewardship happen across theagencies so that a high qualityNWPS is continued in perpetuity.

3. The secretaries should devisemonitoring and evaluation systemsto ensure that we know how wellwildernesses are being stewarded,especially in the context of a sys-tem of wildernesses, and theyshould reinstitute regular report-ing of the state of the NWPS.

4. The secretaries should develop ameans for informing the Americanpeople about the NWPS and abouttheir wilderness heritage.

Implementing these recommenda-tions and implementing the frame-work for action prescribed in this

Mission Mountains Wilderness in Montana. Photo by Chad Dawson. Continued on page 32


Keeping It Wild

Be Involved in Wilderness Management!

BY TINAMARIE EKKER

are located in your geo-graphic area of interest,browse your local bookstorefor wilderness books such asAmerica’s Wilderness (Tilton1996) or check the onlinemap provided by the Wilder-ness Information Network atwww.wilderness.net (“searchwith map” link).

You need to determinewhich agency manages a se-lected wilderness in theNWPS. There are four pos-sibilities: the U.S. Forest Ser-vice (USFS), National ParkService (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or theU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Both Tilton’s bookand the Wilderness Information website (“all wildernesses”link) can tell you which agency oversees a particular wil-derness and how to contact the appropriate office.

If the wilderness is managed by the USFS, NPS, orUSFWS, it will be located within a specific national forest,national park, or national wildlife refuge. If it is adminis-tered by the BLM, then it will be managed by a BLM fieldoffice in that state. For example, suppose you live in NorthCarolina and select the nearby Middle Prong Wilderness. Ifyou already know that it is managed by the Pisgah Na-tional Forest, you can phone the Pisgah National Forestsupervisor’s office to find out which Ranger District on thatforest oversees the wilderness. Agency websites providecontact information for all agency field offices. Alternatively,you can look up the Middle Prong Wilderness on the Wil-derness Information website or in Tilton’s book. Eithersource will provide you with the name of the agency andcontact information for the appropriate office.

STEWARDSHIP

Many people believe that wilderness is protectedonce Congress passes legislation designating itas part of the U.S. National Wilderness Preser-

vation System (NWPS). However, getting an area designatedis just the first step in assuring its long-term protection. Keep-ing wilderness wild in more than name only requires ongo-ing public participation in wilderness management decisions.

Howard Zahniser (1956), chief author of The Wilder-ness Act (TWA), wrote: “It behooves us then to do twothings: First we must see that an adequate system of wil-derness areas is designed for preservation, and then we mustallow nothing to alter the wilderness character of the pre-serves.” It is the second part of Zahniser’s advice that formsthe mission of Wilderness Watch. Organized in 1989, Wil-derness Watch serves as the only national organization tofocus exclusively on what happens to wilderness and wildrivers after they are designated by Congress.

Each of the 644 wildernesses in the United States. needcitizens to advocate for good stewardship. The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to in-vite public comment on most proposed management ac-tions affecting the natural environment. Public input isessential to support the efforts of good wilderness stewardsand to remind managers of their statutory obligation topreserve the wild character of wilderness.

In my work as policy director for Wilderness Watch, Ideal with a wide variety of wilderness management issuesnationwide. The tools and techniques that I use every daycan be applied by anyone interested in protecting a wilder-ness area. Following are some suggested steps for gettingstarted, and a brief description of useful tools, where tofind them, and how to use them.

Select a WildernessYou don’t have to live near a particular wilderness to becomeinvolved in its management. To find out which wildernesses

Article author TinaMarie Ekker.


Get on anAgency Mailing ListCall or write the appropriate field-leveloffice of the managing agency and askto be placed on their mailing list forall actions affecting your wilderness.For example, being on the mailing listwith BLM’s Needles field office in Cali-fornia means that I receive notice ofproposed actions affecting the 21 wil-dernesses administered by that office.This enabled me to respond when Irecently received a Notice of ProposedAction for construction of six 10,000-gallon water tanks called “guzzlers”within the Sheephole Valley Wilder-ness. The guzzlers were proposed tohelp boost the bighorn sheep popula-tion to expand recreational huntingopportunities. My reaction was thatthis constituted unnecessary manipu-lation of wildlife in wilderness. Also,the construction would include theuse of pickup trucks, a backhoe, amotorized excavator, and a cementmixer in the wilderness. Similar pro-posals for using motorized equipmentand intentional manipulation of natu-ral processes in wilderness are increas-ingly common nationwide.

Introduce Yourself toAgency StaffCall or visit the wilderness manager.Explain that you want to become in-volved in the area’s wilderness man-agement. Ask what proposals orprojects are underway and what chal-lenges the manager faces in protect-ing wilderness qualities. Ask if awilderness management plan has beencompleted, or when the agency plansto prepare one. Let the manager knowyou support good stewardship. Yoursupport and input can be invaluableto wilderness managers when they arecalled upon to defend good decisionsthat protect wilderness.

Get Acquainted with theWilderness AreaAlthough desirable, it is not necessarythat you visit a wilderness in order tobecome an effective advocate. How-ever, gathering some basic informationcan strengthen your advocacy efforts.Good information sources includeTilton’s book, information sheets avail-able from the agency office, the Wil-derness Information website, and the

agency’s website (although someagency websites don’t mention thepresence of wilderness). Regionalnatural history books are useful forinformation on an area’s geology, wild-life, and plants. Obtain a map fromthe agency or an outdoor sportinggoods store, and study it. Pay atten-tion to characteristics that can affectwilderness management:

• Topography—Is it flat, mountain-ous, or bisected by steep canyons?Topography can indicate importantwildlife corridors and recreationaltravel patterns. Do people fan outor funnel into just a few access ar-eas? Flat, open terrain is more sus-ceptible to motorized trespass.

• Location—Is it remote or withintwo hours of a major urban area?Are access roads paved? The moredeveloped the area is around a wil-derness, the more likely the wil-derness will be subject to high use,invasion by exotic species, preda-tor control, and intentional firesuppression.

• Vegetation—Is it grassland,swamp, tundra, forest, or desert?Each has implications for fire man-agement, modes of access preferredby managers and other visitors, andvisual screening that can affect op-portunities for solitude. Are anythreatened or endangered species orexotic or invasive plants present?

• Wildlife—Are any threatened orendangered species present? Anymigratory birds (which are pro-tected by international treaty andlaw)? Any introduced species, in-cluding feral species such as hogsor horses? Does fish stocking oc-cur? Is hunting allowed?

• Current Uses—Is visitor use lowor high, seasonal or year-round?What types of recreational use oc-curs? Do commercial outfitters use

Overbuilt bridge in the Bob Marshall Wilderness with USFS ranger cabin in background. Photo courtesy ofWilderness Watch.


the area? Is there any livestockgrazing? Are there valid miningclaims or private inholdings (pri-vate or state property completelysurrounded by wilderness)? InAlaska, are there significant levelsof subsistence use (hunting, fish-ing, gathering plant materials)?

Gather ReferenceMaterialsThree items are especially useful: (1) acopy of TWA; (2) a copy of the law thatdesignated a particular wilderness, and(3) a copy of the agency’s national wil-derness management policies and regu-lations. In most cases, these materialswill probably amount to 20 to 30 pages.

• TWA is available online from Wil-derness Watch at www.wildernesswatch.org (“site index” link), orfrom the Wilderness Informationwebsite (“legislation” link). It isalso available as an appendix inWilderness Management (Hendeeand Dawson 2002).

• To find the law that designated awilderness, you need to know itspublic law number. Find this bylooking up a wilderness on theWilderness Information website(“all wildernesses” link), or contactthe wilderness manager or Wilder-ness Watch. Wilderness designa-tion laws and their managementimplications are summarized in theappendices of Wilderness Manage-ment (Hendee and Dawson 2002).Once you know the public lawnumber, a librarian in the govern-ment documents section of a li-brary can help you look up the law.An area’s designating legislationsometimes contains special provi-sions and exceptions that are notin TWA, and these two togetherprovide the legal direction for howa wilderness must be managed.

• Each federal agency that manageswilderness has wilderness manage-ment policies, regulations, or both.Don’t be intimidated by policies orregulations—they are quite read-able and are divided into short,specific topics. Agency regulationshave the force of law, while poli-cies serve as internal guidance thatagencies should follow. Regula-tions are contained in the Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) avail-able in the reference section ofpublic libraries or online atwww.access.gpo.gov/nara/.1. USFS wilderness regulations are

in 36 CFR Part 293. The USFSwilderness policies are in For-est Service Manual 2320.1-2323.26b, or are available at theagency office and online atwww.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2300.

2. BLM wilderness regulations arein 43 CFR Part 6300. The BLMis currently revising its wilder-ness policies to be compatiblewith their new regulations.

3. FWS wilderness regulations arein 50 CFR Part 35. The agency’sdraft wilderness stewardship

policies can be found in the Janu-ary 16, 2001, Federal Register,available in the reference sectionof libraries, at agency offices, oronline at www.access. gpo.gov/nara/.

4. NPS has no wilderness manage-ment regulations and its wilder-ness policies are contained inthree documents titled NPSManagement Policies Chapter6, Director’s Order # 41, andReference Manual 41. These canbe obtained from the nationalpark that oversees a wilderness,or online at www.nps.gov(Servicewide Info, ReferenceDesk, then “policy place” link).

Do not hesitate to get involved outof fear that you are not knowledge-able enough about wilderness laws oragency policies. Most managers willwelcome your interest and be willingto answer your questions. As you gainskill and experience, your input willbe increasingly valuable in encourag-ing and supporting managers’ effortsto protect wilderness.

When opportunities arise to com-ment on wilderness issues, it is important

Motorized equipment installing a desert bighorn sheep guzzler in an Arizona wilderness area. Photo courtesy ofWilderness Watch.


to provide your thoughts in writing vialetter or e-mail. Your commentsshould be specific, detailing the pointsthat are good or bad about the pro-posal and why, and any alternatives thatyou suggest for consideration.

Points to consider: is the proposedaction consistent with laws, policies,and regulations? If not, be specific inpointing out the inconsistencies. It isuseful to quote directly from law,policy, or regulation when makingyour point. To make your commentsuseful, focus on the issues, not themanagers or their personalities.

Priorities for AdvocacyHow does one decide which issues totackle? In part this depends on yourown interests and values. For example,you might be most concerned with theincreasing motorized use that is occur-ring throughout the NWPS. If so, stayalert to the types of situations mostlikely to trigger motorized proposals.These include trail work, fish stock-ing, livestock management, scientificresearch, game management, restora-

tion of historic structures, fire man-agement, and access to private landinholdings in wilderness.

If wildlife and habitat issues are yoursingular passion, you may be interestedin proposals affecting threatened or en-dangered species, migratory birds, fishstocking, removal of feral species, preda-tor control, habitat modifications suchas vegetation manipulations, and wild-life impacts resulting from high visitoruse such as species displacement andremoval of large predators.

To assess a proposal’s range of im-pact, ask yourself the following ques-tions: Does the proposal affect manywildernesses nationwide (such as newagency policies or regulations), or doesit only affect one wilderness? Will theproposal affect the entire wilderness(such as a wilderness managementplan, fire management plan, or someresearch proposals) or is it site-specific,such as restoration of a historic struc-ture, trail maintenance, or placementof a weather station? Even site-specificprojects can have farranging impact—word travels through the agencies re-

garding what types of actions are be-ing approved and whether they arebeing challenged by the public.

Comment PointsHow do you decide what points toemphasize in your comments? Someproposals may violate laws, while oth-ers may violate principles of good wil-derness stewardship. Following arefive common themes to consider whenwriting a comment letter.

1. Legality. Determine if the proposedactivity is legal in your wilderness.Review pertinent sections in TWAand in your wilderness’s designationlegislation. Examples of activitiesthat may be legal in some wilder-nesses include livestock grazing,snowmobiles for subsistence hunt-ing in Alaska, landing of aircraft, jetskis in Idaho’s Frank Church-Riverof No Return Wilderness, and truckportages in Minnesota’s BoundaryWaters Canoe Area. In such casesyour comments should emphasizereducing unnecessary impacts andappropriately regulating the use. Forexample, chasing wolves with snowmachines occurs in some Alaskawilderness areas—your commentscould point out that this is question-able as a subsistence-related activ-ity and that managers have authorityto curtail this activity to protect wild-life as an important component ofwilderness character.

2. Wilderness character. Theoverarching mandate of TWA is thatwilderness character must be pre-served, and this should be empha-sized in every comment letter.Preservation of wilderness charac-ter takes precedence over cost, con-venience, or the goals of projectsunrelated to wilderness protection,such as most scientific research or

A speed limit sign in the Brigantine Wilderness area in New Jersey where vehicles have been allowed on the beacharea. Photo by Dennis Schvejda.


manipulation of game species. Wil-derness character is a complex mixof tangible and intangible qualities,but perhaps the most singular as-pect is that wilderness is to remainwild. Agencies may attempt to jus-tify motorized management activi-ties in wilderness, such as use ofhelicopters or mechanized equip-ment, and may argue that it causesno lasting biophysical impact or oc-curs during the visitor use “off sea-son.” Remind agencies thatmotorized activities are the antith-esis of wildness and therefore alwaysharms wilderness character,whether visitors are present or not.

3. Minimum requirement. Famil-iarize yourself with the conceptsknown as “minimum requirement”and “minimum tool.” These willenable you to comment knowl-edgeably on innumerable wilder-ness management proposals.Determine if a proposed actionincludes any of the prohibited ac-tions listed in section 4(c) of TWA.These include aircraft landings,roads, use of motor vehicles, mo-torboats, motorized equipment,and placement of structures or in-stallations. TWA only allows theseprohibited actions under very nar-row circumstances, and these aresometimes misapplied by manag-ers, resulting in degraded wilder-ness character.

If a prohibited action is pro-posed, then apply the minimumrequirement test by asking the fol-lowing two questions. Does theproposal involve an emergency af-fecting the health and safety ofhumans within the wilderness? Isthe overall project the minimumrequirement necessary to protectand administer the wilderness? Ifthe answer to both questions is

“no,” then the prohibited actioncannot legally be allowed. If theanswer to either question is “yes,”then apply the minimum tool testdescribed later in the text.

Consider who proposed the project,because if it is anyone other than thewilderness management agency, thenthe project may not be the minimumnecessary for protection of the wilder-ness. Outside entities that proposeprojects in wilderness include states,counties, utility companies, scientificresearchers, historic preservation soci-eties, and commercial outfitters andguides. Since these entities are not re-sponsible for wilderness administration,the project is proposed for other pur-poses. Even if the project appears toprovide some peripheral benefit to wil-derness, the key point is that it is notthe minimum requirement necessary foradministration of the wilderness and,therefore, does not justify the use ofprohibited actions that degrade wilder-ness character.

For example, last year the state ofWashington and other parties proposedhelicopter use in the Mount Rainier Wil-derness to find, capture, and radio-col-lar elk to study why the regional gamepopulation was declining. In the remotedesert of the Cabeza Prieta Wildernessin Arizona, hunting interests have con-vinced managers to routinely drive mo-tor vehicles through the wildernesshauling water to guzzlers in hopes ofincreasing the number of desert bighornsheep available for hunting. Scientificresearch and hunting are allowable butnot mandatory uses of wilderness and,therefore, do not justify compromisingwilderness through prohibited actions

that are not necessary for wilderness pro-tection.

What if the project does meet theminimum requirement test? This stilldoes not mean that the prohibited ac-tion is the appropriate tool for accom-plishing the project. Perform a“minimum tool” assessment by askingyourself if it is possible to accomplishthe project by nonmotorized,nonmechanized means. If the answeris “yes,” then the prohibited action isnot the “minimum tool” for complet-ing necessary projects in a wilderness.

In summary, agencies can only al-low prohibited actions in wildernessif there is a human safety emergencywithin the wilderness, or if the overallproject is the minimum action neces-sary for administration of the area aswilderness, and if the prohibited ac-tion is really the minimum tool foraccomplishing the necessary task.

4. Manipulation. Does the proposalcall for intentional manipulation ofnatural processes? By law, wilder-ness is to remain untrammeled,which means unfettered and freeof intentional human manipula-tion. Commonly proposed ma-nipulations include prescribed fire,application of herbicides, predatorcontrol, fish stocking, and manipu-lation of game species or habitatto augment hunting opportunities.For example, a recent proposal inMontana calls for poisoning lakesin the Bob Marshall Wilderness toremove introduced hybrid trout,and then restocking the lakes withwestern slope cutthroat trout. Theproblem is that those lakes had nofish present prior to intentional

Each of the 644 wildernesses in the United Statesneed citizens to advocate for good stewardship.


human interference. The mostnatural condition of wilderness isits wildness. In wilderness, natu-ral processes should prevail.

5. Solitude. Preserving opportunitiesfor solitude is a key principle of wil-derness stewardship. Solitudemeans more than being away fromlarge numbers of people—it alsomeans removal from modern civili-zation, its technologies, and contriv-ances. In your comments, payattention to whether any of the fol-lowing situations are part of the ac-tion you are commenting on, and ifso, point out how it degrades op-portunities for wilderness solitude.

Crowding degrades opportunitiesfor solitude and can result from a va-riety of management choices. Lack ofvisitor-use limits or group-size limitscan result in crowding. Crowding maybe encouraged by overdevelopment oftrails, bridges, and signage becausethese make travel easier and faster formore people by requiring less skill,time, effort, or route finding. Overde-velopment of wilderness trailheadsand access roads can also compound

crowding by making wildernessreadily accessible to large numbers ofcasual visitors who are not seeking awilderness experience. Crowding andother intrusions on solitude can oc-cur if managers accommodate activi-ties that are not dependent on awilderness setting, such as training forcompetitive events, rock climbing onbolted routes, or scenic overflights.

Other management actions that de-grade solitude include regulating hu-man choices in the wilderness, such asrequiring inflexible route itineraries andassigned campsites or, as the USFS re-cently proposed for the Mount HoodWilderness in Oregon, even assignedpicnic spots at popular destinations.Regulation can reduce the sense of soli-tude from the nonwilderness world.Regulation applied at the wildernessboundary is very appropriate, butheavy-handed regulation within wilder-ness is rarely necessary if crowding isnot allowed to occur.

Establishing visitor-use limits suchas trailhead quotas or a permit systemis a management action that is oftennecessary for popular wildernesses.Group-size limits that are not speciesspecific should be proactively estab-

lished for all wilderness to help limitpotential impacts. Suggest limits basedon the total number of “beatinghearts”, or number of feet and hooveson the ground. For example, theChimney Peak Wilderness in Califor-nia has a group-size limit of 15 peopleplus 25 packstock—this represents upto 130 feet and hooves on the ground.In contrast, Gates of the Arctic Wil-derness in Alaska sets group limits at10 people for float trips and 7 peoplefor backpacking—this represents amaximum of 20 feet on the ground.

ConclusionKeeping wilderness wild depends onwilderness advocates becoming in-volved in wilderness management de-cisions through the publicinvolvement process. Wilderness man-agers need public encouragement toprotect wilderness, and they rely uponwilderness advocates to support goodmanagement decisions. With a fewuseful tools in hand, an individual canmake a big difference in protecting ourwilderness heritage. The quality of ourwilderness is under threat from manysources. The future of our NWPS is inour hands today. Will it be civilized,or will it be wild?

REFERENCESHendee, John C., and Dawson, Chad P. 2002.

Wilderness Management: Stewardship andProtection of Resources and Values, thirdedition. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Tilton, Buck. 1996. America’s Wilderness: TheComplete Guide to More Than 600 Wilder-ness Areas. Emeryville, Calif.: Foghorn Out-doors, Avalon Travel Publishing Series.

Zahniser, Howard. 1956. The need for wilder-ness areas. The Living Wilderness 21 (59):37–43.

TINAMARIE EKKER is policy director forWilderness Watch and can be contactedat Wilderness Watch, P.O. Box 9175,Missoula, MT 59807, USA.Telephone: (406) 542-2048;e-mail: [email protected].

An administrative road used by staff to drive on as they check on water levels in guzzlers for desert bighornsheep in the Cabeza Prieta Wilderness. Photo courtesy of Wilderness Watch.


Managing the density of recreation use is among themost contentious aspects of wilderness manage-ment. Ideally, wilderness should not be crowded.

There is little controversy about this. However, as populationexpands, demand for recreational access to wilderness in-creases. In some areas, managers have responded by imple-menting limits on recreation use. Usually limits apply just toovernight use; day use remains unlimited. In other areas, rec-reation use has been allowed to increase unabated. Increas-ingly in the United States both decisions to limit use anddecisions not to limit use are challenged by wilderness advo-cacy groups with opposing viewpoints. Particularly contro-versial are questions about whether to limit day use andwhether to base use limits on concerns about experientialconditions, as opposed to concerns about ecological impactsof recreation.

For decades, managers and researchers have searchedfor better ways to make decisions about appropriate uselevels in wilderness. While progress has been made, it hasbeen limited. Planning frameworks—such as Limits of Ac-ceptable Change and Visitor Experience and Resource Pro-tection—provide a template for making decisions but stillrequire managers to make value-based judgments aboutappropriate conditions. Studies of wilderness visitors pro-vide insight into current visitors’ opinions about appropri-ate conditions and preferences for management. However,it is not clear to what extent prescriptive decisions aboutappropriate conditions should be based on the opinions ofthe average current visitor.

Given the continued contentiousness of these issues, theAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and the Wilder-ness Institute at the University of Montana sponsored a work-shop to address the question of what science has contributedand can contribute to decisions about where use limits are

needed, what those limits should be, and on what they shouldbe based. Discussion was largely confined to situations inwhich concern for the visitor experience is the basis for uselimits, since this is more controversial than limits based onecological impacts. Copies of eight individual articles fromthe proceedings of the workshop can be downloaded atwww.wilderness.net/research.cfm, or a copy of the entire pro-ceedings can be ordered from the Aldo Leopold WildernessResearch Institute (leopold.wilderness.net).

The general conclusion of the workshop was that progresshas been made in grappling with the issue of appropriate visi-tor densities in wilderness. To date, most research has involvedadministering post-trip questionnaires to visitors at individualwildernesses. While further research of this type will provideadditional insights, most workshop participants felt thatsupplementing this work with different research questionsand methodologies is key to making further progress. Researchshould focus on consequences of use limits, such as effects on

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

Managing the Density ofRecreation Use in Wilderness

BY DAVID N. COLE

Continued on page 45


Restoring Wildness?

Conservation Management on the Isle of Rum

BY BRIAN WOOD

The use of former agricultural practices, such as grazing bydomestic livestock, is thus commonplace as a conservationmanagement technique in European nature reserves.

However, this “preserve systems” strategy (Caughley andSinclair 1994) is now being challenged because it can de-liver only limited conservation benefits (Whitbread andJenman 1995). Indeed, fears have been expressed that thepeople of Europe are in danger of losing touch with nature(Bibelriether 1998). Moreover, ecologists now accept thatnatural systems are far more dynamic than they were for-merly willing to concede (e.g., Peterken 1996). So, attemptsto restore reserves to a more natural state are to be wel-comed. In large and more remote reserves, such as the Isleof Rum, this type of conservation strategy could potentiallyreap benefits for the supporters of wildness, creating re-stored landscapes that reflect the original wilderness thatexisted before the impact of humans in Europe.

Rum in the PastNowadays Rum is protected by both domestic (UK) and Eu-ropean conservation legislation and is acknowledged as oneof the most important protected areas in Europe. It is one ofthe biggest British NNR’s, extending to almost 107 sq km,and is wholly owned by the government conservation agency,Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), which is responsible for itsprotection and management. About 25 people currently liveon the island, and most are SNH employees and their fami-lies. However, there have been substantial changes in the hu-man population of Rum over the centuries.

Over the past 500 years the vegetation of Rum has beendramatically affected by various influences. First came a pe-riod when deer dominated the ecology of the island by con-suming tree seedlings and preventing the growth ofwoodlands. Although the deer were certainly hunted for foodand perhaps sport, their numbers remained sufficient to be a


Ever since 1957, when the Isle of Rum, which lies offthe west coast of Scotland, was purchased by theNature Conservancy (NC) and declared a National

Nature Reserve (NNR), its conservation managers have hadvisions of restoring this island to a more natural state. To-

day, many visitors to Rumwould consider that it offers anexperience of wildness that isas good as any available else-where in the Scottish High-lands. It is a rugged island andboasts a striking range of peaksthat lie around the remains ofthe rim of a volcanic cone. Withonly two rough trails crossingthe island, the interior of Rumis only accessible on foot, bypony, or in four-wheel-drivevehicles. However, althoughthere are wonderful vistasacross its largely treeless land-

scape, the island’s current condition is not the outcome ofthe work of nature.

Conservation Management in EuropeMany nature reserves in Britain and other parts of westernEurope are quite intensively managed and are seminaturalremnants of a landscape that has been intensively manipu-lated for generations. The Habitats Directive (Council Di-rective on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and WildFauna and Flora—92/43/EEC), which is the principal con-servation legislation in the European Union, identifies manyhabitats that have resulted from human use of the land tobe especially important and requires conservation manag-ers to protect their species and communities from change.

Article author Brian Wood.


potent influence until they were re-placed by human settlers and eventu-ally exterminated. In turn, the peopleand their domestic animals were ban-ished and countless sheep took theirplace. During this time the heatheryslopes of the hills would have been pe-riodically burned to provide freshgrowth for the sheep to consume. Withthe demise of sheep farming the appear-ance of Rum perhaps returned to some-thing akin to how it looked in the 16thcentury. Red deer were restored, andRum later became known as the forbid-den island, with few visitors except forshooting party guests. The island prop-erties and buildings were sold to thegovernment in 1957 by the trustees ofthe last private sporting estate. Finally,the island has witnessed a phase of con-servation management with deer num-bers stabilized by annual cull and theintroduction in 1971 of a herd of high-land cattle as a tool to help in the man-agement of the vegetation.

Restoring WildnessIn order to return places that have hada long history of human use back to awilder state, it is important to have anaccurate vision of the past. A formerScottish director of the Nature Conser-vancy Council, which succeeded the NCas managers of Rum in 1973, has writ-ten that “the main objective of the na-ture reserve is to recreate a habitatresembling that which existed in Rumbefore the island was made treeless byman, and to achieve this, the managersmust have a reliable picture of the is-land as it was 2500 years ago, at thebeginning of the Iron Age” (Boyd andBoyd 1990).

The policies to be followed in the res-toration of Rum are set out in a series ofconservation management plans thatcover the period from 1960 to the present(Eggeling 1964; Ball 1970; Nature Con-servancy Council 1974, 1987; Boyd

1977; Scottish Natural Heritage 1998).During this period of more than 40 yearsthere were two major reorganizations ofgovernmental conservation agencies.SNH has goals that include wildlife con-servation, landscape protection, and thewelfare of rural communities, whereasthe former organizations were concernedsolely with wildlife issues.

Red Deer on RumRed deer are a potent symbol of theScottish Highlands. When he waschairman of SNH, Magnusson (1997)wrote that “there have been deer onRum since time immemorial” and that“for many people Rum and deer areinseparably linked—and rightly so.”In reality, the history of deer on theisland is considerably more complexthan these statements would suggest.The earliest written account of deer onRum reported “an abundance of littledeire” in the 16th century (first pub-lished 1546, new edition Munro1934). It appears highly probable thatthe deer recorded by Munro were reddeer that had become island-adaptedand consequently small in stature.

Rum is now world renowned for thelong-term study into the sociobiologyof red deer that has been conducted byscientists from Cambridge University(Clutton-Brock et al. 1982). However,the animals used in this research aredescended from ones introduced toRum in about 1845. This new popula-tion originated not only from mainlandScotland, but from as far away as south-ern England. Since 1957 the total islandpopulation of deer has been stabilizedat about 1,500 animals as a result ofconservation research (Lowe 1971).Regrettably, as long as their numbers arelimited on Rum, the island’s red deerwill not shrink to the small body size oftheir forebears. So, they will remain typi-cal of managed Highland deer, not anatural island population.

The Wild ForestIt has been suggested that the medievalname for Rum, “Kingdom of the WildForest” referred not to an island cov-ered with extensive woodlands but to alargely treeless deer forest (Samuel2001). There would certainly have beenvery little woodland on Rum by medi-eval times, but there was a time in thepast when woodland was extensive onthis island. When it became an NNRthe only significant woodland on Rumwas in the east of the island. A smallpart of this had been planted in themiddle of the 19th century, and the re-mainder was planted some 50 yearslater. Elsewhere, there were a few frag-ments of scrub woodland in steep gul-lies and on cliff ledges, but the last copseof native woodland had apparently beenfelled before 1796 (Ball 1987).

However, the analysis of plant re-mains and pollen from a site near thecenter of the island led botanists to con-clude that Rum had formerly supportedextensive woodland on its lower slopes,particularly in the north and east of theisland. Restoring this primeval wood-land became a focal part of the conser-vation of the island after 1957. All sheepwere removed from Rum before the NC

Red deer stag on the Isle of Rum. Photo by Brian Wood.


took charge, and the practice of burn-ing ground vegetation was ended, thusremoving two factors preventing treegrowth. The new managers of Rum usedtechniques from commercial forestmanagement to establish a new coverof native tree species. Blocks of landwere fenced to exclude deer, since theywould browse and kill tree seedlings.The land was prepared with plowingand fertilization before young trees,raised in a nursery on the island fromnative seeds, were planted by hand(Wormell 1968). Now over 1 milliontrees have been planted in this way, andthere are plans to further extend theplantings on the island. At the sametime, some native herbs have been trans-planted to newly established woodlandareas to speed the colonization of awoodland ground flora.

A Vision for the FutureThe picture of Rum that conservationmanagers are seeking to achieve is of anisland that supports extensive woodlandin parts, but elsewhere has herb-richgrasslands maintained by grazing ani-mals. Red deer will roam the entire is-land, but to prevent them fromdestroying the woodland their numberswill need to be continually controlled.Others have suggested that wolves

should be introduced to Rum in orderto keep its deer population in check andpermit woodland regeneration (Nevardand Penfold 1978; Yalden 1986), butpopulation modeling indicates thatwolves would quickly decline to extinc-tion on an island the size of Rum. More-over, there is no evidence to suggest thatwolves have ever occurred on Rum inthe past, even though they were a partof the fauna of the Scottish mainlanduntil at least the 17th century.

However, SNH also believes thatthere should be a significant place forpeople in the future of this island. Theysee Rum as “an island which has a com-munity living and working in harmonywith their environment. An islandwhich is economically and ecologicallydynamic and sustainable. An islandwhich will be inherited by each succes-sive generation with pride and a com-mitment to carry on working withnature” (Ritchie 1997). This vision in-cludes the continuing use of domesticanimals as a means of controlling na-ture and to perpetuate the types of veg-etation that are listed in the UK responseto the Habitats Directive.

Former Natural StatesRecent evidence for past changes in thevegetation of Rum is provided by the

analysis of pollen remains from a site nearKinloch (Hirons and Edwards 1990).The pollen profile confirms that exten-sive woodland disappeared from this partof Rum about 4,000 years ago and, per-haps because of the clear evidence of hu-man activity and the presence of charcoal,it is suggested that the woodland was pro-gressively felled and burned by the earlysettlers. However, I believe that the pol-len profile reveals an alternative and per-haps even more plausible explanation forthe demise of Rum’s primeval forest(Wood 2000). The pollen profile showsthat there were quite dramatic changesin other components of the vegetation onRum immediately before the sudden de-cline of its forest. In particular, severalhighly palatable herbs almost disappearedand were replaced by a sudden rise inherbs that are now common in heavilygrazed systems throughout Scotland. Thissuggests that the woodland declined soonafter the arrival of large grazing animals toRum, either domestic livestock or the firstarrival of deer to the island. The introduc-tion of deer was most likely by people(Yalden 1982). This reinterpretation of theevidence suggests that the natural state ofRum took two very different forms in thepast. From about 10,000 until 4,000 yearsago the island was quite well wooded,though the woodland may have been veryscrubby and open, especially near thecoast and on the higher slopes of the hills.Since then, with the possible arrival of reddeer to Rum, the forest has largely disap-peared as a consequence of their brows-ing. Deer numbers would have risen and,with heavy competition for food and anabsence of significant predators, the bodysize of the deer would have fallen dra-matically as they became island-adapted.Unfortunately, any small deer that re-mained until historic times were exter-minated by people and have beenreplaced by deer of the same species, butones that do not differ from their main-land counterparts.

Construction of a deer exclosure for tree planting. Photo by Brian Wood.


If conservation managers decide tore-create wilder and more natural con-ditions on Rum, then they should con-sider the evidence that Rum was awell-wooded island, but without largeherbivores until about 4,000 years ago.If red deer managed to colonize Rumunaided, which we will never know,then a treeless island with a high popu-lation of deer of very small stature mayalso be considered as natural. If humansbrought the original population of reddeer to the island, as they did the presentpopulation, then deer should be con-sidered as nonnative on Rum.

Conclusions:Wild Nature or Artifact?If conservation managers promote bothdeer and woodland on Rum in the fu-ture, while controlling deer numbers inorder to achieve this balance, they willcreate a situation that has never been anatural part of the island in the past. De-spite the stated objective to return theisland to more natural conditions, thepresent management of Rum by SNHappears to attempt to preserve both wild-life and human artifacts that have neversuccessfully coexisted in the past. At thesame time, it expresses the hope thatpeople and nature will, in the future, co-exist sustainably on this island. Time willtell if this policy can deliver somethingthat the people of Europe can be proudof. However, if this type of strategy iswidely followed then I fear that wildnessand natural systems where nature is notcontinually controlled by people, and theessence of wilderness that may be foundin such places, will remain beyond thereach of both conservation managers andthe general population.

REFERENCESBall, M. E. 1970. Isle of Rhum NNR: Plan of

Operations 1970–74. The Nature Conser-vancy.

Ball, M. E. 1987. Botany, woodland and for-estry. In Rhum: The Natural History of anIsland, T. H. Clutton-Brock and M. E. Ball,

eds. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh Uni-versity Press, p. 43–62.

Bibelriether, H. 1998. Natural heritage conser-vation in Europe: a review. In Parks for Life:Proceedings of the IUCN/WCPA EuropeanRegional Working Session on ProtectingEurope’s Natural Heritage, H. Synge, ed.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, pp. 33–36.

Boyd, J. M. 1977. Management Plan for theIsle of Rhum NNR 1977–82. Nature Con-servancy Council.

Boyd, J. M., and I. L. Boyd, 1990. The Hebrides.London: Collins.

Caughley, G., and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1994. Wild-life Ecology and Management. Oxford, En-gland: Blackwell Scientific Publications.

Clutton-Brock, T. H., F. E. Guinness, and S. D.Albon. 1982. Red Deer: Behaviour and Ecol-ogy of Two Sexes. Edinburgh, Scotland:Edinburgh University Press.

Eggeling, W. J. 1964. A nature reserve man-agement plan for the Island of Rhum, InnerHebrides. Journal of Applied Ecology 1:405–419.

Hirons, K. R., and K. J. Edwards. 1990. Pollenand related studies at Kinloch, Isle of Rhum,Scotland, with particular reference to pos-sible early human impacts on vegetation.New Phytologist 116: 715–727.

Lowe, V. P. W. 1971. Some effects of a changein estate management on a deer popula-tion. In E. Duffey and A. S. Watt, eds. TheScientific Management of Animal and PlantCommunities for Conservation, 11th Sym-posium of the British Ecological Society,Oxford, England: Blackwell Scientific Publi-cations, pp. 437–456.

Magnusson, M. 1997. Rum: Nature’s Island.Edinburgh, Scotland: Luath Press.

Munro, D. 1934 (1549). A description of theWestern Isles of Scotland Called Hybrides,new edition. Stirling, Scotland.

Nature Conservancy Council. 1974. Isle ofRhum National Nature Reserve: ReserveHandbook.

Nature Conservancy Council. 1987. Isle ofRhum NNR: Management Plan 1987–96.

Nevard, T. D., and J. B. Penfold. 1978. Wildlifeconservation in Britain: the unsatisfied de-mand. Biological Conservation 14: 25–44.

Peterken, G. F. 1996. Natural Woodland: Ecol-ogy and Conservation in Northern Temper-ate Regions. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Ritchie, W. 1997. Rum—building on the dream.Scotland’s Natural Heritage 11: 4–5.

Samuel, A. 2001. Rum: nature and communityin harmony? Ecos 22 (1): 36–45.

Scottish Natural Heritage. 1998. Isle of RumNational Nature Reserve: draft managementplan 1998–2008.

Whitbread, A., and W. Jenman. 1995. A natu-ral method of conserving biodiversity in Brit-ain. British Wildlife 7 (2): 84–93.

Wood, B. 2000. Room for nature? Conserva-tion management of the Isle of Rum, UK andprospects for large protected areas in Eu-rope. Biological Conservation 94: 93–105.

Wormell, P. 1968. Establishing woodland onthe Isle of Rhum. Journal of the Royal Scot-tish Forestry Society 22: 207–220.

Yalden, D. W. 1982. When did the mammalfauna of the British Isles arrive? MammalReview 12 (1): 13–56.

Yalden, D. W. 1986. Opportunities for reintro-ducing British mammals. Mammal Review16: 53–63.

BRIAN WOOD is a senior lecturer in theEcology and Conservation Unit at theDepartment of Biology, University CollegeLondon, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT,England. E-mail: [email protected].

Central mountain peaks on the Isle of Rum. Photo by Brian Wood.


Wilderness Attribute Mappingin the United Kingdom

BY STEVE CARVER, ANDY EVANS, and STEFFEN FRITZ

Abstract: A wilderness continuum concept can identify the wilder areas of Britain. Geographical InformationSystems are used to present information on these areas and solicit public opinion as to which factors areperceived to be important wilderness quality indicators. Consensus maps are compiled from a composite ofindividual responses and the results compared to Britain’s network of protected areas.

Recent research in Britain has focused on identifyingand mapping a wilderness continuum using Geographi-cal Information Systems (GIS) methods that take percep-tions of wilderness into account (Carver 1996; Carver andFritz 1999). Despite the lack of extensive wilderness inBritain, it is argued that it is possible to identify a con-tinuum from the most altered and accessible to the mostnatural and remote places. This article describes the tech-niques used to map the wilderness continuum for Britainusing input from the general public on which geographi-

(PEER REVIEWED)


IntroductionAlthough legal definitions of wilderness exist, the conceptremains difficult to specify. Nash (1982, p. 1) was temptedto let wilderness define itself: “to accept as wilderness thoseplaces people call wilderness” with emphasis “not so muchon what wilderness is but what men think it is.” Nash de-scribes wilderness as one extreme on a continuum fromthe “paved to the primeval.” The position along the con-tinuum at which wilderness occurs has more to do withperceptions than it does with ecological conditions.

Article co-authors left to right: Steve Carver, Andy Evans and Steffen Fritz.


cal factors are considered importantwilderness quality indicators.

Britain and the WildernessContinuum ConceptMost definitions of wilderness stressthe natural state of the environment,the absence of human habitation, andthe lack of other human-related influ-ences and impacts. Clearly, few suchareas exist in Britain today. Where theydo, they take the form of small andisolated pockets. Go back a few hun-dred thousand years, however, and thewhole of Britain was a wilderness withno human settlement. It was only withthe arrival of early humans across aland bridge between Britain and theEuropean continent that this wilder-ness began to be eroded by human in-cursion, settlement, and forestclearance. Just 2,000 years ago manyareas were still home to wild animalscommonly associated with NorthAmerican wilderness: wolf, beaver,bear and lynx (Watson 1984). How-ever, just a few hundred years ago theareas of Scottish Highlands we may betempted to call wilderness today werethe basis of a thriving rural economy.It was the “Clearances” of the early19th century that erased these tradi-tional hill-farming communities andreinstated the secondary wildernessthat we see today (Ridley 1992).

True wilderness simply no longer ex-ists in Britain. Yet, for any given area ofthe world it should be possible, in theoryat least, to identify the wildest tract ofland within its boundary, based on hu-man perceptions of its wilderness quali-ties. The wilderness continuum conceptstates that true, pristine wilderness is oneextreme on the environmental modifi-cation spectrum (Hendee et al., 1990).At the opposite end of this spectrum isthe totally urbanized environment of thecity center shopping mall or office.

A GIS Approach toMapping the WildernessContinuumGIS can be a valuable tool for wilder-ness management (Lesslie 1993;Carroll and Hinrichsen 1993; Ourenet al. 1994; Aplet et al. 2000; Davidsonet al. 2000), particularly for mapping,monitoring, and analysis. The Austra-lian Heritage Commission’s NationalWilderness Inventory, for example,identified wilderness on the basis offour factors: remoteness from settle-ment, remoteness from access, appar-ent naturalness, and biophysicalnaturalness (Lesslie 1994; Miller,1995). These factors are mapped andcombined by GIS overlay proceduresto define a wilderness quality index.In the Australian example, minimumthresholds are established for theseindicators to differentiate areas that donot meet minimum levels of remote-ness and naturalness necessary to beconsidered for wilderness.

To meet a particular objective—inthis case the mapping of wildernessquality—it is often necessary to evalu-ate several criteria and consider theirdifferent levels of importance. Thismulticriteria evaluation, or MCE, al-lows investigation of a large numberof choice possibilities (geographicallocations) in the light of multiple andoften conflicting criteria (wildernessattributes). It is possible, however, togenerate rankings of the alternativechoice possibilities according to theirattractiveness (in this case their over-all wilderness quality). MCE tech-niques, originally developed in the

planning and operations researchfields (Voogd 1983), have beenadapted for use with GIS and continu-ous datasets for site search and suit-ability mapping applications (Janssenand Rietveld 1990; Carver 1991;Eastman et al. 1993).

A variation of the Australian ap-proach to wilderness mapping has beenadopted, using similar factors within aGIS/MCE framework to identify thewilderness continuum in Britain (Carver1996). Several existing digital datasetsare used to create six factor maps de-scribing remoteness from local popula-tion, remoteness from nationalpopulation centrers, remoteness frommechanized access, apparent natural-ness, biophysical naturalness, and alti-tude. All these datasets were created andanalysed using the GRID module in theArc/Info GIS software, working at anominal resolution of 1 km2 (0.39square miles). Details of data sourcesand interpretation are shown in table1. The factor maps were all standard-ized onto a 0 to 255 scale and combinedusing user-specified factor weights anda simple weighted linear summationMCE model as follows:

j=n

1Wsum = �wj(eij)

where:

Wsum = position on wildernesscontinuum

wj = jth user-specified factorweight

eij = standardized score

n = number of factors

Experiencing real wilderness firsthand may be theultimate education, but it is one that not all of us arefortunate enough to have.


Figure 1—Comparison of two different example wilderness continuum maps.

Table 1. Digital Map Data for UK Wild Area Mapping

Factor Source Interpretation

Population-linear distance weighted surface using 25 km radius fromtarget cell. Provides a measure of accessibility to local population.

Population-road distance weighted surface for whole of Britain. Provides ameasure of accessibility to the whole of the British population based on realtravel distance weighted by population.

Distance from nearest road weighted by road class. Larger roads with animplied greater traffic volume are weighted higher than smaller roads.

Distance from nearest human artifact weighted by number of features.

Remoteness from UK 1991 Censuslocal population

Remoteness from UK 1991 Census andnational population CEH Countrysidecenters Information System

Remoteness from CEH Countrysidemechanized access Information System

Apparent CEH Countrysidenaturalness Information System

Biophysical CEH Countrysidenaturalness Information System

Altitude CEH CountrysideInformation System

Reclassification of the CEH Land Classification map showing degree ofnaturalness of land cover based on intensity of human use.

Height above sea level based on digital elevation model.

Other, more complex, MCE routinesexist, but the weighted linear summa-tion model is used here for simplicityand transparency (Carver 1991).

By applying user-specified factorweights, continuum maps can be gen-erated. Figure 1 shows an examplecomparison between two wildernesscontinuum maps: one based on userweights that stress remoteness frompopulation and access, and one basedon user weights that stress apparentand biophysical naturalness. The dif-ferences between individual maps cre-ated in this manner serves to illustratehow different perceptions of impor-tance affect the resultant continuum.

Internet-based Surveys ofPublic PerceptionsInternet-based GIS have been used tosolicit public opinion about a growingrange of spatial decision problems (see,for example, Carver et al. 2000; Lenk1999; Ghose 2001). The basic thrust ofthis research has been that the public canbe empowered within traditional plan-ning and policy-making structures if theyhave access to information and decisionsupport tools such as GIS. At the same

time, policy can, in turn, be far betterinformed (and so meet with greater pub-lic approval) from the insights gained intopublic opinion (Kingston et al. 2000).Research has shown that the public be-

comes better informed and improvesunderstanding on a particular issue ordecision problem through the use of in-teractive online decision support sys-tems. A three-stage process of


exploration, experimentation, and for-mulation has been proposed as a modelfor public participation in spatial deci-sion problems (Carver et al. 2000).

A simple, easy-to-use website hasbeen developed to survey public per-ceptions of wilderness in Britain. Theweb mapping system allows users toexplore their perceptions of wildernessin the British landscape through view-ing a series of attribute maps and de-scriptions. The user can then experimentwith weights applied to these attributemaps and draw their own wildernesscontinuum map on the screen. Weight-ing of attribute maps is done usingsimple slider bars and a Java mappingapplet that recalculates and then re-draws the continuum map. All process-ing of the maps is done using client-sideapplets and preloaded attribute maps,thereby greatly reducing redraw timesand making the system highly interac-tive. Once users are satisfied with a wil-derness continuum map, a further sliderbar can be used to “top-slice” the con-tinuum map and formulate a decisionas to where they think wilderness be-gins on their wilderness continuum asshown on the map. By moving thisslider bar those areas thought of as wil-derness or wildland are highlighted onthe continuum map. The main map in-terface to the system is shown in Figure2. All final user responses submitted areretained in server-side log files such thatis possible to redraw individual wilder-ness continuum maps for subsequentanalysis. Consensus wilderness areamaps are compiled from the log files.

To date, the system has remained asa prototype and is undergoing live test-ing with small sample groups of stu-dents. When launched as a full onlinesurvey the system will be specificallytargeted at interested groups using e-mail lists, newsletter articles, advertise-ments, and direct mailing and willemploy an online profile form to col-

Figure 2—Wilderness mapping web interface.

Figure 3—Comparison of “wildest” areas with existing protected areas in Britain.


lect information about the user, includ-ing demographic details, profession,membership of relevant organizations,and recreational interests.

Implications for ProtectedAreas and EducationUsing results from the GIS/MCE andInternet-based mapping methods itshould be possible to identify whatpeople believe to be the wildest partsof the country. While there may besome misgivings as to how represen-tative these maps may actually be, itdoes form a useful benchmark againstwhich Britain’s existing network ofprotected areas can be evaluated. The“wildest” areas shown in Figure 3 arederived from the mean wildernesscontinuum map from a student sample(n=50) by selecting the wildest 1, 5,and 10% of the country. For the pur-pose of discussion these are shownnext to a map showing existing pro-tected areas within Britain. These in-clude National Parks, Areas ofOutstanding Natural Beauty, NationalNature Reserves, Special Areas of Con-servation, Special Protection Areas,and Environmentally Sensitive Areas.While existing protected areas maycontain landscapes of high wildernessvalue, a significant proportion of thewildest areas of the country are notformally protected by conservationarea status.

The majority of Britain’s wildest ar-eas are within private rather than pub-

lic ownership. Notably, the majorityof Britain’s wildlands occur in thenorthwest Scottish Highlands. Manyof these landscapes may be regardedas secondary wilderness, created dur-ing the “clearances”’ and maintainedsubsequently by land managementpractices focused on deer stalking,grouse shooting, sport fishing, andsheep farming. As long as land man-agement practices there are respon-sible and sympathetic to theenvironment, then these wild areaswill be protected without need for for-mal policy. However, the landscapemosaic of Britain is constantly chang-ing, so vigilance is required concern-ing land use pressures affecting thewilder parts of the country. Relevantorganizations and conservation groupsare currently formulating policies andaction plans specific to the preserva-tion and re-creation of wild landscapeswithin Britain. These include the Na-tional Trust and the National Trust forScotland, Scottish Natural Heritage,and English Nature. The term“rewilding” is often used in Britain todescribe the process of reinstatingnatural or near-natural ecosystems informerly human-dominated land-scapes through the promotion of natu-ral processes with or without humanassistance.

Much interest has been generatedin rewilding projects such as those ofTrees for Life (Featherstone-Watson1996), the Carrifran Wildwood

Project, Moor Trees, Coed Eryri, andthe Council for National Parks (Coun-cil for National Parks 1998). Again,this kind of map could be profitablyemployed in identifying areas suitablefor rewilding: those areas that are al-ready the most wild stand the bestchance of success in any rewildingprogram.

Certain ethical issues arise at thispoint. It may transpire that if theseresults were widely published, the re-maining wild areas of the countrywould be brought to the attention ofthe country’s burgeoning number ofoutdoor recreationists, who in turnmay actively seek out these wild areasthereby destroying, by mere numbers,the wilderness character they value.The counterargument is that if theseareas are not formerly identified andprotected then we run the risk of los-ing them to the pressures of develop-ment. We believe that the argumentsin favor of bringing these areas to theclose attention of conservationists andpolicy makers, together with the edu-cational benefits from wilderness rec-ognition programs, far outweigh therisks from overuse.

In fact, Internet-based wildernessattribute mapping could prove veryuseful in drawing public attention tothe status of wild places and, there-fore, stimulate discussion about pro-tection in the United Kingdom. Thisis particularly the case when spatial in-formation on the status of wildland isavailable to a wider audience on theInternet. It can raise public awarenessof wildland conditions and help toeducate people about the value of landthat is “not developed.” Wildernesspreservation is heavily dependent ongood education. If people do not knowabout wilderness and its values thenthey are unlikely to support policy onits preservation. Wilderness informa-tion campaigns, whether based on

True wilderness simply no longer exists in Britain. Yet,for any given area of the world it should be possible,in theory at least, to identify the wildest tract of landwithin its boundary, based on human perceptions ofits wilderness qualities.


paper, TV, or the Internet, can only goso far in educating the public. It is es-sentially a one-way process, with thepublic receiving secondhand experi-ences through the medium of text,sound, and pictures, but being unableto give in return. Experiencing realwilderness firsthand may be the ulti-mate education, but it is one that notall of us are fortunate enough to have.The Internet GIS approach outlinedhere may go some way toward pro-viding the public with the opportu-nity not only to learn about wildernessand its position within the landscape,but also to interact with the geographi-cal context and actively contribute tothe process of policymaking, planning,and conservation.

STEVE CARVER is a senior lecturerspecializing in GIS and landscape issues,and ANDY EVANS is a lecturer specializingin computational geography and web-based GIS in the School of Geography,University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.E-mail: [email protected],[email protected]. STEFFEN FRITZworks at the EC’s Joint Research Centre inIspra, VA, Italy. E-mail: [email protected].

REFERENCESAplet, G. H., J. Thomson, and M. Wilbert. 2000.

Indicators of wildness: using attributes of theland to assess the context of wilderness. S.F. McCool, D. N. Cole, W. T. Borrie, and J.O’Loughlin, (eds.) Wilderness Science in atime of change. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, Utah: pp. 89–98.

Carroll, C., and D. Hinrichsen. 1993. Monitor-ing ecological responses in wilderness us-ing geographic technologies. In J. C. Hendeeand V. G. Martin (eds.) International Wil-derness Allocation, Management, and Re-search. Proceedings of the 5th World

Wilderness Congress. International Wilder-ness Leadership Foundation, Fort Collins,Colo.: pp. 304–308.

Carver, S. 1991. Integrating multicriteria evalu-ation with GIS. International Journal of Geo-graphical Information Systems 5 (3):321–339.

Carver, S. 1996. Mapping the wilderness con-tinuum using raster GIS. In S. Morain andS. Lopez-Baros, eds., Raster Imagery inGeographic Information Systems. Albany,New York: OnWord Press, pp. 283–288.

Carver, S., and S. Fritz. 1999. Mapping remoteareas using GIS. In M. Usher, ed., LandscapeCharacter: Perspectives on Mmanagementand Change. Natural Heritage of ScotlandSeries, HMSO.

Carver, S., A. Evans, R. Kingston, and I. Turton.2000. Accessing Geographical InformationSystems over the World Wide Web: improv-ing public participation in environmentaldecision-making. Information, Infrastructureand Policy 6: 157–170.

Council for National Parks. 1998. Wild by De-sign: A Guide to the Issue. London: Councilfor National Parks.

Davidson, R. J., P.A. Gray, S. Boyd, and G. S.Cordiner. 2000. State-of-the-wilderness re-porting in Ontario: models, tools and tech-niques. In S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, W. T.Borrie and J. O’Loughlin, eds. WildernessScience in a Time of Change. ProceedingsRMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, Utah: U. S. For-est Service, pp. 111–119.

Eastman, J. R., P. K. A. Kyem, J. Toledano, andJ. Weigen. 1993. GIS and Decision Mak-ing: Explorations in Geographic InformationSystems Technology. Geneva: UNITAR.

Featherstone-Watson, A. 1996. Regeneratingthe Caledonian Forest. International Journalof Wilderness 2 (3): 36–41.

Ghose, R. 2001. Use of information technologyfor community empowerment: transforminggeographic information systems into com-munity information systems. Transactions inGIS 5 (2): 141–163.

Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas.1990. Wilderness Management. Golden,Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing,

Janssen, R., and P. Rietveld. 1990. Multicriteriaanalysis with GIS: an application to agri-cultural landuse in The Netherlands. In H. J.

Scholten and J. C. H. Stillwell, eds. Geo-graphical Information Systems for Urbanand Regional Planning. The Netherlands:Dordrecht, Kluwer.

Kingston, R., S. Carver, A. Evans, and I. Turton.2000. Web-based public participation geo-graphical information systems: an aid to lo-cal environmental decision-making.Computers, Environment and Urban Systems24 (2): 109–125.

Lenk, K. 1999. Electronic support of citizen par-ticipation in the planning process. In B. N.Hague and B. D. Loader eds., Digital De-mocracy: Discourse and Decision Makingin the Information Age London: Routledge,pp. 87–95.

Lesslie, R. 1993. The National Wilderness In-ventory: wilderness identification, assess-ment and monitoring in Australia.International Wilderness Allocation, Man-agement and Research. Proceedings of the5th World Wilderness Congress. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing, pp. 31–36.

Lesslie, R. 1994. The Australian National Wil-derness Inventory: wildland survey and as-sessment in Australia. Wilderness: The SpiritLives. Proceedings of the 6th National Wil-derness Conference. Santa Fe, New Mex.:Charisse Sydoriak, pp. 94–97.

Miller, J. 1995. Australian approaches to wil-derness. International Journal of Wilderness.1 (2): 38–40.

Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the AmericanMind. third edition. New Haven, Conn.: YaleUniversity Press.

Ouren, D. S., J. Hummel, M. Eley, M. Sestak,and A. Riebau. 1994. Advanced technolo-gies for wilderness monitoring and manage-ment. Wilderness: The Spirit Lives.Proceedings of the 6th National WildernessConference. Santa Fe, New Mex.: CharisseSydoriak, pp. 61–64.

Ridley, M. 1992. What do we do with the moun-tains? Daily Telegraph, December 5, 1992.

Voogd, H. 1983. Multicriteria Evaluation forUrban and Regional Planning. London: Pion.

Watson, D. 1984. A brief history of the originsof the Scottish wildlands. In V. G. Martin andM. Inglis, eds., Wilderness: The Way Ahead.Proceedings of the 3rd World WildernessCongress. Fort Collins, Colo: Wild Founda-tion, pp. 105–115.


T he St. Paul Companies, a commercial property li-ability and insurance firm, and Outward Bound USAteamed up to conduct a study of risk management

practices of outdoor adventure programs. This timely assess-ment paints a picture of the risks inherent in the outdooradventure industry and the safety systems in place that at-tempt to address some of these risks. We encourage practitio-ners to heed the warnings and advice included in this report.The Wilderness Risk Managers Committee (WRMC) and TheAssociation for Experiential Education (AEE) participated ac-tively with the survey design and distribution. Nearly 300outdoor adventure program CEOs and risk managers re-sponded to the survey. The survey examined outdoor adven-ture programs’ safety concerns, existing safety managementsystems within these programs, accident histories, and pro-gram priorities for expanded safety initiatives and resources.

The report concludes that consumers of outdoor adven-ture programs have no clear way of evaluating programsafety for themselves or their children. The report goes onto say that outdoor adventure programs have concerns aboutsafety and are looking for ways to improve their safety man-agement programs. The tremendous growth in the indus-try over the last decade has led to an increase in the numberof adventure program accidents and injuries.

Automobile transportation presents the greatest safetyconcern for survey respondents. Transportation and relateddriving issues were collectively listed as the number-onesafety concern for programs, but only 48% of survey re-spondents reported utilizing driver training and testing tominimize or mitigate transportation risks. Programs mayneed to seek outside assistance in dealing with this par-ticular type of safety concern, since it is often outside theexpertise of adventure program staff.

“The study results show a need for outdoor adventureprograms to have better alignment between their safetyconcerns and their risk management systems,” said Dr.Stacey Moran, industrial and organizational psychologist,The St. Paul Companies. “For example, when programs wereasked what kinds of additional resources would benefit theirsafety efforts, the most frequently cited response was judg-ment training for instructors, ranking above 14 other cat-egories. But, on average, programs reported they only‘sometimes’ provide such training as part of their profes-sional development activities.”

According to Lewis Glenn, vice president for safety andprogram, Outward Bound USA, “The outdoor industry atlarge would benefit from embracing a culture of safety.Outdoor adventure programs may find it easy to put re-sources into facilities and equipment, but affecting staff at-titudes and behaviors about safety is a much more difficultproposition. In addition, many of those programs are smallnon-profits with limited resources to address safety man-agement concerns.”

The study also provides recommendations to consum-ers and participants for evaluating the safety of these pro-grams. The study report, co-authored by Stacey Moran,Bob Box, Stocky Clark, Lewis Glenn, Lisa Kunz, and M.Andrea Wood, can be accessed at www.stpaul.com/rockyterrain-survey.

STEVE HOLLENHORST is the comanaging editor of IJW and chairof the Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism at theUniversity of Idaho. E-mail: [email protected]. KEITH RUSSELL isthe leader of the Outdoor Behavioral Healthcare Research Coop-erative at the University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center.E-mail for Keith Russell: [email protected]


Rocky Terrain

A Look at the Risks in the Outdoor Adventure IndustryA research report by the

ST. PAUL INSURANCE COMPANIES and OUTWARD BOUND, USAand reviewed by STEVE HOLLENHORST and KEITH RUSSELL


The focus of the wilderness management workshopheld prior to the 7th World Wilderness Congress(WWC) in South Africa was on the philosophy, his-

tory, and management of wilderness, making wildernessrelevant to local and traditional people, as well as sustain-able financing of restoration and education programs. Butbeneath the surface of the curriculum was an undercurrentof dedication to protection of “wildness,” and a certain qual-ity of “wildness” permeated the spirit of the participantsmuch like the African wild dog or painted wolf (Lycaonpictus) that once roamed over much of Africa.

The Sierra Club and the WILD Foundation sponsoredthis six-day workshop designed and conducted through aSouth African nongovernmental organization and univer-sity alliance. The core facilitators were Drummond Denshamand Bill Bainbridge from the Wilderness Action Group, to-gether with Malcolm Draper and Rob Fincham from theUniversity of Natal’s Centre for Environment and Develop-ment. Rosanne Clark of the Wilderness Foundation (SouthAfrica) provided logistical support.

Valuable input came from guest speakers, includingVance Martin of the WILD Foundation and Alan Watson of

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

Running with the Wild Dogs

Global Wilderness Management Educationin Africa

BY MALCOLM DRAPER and ALAN WATSON

Workshop participants learn about South African wilderness issues and management.


the Leopold Institute, and the traineesthemselves—an extraordinary pack of“wild” people from the African coun-tries of Uganda, Ghana, Zimbabwe,South Africa, Botswana, Swaziland, andAngola, as well as Brazil, Russia, Canada,and India. From protected-area manag-ers to researchers, educators, and min-isters of state, they challenged theinstructors while learning about eachother and wilderness values and man-agement. A field trip to Shamwari GameReserve provided opportunities to dis-cuss the role of ecotourism, ecologicalrestoration, and protection of this pri-vately owned reserve as “wilderness.”An evening venture to Addo National

ownership disputes in Zimbabwe. TheAfrican trainees and trainers were alsogenuinely interested in learning aboutthe role of humans in wilderness eco-systems and conservation monitoringefforts in the cold Russian far east,comanagement of tribal lands innorthern British Columbia, habitatprotection for Bengal tiger in India,and university programs in wildernessmanagement in Brazil. Everyone in thegroup contributed something to helpeach other understand the values ofwilderness worldwide.

One resolution adopted at the 7thWWC focused on recognizing theimportance of such precongresstraining programs to prepare del-egates for active participation in theWWC and to provide an opportu-nity for like-minded “wild” peopleto gather together in friendship andto revitalize energies for wildernessand the WWC.

MALCOLM DRAPER is a lecturer at theUniversity of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, SouthAfrica. E-mail: [email protected] WATSON is IJW science editor anda research scientist at the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute in Missoula,Montana, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

The focus of the wilderness management workshopheld prior to the 7th World Wilderness Congress(WWC) in South Africa was on the philosophy, history,and management of wilderness, making wildernessrelevant to local and traditional people, as well assustainable financing of restoration and educationprograms.

Elephant Park provided close-up en-counters with management plans, el-ephants, koedoe antelope, and a glimpseof a black rhino. A flat tire on an opentour truck challenged the manager’s re-sourcefulness and created an opportu-nity for demonstration of wild behavioras the African night crept closer andcloser. Classroom activities resumed thenext day with a new appreciation foreach other and wild places.

Some issues surrounding wildernessprotection are unique to the Africancontinent, such as rehabilitation ofpark animal populations in Angola,protection of wilderness values on pri-vately owned land in South Africa, and

report can lead to effective stewardshipand development of a NWPS. Recog-nizing the many good examples of wil-derness stewardship that have beenimplemented over the past 38 years, wecan adopt a set of principles for stew-ardship, implement actions that willshape the future for success, and worktoward ensuring, especially under thedirection of the secretaries of agricul-ture and the interior, the existence of atruly integrated NWPS. The result will

be enhanced opportunities to ensurethat the NWPS continues as a worldtreasure in the 21st Century.

PERRY J. BROWN, chair of the WildernessStewardship Panel for the Pinchot Institutefor Conservation, is dean of the School ofForestry at the University of Montana. Dr.Brown can be reached by e-mail [email protected].

Members of the Wilderness StewardshipPanel included Norman L. Christensen, Jr.,

Hanna J. Cortner, Thomas C. Kiernan,William H. Meadows, William Reffalt,Joseph L. Sax, George Siehl, Stewart Udall,and Deborah L. Williams, with staff supportfrom James W. Giltmier.

Copies of the full report “Ensuring theStewardship of the National WildernessPreservation System” can be ordered fromthe Pinchot Institute for Conservation, 1616P Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036,USA, or downloaded in PDF format fromtheir website at www.pinchot.org/pic/gtp_pubs.htm.

From BROWN page 12


School Of Lost BordersEstablishes International

“Wilderness Passage Rites”Degree

Over two decades The School of Lost Borders,based in Big Pine, California, USA, andfounded by Dr. Steven Foster and Meredith

Little, has trained over a thousand individuals in di-verse skills related to wilderness vision questing andrites of passage in nature. Foster and Little, throughLost Borders Press, have developed seminal literatureon the subject including: “The Trail to the Sacred Moun-tain”; “Book of the Vision Quest”; “The Roaring of theSacred River”; “The Four Shields: The Initiatory Sea-sons of Human Nature”; and “The Vision Fast: Thera-peutic Use of Wilderness for Self-Discovery” (IJW 1(1): 27-29).

Lost Border’s courses have increasingly drawn inter-national participants and have been offered in othercountries, as nature based psychology and practice havebeen recognized by the modern eco-therapy movement.As Foster and Little state, “When all is said and done,nature is the best teacher, and human nature can bestbe learned from nature.”

In response to the increasing demand for training innature-based psychology and rites of passage, and to es-tablish standards for training and practice, Lost BordersInternational (LBI) will now accredit, with a certificate ofcompletion, all those who complete requirements andqualify for a degree in “wilderness passage rites.” Theproficiency criteria and requirements for the degree callfor 240 contact hours of credit including: practical com-petencies in safety, wilderness first aid, environmental

ethics, legal and liability issues; psychotherapeutic skillsin personal crisis, spiritual emergencies, group dynam-ics, and life transition issues; eco-therapeutic models;council process; ritual and ceremony; and principles forworking with personal stories.

For curricula and courses offered by LBI and affili-ated training programs world wide, contact: Larkin VanEvera Roth, 34 Renz Rd., Mill Valley, CA 94941 E-mail:[email protected].

Dr. Steven Foster and Meredith Little founded the School of LostBorders in 1983 and have now created Lost Borders International toaccredit a degree Major in International “Wilderness Passage Rites.”

EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION


IntroductionThe Zambezi Society is a Zimbabwe-based nongovernmentalmembership organization devoted to conserving thebiodiversity and wilderness values of the Zambezi River incentral-southern Africa, and to encouraging people to findways of benefiting from the river’s resources without destroy-

ing them. During the latter halfof the 1990s, the society be-gan to receive numerous com-plaints and concerns fromvarious sources, implying thattourism was having a negativeimpact on the wilderness val-ues of the Zambezi River. Thereports were wide-ranging,including unchecked com-mercialization, ad hoc devel-

opment, tree cutting, border violations, unauthorized roadand camp building, noise pollution, littering and abuse ofcamping sites, and illicit tour and guide activities.

The overall concern was that the special “wildernessvalue” of the Zambezi River was being eroded by inap-propriate visitor behavior and tourism development. Inorder to provide visitor input, the society embarked in1998 on a survey project aimed at reporting visitors’ per-ceptions about wilderness values and importance in theZambezi context as well as providing a visitor-based defi-nition of the term wilderness.

MethodologyVisitor data collection was conducted using an on-site ques-tionnaire approach in four main Zambezi valley tourismdestinations on the Zimbabwean side of the river: VictoriaFalls, Kariba/Matusadona National Park, Mana Pools Na-tional Park, and Kanyemba/Mavuradonha Wilderness Area.

The visitor survey sample was selected to proportionallyrepresent the range of tourism accommodation and activ-ity choices in each location, and included people staying inhotels, safari lodges and camps, self-catering–national parkslodges, and on houseboats, or canoeing and camping.

Members of the Zambezi Society were asked to com-plete a questionnaire that they received by mail with nofollow-up reminders.

Respondents for both surveys either completed a ques-tionnaire individually or in a group response recorded onone survey. Both close-ended and open-ended questionswere used to ensure that survey information was completefor each concept.

Study ResultsA total of 473 surveys was completed by 1,209 visitors tothe Zambezi River area. Of visitors surveyed, 44% of re-spondents were from Zimbabwe or the Zambezi region and56% were international.

A total of 650 surveys were sent to Zambezi Societymembers and 160 questionnaires were completed and re-turned for a 25% response rate. Respondent surveys in-cluded input from 315 Zambezi Society members. Surveyrespondents were mainly (94%) from Zimbabwe.

Respondents to both surveys value Zambezi wildernesshighly. The majority of visitor respondents reported thatthey felt it important that wilderness exists (98%), theyvalued wilderness personally (84%), and they came to theZambezi valley for a wilderness experience (77%).

The responses to an open-ended question in both surveysprovided a fairly comprehensive definition of the term wilder-ness. This was summarized from both surveys as a natural,undeveloped, and unpopulated landscape, which is sceni-cally attractive or unusual, containing indigenous species, andinducing an emotional state of mind in which the visitor may

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

The Zambezi River

Wilderness and Tourism

BY SALLY WYNN

Sally Wynn on Lake Kariba. Photo by Dick Pitman.


• natural/unspoiled landscapes—includes wide open spaces and afeeling that little has changed in thelandscape.

• wild species—animals roamingfree and indigenous plants.

• lack of people—including thesigns of their existence, such as pol-lution, litter, vehicles, and noise.

• lack of development—wildernessis seen as an escape from and a di-rect contrast to urban civilization.

• lack of commercialization—commercial tourism developmentand activities seem to be consid-ered inappropriate to wildernessareas, whereas low-impact struc-tures and activities are felt to beappropriate.

The nonphysical values of Zambeziwilderness, often neglected in tourismplanning but particularly important tolocal and regional visitors and ZambeziSociety members for whom wildlife isless of a novelty, include: peace, soli-tude, isolation, a feeling of harmonywith nature, spiritual feelings, chal-lenge, and adventure.

Eleven areas of the Zambezi Riverwere identified by respondents as be-ing important for wilderness apprecia-tion. Relative satisfaction with the visitorexperience in each area was expressedby respondents on a five-point scale ofstrongly agree to strongly disagree. Thefour areas given the highest satisfactionratings by respondents were:

• Mana Pools National Park/Chewore Safari Area (includesthe Sapi Safari Area and MiddleZambezi).

• Lake Kariba/MatusadonaNational Park (away from Karibatown).

• Chizarira National Park/Mavuradonha Wilderness Area/Zambezi escarpment mountainous

Table 1—Respondents Reported Values forWhat Makes a Place Truly Wild

Values of a Truly Wild Place Visitor Survey ZS Members(n=435) (n=160)

NATURAL VALUES 93% 97%Presence of/proximity to wild fauna and flora 42% 32%Animals roaming free/in natural state 15% 12%Unspoiled, natural ecosystems/in “original state” 27% 43%Scenic/landscape beauty 6% 4%Large scale/size landscapes/open spaces 3% 6%

UNDEVELOPED VALUES 48% 66%Lack of development/infrastructure/settlement 21% 38%Undeveloped areas deliberately set aside 2% 0%Nature-sensitive/simple/uncommercial development only 17% 14%Lack of fences/roads/electricity etc. 8% 14%

UNCROWDED VALUES 49% 96%Few/no people/tourists 20% 46%Limited access (e.g.vehicle restrictions/by foot only) 3% 3%Lack of human activity (vehicles/pollution/litter) 12% 34%Lack of human interference (controls/rules/signs) 12% 12%Animals and people separated (guided tours only) 1% 0%Small groups of visitors only 1% 1%

EMOTIONAL/SPIRITUAL VALUES 21% 60%Silence (natural sounds only) 8% 25%Feeling of being “at one with/in harmony with nature” 1% 3%Peace/serenity 2% 5%Solitude/seclusion 5% 13%Remoteness/isolation 5% 8%Feeling of humankind’s insignificance 0% 6%

CHALLENGE/ADVENTURE VALUES 5% 6%Presence of danger/feelings of fear 2% 1%Rugged experience/sleeping rough/fending for oneself 1% 3%Unpredictability/encountering the unexpected 2% 2%

CULTURAL ENCOUNTER VALUES 2% 2%Opportunity to interact with local peoples/traditions 2% 2%

MANAGEMENT VALUES 4% 3%Efficient, but unobtrusive management 2% 3%High standards of guiding 1% 0%Good standards of comfort/safety 1% 0%

feel one or more of the following: in har-mony with nature, freed from “civiliza-tion,” inspired, refreshed, invigorated,challenged, stimulated, humbled, orspiritually fulfilled. A detailed list of the

responses for this question on wilder-ness values is shown in Table 1.

The physical values of Zambezi wil-derness reported as highly valued byrespondents include:


Table 2—Respondents Reported What Detracts froma Place Feeling Truly Wild

From “Truly Wild” Visitor Survey ZS Members(n=420) (n=160)

PEOPLE/HUMAN ACTIVITIES 70% 98%Too many people/mass tourism 38% 40%Too many vehicles 10% 17%Pollution/litter 11% 21%Harassment by curio sellers/vendors/currency dealers 1% 1%Unruly/insensitive visitors 5% 11%Unruly/too many operators 4% 8%Presence of security guards 1% 0%

NOISE 37% 69%General noise (unspecified) 9% 29%Aircraft (including helicopters & microlights) 7% 6%Motorboats/boats/kapenta rigs 7% 10%Cars/buses 6% 11%Trains 1% 0%Music/radios 5% 9%Generators 1% 5%Construction companies 1% 0%

DEVELOPMENT (GENERAL) 48% 72%Too much development/infrastructure/settlement 29% 39%Roads (especially tarred) 9% 17%Fences 3% 4%Lights/electricity pylons 4% 7%Signs 1% 1%Rules and regulations/restrictions/lack of spontaneity 2% 4%

COMMERCIAL TOURISM 36% 58%Commercialization/big hotels/luxury lodges/tourist traps 26% 36%Inappropriate/insensitive development/architecture 5% 10%Inappropriate activities (e.g. discos/casinos/video games) 2% 8%Presence of “tame wildife”/feeding of animals 2% 3%Exploitation/extortion 1% 1%

IMPACTS ON NATURE 10% 27%Ecosystem damage/tree cutting /off-road driving, etc. 3% 15%Presence of exotic species 1% 1%Lack of wild fauna and flora 3% 4%Harassment of wild animals (e.g. spotlights/radio collars) 1% 2%Lack of environmental protection/management 1% 4%Poaching 1% 1%

OTHER DETRACTIONS 2% 6%Poor management of tourism facilities 1% 1%Presence of domestic animals 1% 4%Lack of knowledgeable guides 0% 1%

terrain (different from the valley);this area is especially popular withlocal visitors.

• Victoria Falls/Chirundu/Kan-yemba are relatively settled andurbanized areas, but have impor-tant wilderness areas nearby (e.g.,Zambezi National Park nearVictoria Falls).

Tourism activity choices that respon-dents reported as offering high wilder-ness value include: canoeing, boatingon Lake Kariba, and safari lodges/bushcamps that offer guided walks and“close encounter” bush experiences.

The visitor survey asked respon-dents to indicate from a checklist whatactivities they had undertaken in theirvisit to the Zambezi. The responses(and any additional activities added byrespondents) were categorized intothree groups, depending on their de-gree of impact on the environment:low, medium, and high. Of the 10most popular activities undertaken byrespondents, 7 fall within the low-im-pact category: bird-watching, walking,photography, fishing (from land),swimming/sunbathing, and picnick-ing. The remaining three most popu-lar activities—sightseeing, gameviewing, and camping—were in themedium category. High-impact activi-ties such as motorboating, golf, river/lake cruises, and air flights were mostoften listed by visitors to VictoriaFalls, Lake Kariba, and Kanyemba.None of the visitor activities that arespecial to Mana Pools National Parkfall within the high-impact categoryand may partially explain why Manareceived the highest satisfaction rat-ings from respondents for their wil-derness experience.

The five main factors that respon-dents to both surveys reported detractedfrom their wilderness experience(Table 2) were:


• Too many people—unruly and in-sensitive behavior such as harass-ing wildlife with too many tourvehicles or noisy visitor behavioron river cruises and human-gen-erated pollution and litter.

• Noise—human-generated soundsthat are unnatural for the settingsuch as loud radios and music incampsites or mechanical noise suchas fuel-powered electrical generatorsat lodges and camps, and motorizedvehicles such as motorboats, motor-bikes, trucks, and airplanes.

• Over development—respondentswant to get away from the hustleand bustle of urban civilization anddevelopment, and they reportsome development detracts fromthe wilderness experience: toomuch infrastructure, too manyroads, too many lights, and toomany regulations.

• Commercial tourism—respondentsreport that low-key/low-impact in-frastructure and activities designedto be nature-sensitive were accept-able in wilderness areas; however,some commercial tourism detractsfrom wilderness quality such asluxury high-rise hotels, insensitivearchitecture, advertising billboardson the edge of a World Heritage Site,commercial sales outlets at the en-trance to the “rain forest” at VictoriaFalls, “tame” wildlife, and exploita-tion and harassment by vendors anddealers.

• Impacts on nature—damage or al-terations to ecosystems such as treecutting, wildlife poaching, and thepresence of nonnative species.

Respondents reported numerousspecific detractions in certain areas asbeing particularly noticeable. For ex-ample, highly commercialized tourismareas such as Victoria Falls offer ac-tivities as part of package tours that

have high impacts on wilderness (e.g.,scenic flights, river cruises, motor-boats, golf, and gambling casinos), andrespondents reported these as detract-ing from the wilderness experience.Wilderness visitor satisfaction is lowerin Victoria Falls than in other ZambeziRiver areas surveyed. Motorboating onthe Zambian side of the river oppositeMana Pools National Park was men-tioned by respondents as a detractionto the wilderness experience of visi-tors staying at Mana. The presence ofhouseboats and the noise of their en-gines and generators was mentionedas detracting from the wilderness qual-ity of the Matusadona National Park,especially in the Kariba Eastern Basin.

Tourism information and interpreta-tive materials were reported as inad-equate by respondents to the visitorsurvey. Most respondents (73%) werevisiting the Zambezi River area indepen-dently and only 27% reported they wereaccompanied, on their trip, by a touroperator or guide. Some of those visit-ing the Zambezi River may only experi-ence a very limited area, such as the 58%of respondents surveyed in Victoria Fallswho were visiting no other destination.In the absence of educational informa-tion on wilderness, visitors to these ar-eas may be missing the wilderness valuethat the Zambezi River offers.

Respondents visiting the wilder ar-eas of the Zambezi River reported theywere more ready to contribute towardwilderness conservation than those vis-iting more heavily developed and im-pacted areas. While less than half therespondents surveyed in Victoria Fallsand 55% of those in Kariba were pre-pared, in principle, to contribute finan-cially to maintaining wilderness areas,some 70% of respondents in Mana PoolsNational Park and in Zambezi Valleycommunal lands reported they werewilling to make a financial contribution.

DiscussionThese survey results highlight the im-portance of a “wilderness experience”to people visiting the Zambezi. Thisinformation supports the need to en-sure that the river’s wild values areconserved and to promote wilderness-sensitive tourism, especially in view of

Map of Zambezi River Wilderness Area and tourism visitor survey areas.

Batoka Gorge. Photo by Dick Pitman.


the economic and investment benefitsthat international tourism brings to theregion. However, these study resultsmay be contrary to a general publicperception in Africa that setting asidewild places for the enjoyment of tour-ists and wilderness enthusiasts is aluxury that Africans can ill afford.Current land use pressures and otherdevelopment priorities tend to put wil-derness awareness, conservation, andmanagement very low on the publicplanning agenda and attempt to maxi-mize short-term revenues at the ex-pense of long-term sustainability.

The information from this studyshows the need for an understandingof the vital link between wilderness-based tourism and Africa’s wild areas.The Zambezi River with its tropicaldiversity, forests, birds, and large mam-mals has wilderness qualities that areunique in the southern African regionand, unlike other wild tropical riversin the world, the Zambezi is an attrac-tive tourism destination, being rela-tively accessible and safe.

The decline of Zimbabwe’s tourismindustry as a result of recent politicaland economic turmoil has been a dif-ficult situation with secondary eco-nomic effects in the southern regionof Africa. In its efforts to recover, thetourism industry is now consideringnew approaches and undergoing aprocess of creative planning and re-view that might not otherwise haveoccurred in the bustle of a thrivingtourism marketplace based on devel-

opment. The Zambezi Society believesthat this visitor research on wildernessis well timed to take advantage of thecurrent climate of review.

Recommendations forTourismThese study results, along with inputfrom the Zambezi Society, suggest twogeneral recommendations about mar-keting wilderness experiences andwilderness stewardship.

1. Market wilderness and promoteZambezi valley wilderness-basedtourism by:• recognizing the importance of

wilderness as a destination;• marketing a “Zambezi wilder-

ness experience” with specificwilderness activities that havelow environmental impacts;

• targeting markets that specificallyappreciate and value wildernessand wilderness experiences; and

• providing more information andinterpretation for visitors on theZambezi and its wilderness eco-system.

2. Safeguard wilderness by incorpo-rating wilderness awareness and

stewardship into all tourism plan-ning and management in theZambezi valley through:• incorporating consideration for

the visitor’s “wilderness experi-ence” into tourism planning;

• safeguarding wilderness qualityby developing wilderness-sensi-tive guidelines for conservationand tourism practices;

• ensuring that tourism activitiesand facilities in wilderness areasare appropriate and wilderness-sensitive;

• establishing mechanisms formanaging tourism developmentin wilderness areas through fur-ther research into acceptable/un-acceptable visitor numbers andimpacts;

• monitoring of visitor satisfactionwith the wilderness experienceand compliance with wildernessstewardship guidelines;

• improving the quality of the wil-derness experience and condi-tions at more highly developedareas like Victoria Falls;

• encouraging wilderness visitors tofinancially contribute to main-taining wilderness areas; and

The Zambezi River at Mana Pools. Photo by Sally Wynn.

Buffalo at Mana Pools. Photo by Dick Pitman.


Musengezi River, Mavuradonha Wilderness Area. Photo by Jane Hunt.

Exploring the Makarodzi River, MavuradonhaWilderness Area. Photo by Jane Hunt.

• establishing an association ororganization to represent the in-terests of independent wilder-ness visitors (i.e., not onorganized tours) to the Zambezi.

Study UtilizationThe Zambezi Society recently presentedthese study findings on wilderness val-ues to Zimbabwean tourism policy mak-ers, planners, and operators, as well asto planning authorities, custodians, andmanagers of wild places along theZambezi River. The potential for wilder-ness-focused and wilderness-sensitivetourism was highlighted for the Zambezivalley by suggesting that it is the mostsuitable, low-impact, sustainable optionfor Zambezi wild areas and that such amessage be incorporated into relatedmarketing strategies. However, theZambezi Society expressed concern thatinappropriate promotion could contrib-ute to destroying the Zambezi River’sunique wilderness qualities unless wil-derness-sensitivity was incorporatedinto tourism planning, management,and practice of current and futureZambezi valley tourism.

The Zambezi Society was invited tocontribute to the process of developing

Zimbabwe’s Tourism Master Plan, andthey have provided input regardingwilderness values into the Canadian-funded Master Plan for Victoria Falls.Additionally, members of the ZambeziSociety were sponsored by the WILDFoundation to attend and present apaper at the 7th World WildernessCongress (WWC) in South Africa inNovember 2001, and a society-nomi-nated candidate from Zimbabwe’s Na-tional Parks Department wassponsored by the WILD Foundationto attended a weeklong WildernessManagement Training Program priorto the WWC.

The Zambezi Society is now devel-oping a comprehensive wildernessmanagement and stewardship pro-gram for the Zambezi River. The ini-tiative promotes a transboundaryapproach between Zambia, Zimba-bwe, and Mozambique by (1) extend-ing research on perceptions aboutwilderness to local communities liv-ing in or adjacent to Zambezi tourismareas and to Zambezi visitors and com-munities in Zambia and Mozambique;(2) promoting Zambezi wildernessand educating visitors and communi-ties about its values; (3) reinforcing

wilderness management through theestablishment of a wilderness manage-ment training program for managers,field officers, rangers, and guides inpublic, private, and community wild-lands in the Zambezi region; (4)influencing tourism policy, manage-ment, and practice to take account ofwilderness values by developing a setof guidelines for wilderness-sensitivemanagement and tourism practicethrough a series of workshops withcustodians, managers, and tourismpractitioners operating in Zambezivalley wild areas; and (5) helping toestablish more community-based wil-derness areas to provide opportunitiesfor local revenue generation throughcarefully managed, sustainable tour-ism initiatives.

SALLY WYNN is wilderness programmecoordinator for the Zambezi Society inHarare, Zimbabwe, and can be contactedby e-mail at [email protected] or byvisiting the website at www.zamsoc.org. Acopy of the full report “The Zambezi River:Wilderness and Tourism” may be obtainedfrom The Zambezi Society (US$10).


The Start of the British SchoolsExploring SocietyThe auction room at Christies, off Pall Mall in London,was standing room only and all telephones were busy withinternational lines open for overseas collectors who werewaiting for the bidding to begin. Ready for auction thatafternoon were various items of polar memorabilia fromScott and Shackleton, to lesser-known explorers. Midwaythrough the afternoon, a diary with scribbled notes andsome black-and-white photographs, which told a littleknown story of incredible hardship, sold for an astonish-ing 93,950 pound sterling. The diary belonged to a mannamed Murray Levick, a man whose love of the wilder-ness included an unshakable belief in its educational value.He has seen over 5,000 young people undertake life-chang-ing expeditions since 1932 when he founded a small edu-cational charity known as the Public Schools ExploringSociety. Now housed at the Royal Geographical Society inLondon, and operating as British Schools Exploring Soci-ety (BSES) Expeditions, Murray Levick’s beloved charityhas gone from strength to strength. Each summer, BSESputs over 100 young people into remote wilderness areaswhere, as Murray Levick would have wished, they under-

take scientific research and adventure travel in challeng-ing conditions.

The contents of the diary auctioned that day make in-teresting reading, and perhaps they give an insight intothe extraordinary experience that motivated Murray Levickto create a charity that would subsequently mold the livesof thousands of young people to become ambassadors forwild places. Chosen by Scott to be a member of his Ant-arctic expedition, the surgeon Levick worked with a teamof men known as the Northern Party, undertaking orni-thological and geological research while Scott and his com-panions set off for the South Pole. Dropped off by theship Terra Nova, with summer sledging clothes and sevenweeks worth of rations, they ended up spending eight anda-half months of the Antarctic winter living in a cave hewnout of ice in which it was impossible to stand. Despiteseveral attempts to reach them, heavy sea ice preventedthe ship from returning. Their food was composed of sealand penguin, with occasional fresh fish from the gut of aseal, and was cooked on an improvised blubber stove.When the party emerged to the weak spring sunshine,they were covered in soot and extremely malnourished.The party marched 200 miles south to Scott’s hut where

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

One Yearin the Arctic Wilderness

A Surgeon’s Vision for Youth Expeditions

BY MARK EVANS

Editor’s note: Mark Evans wrote this article in October 2001 when he was preparing for his departure tothe Arctic. A six-week expedition to the Arctic in 1979 with British Schools Exploring Society (BSES)proved to be a truly life-changing experience for Mark. As a teacher of 14 years and ex-Outward Boundinstructor in Fort William and Kenya, Mark is committed to the developmental education of young people.Mark has spent over two years of his life living in tents, during which time he has taken over 100 youngpeople to witness and live in the Arctic wilderness. In addition to leading two three-month expeditions toSvalbard for BSES in 1992 and 1996, Mark has completed a 530 km (330 mile) crossing of the Greenlandice cap, crossed the uninhabited Melville Island in Canada’s Northwest Territories, and skied to themagnetic North Pole.


they discovered Scott and his com-panions had perished. Later, whenasked to put the entire experienceinto words, the men replied that theirfeelings were inexpressible. The is-land, where they spent their enforcedwinter, bears that name today, Inex-pressible Island.

During the early Public SchoolsExploring Society expeditions led byLevick in the 1930s, he focused ontrips to Newfoundland and Lapland.Today BSES travels further afield and,where possible, includes youngpeople from the host country. Since1990 BSES has sent expeditions toBotswana, Yukon, British Columbia,Montana, Zimbabwe, North Queens-land, Namibia, Lesotho, and Mo-rocco. However, BSES still retainslinks with the polar environment viaexpeditions to Greenland, Alaska,and Svalbard.

Bring the Wilderness intoClassrooms WorldwideIn 2001 Murray Levick’s BSES pro-gram put its 100th expedition intothe field, an expedition that has astrong focus on the value of wilder-ness through its IBM corporate-sponsored educational website. Theaim of the program is to not only givethose young people lucky enough tobe selected for the expedition thechance to take part in a life-chang-ing experience, but also through theuse of modern technology to bringthe wilderness debate into as manyclassrooms around the world as pos-sible. Ironically, a year in the Arctichas its roots in the sands of SaudiArabia, one of the few places in theworld where it is still possible todrive for hundreds of kilometerswithout seeing a tire track or anysign of habitation. The purity andisolation of the sands of Saudi Arabia(the so-called Empty Quarter) have

many parallels with the Arctic. In hispoetic narrative Arctic Dreams, BarryLopez wrote:

I looked out of the window, atthe hundreds of square miles ofice that lay ahead of the bear.Even if it were possible tofollow, I thought, how wellcould we put together what wesaw? What would we miss outthere? I remembered again thedesert writing of WilfredThesiger, wandering the EmptyQuarter with his Bedouincompanions. The Arcticreminds one of the desert, notonly because of the lack ofmoisture and the barrentopography, but also because itputs a like strain on human life.It favours tough and practicalpeople, people aware of thevaguest flutter of life in anenvironment that seemsfeatureless and interminable tothe untrained eye. People witha predators alertness forminutiae for revealing detail.

The loss of “a native eye” amongcivilized cultures has been commentedon by people as diverse as VladimirArseniev, writing about the Manchu-rian natives, and Laurens van der Post,writing about Kalahari desert people.Prompted by my travels in Arabia andin the Canadian Arctic, I approachedIBM in Saudi Arabia with the challengeof using their expertise to help in thedevelopment of an educationalwebsite that would make youngpeople think about the value of wildplaces. BSES agreed to my proposal fora one-year-long expedition to the Arc-tic islands of Svalbard off the northcoast of Norway. Using the facilities atOutward Bound Ullswater in theUnited Kingdom, 10 young people—four girls and six boys aged between18 and 19 years—were selected fromthose that applied to live in tents and,as Levick would have wished, under-take simple scientific research fromAugust 2001 to late December 2001.Then until late March 2002 the base

The first BSES expedition leaving London in the 1930s. Photo courtesy of Mark Evans.


camp, comprising three tents, twolarge Malamute bear dogs, and a windgenerator, will be manned by two staffuntil the daylight reappears. Late inMarch 2002, 24 young people will ar-rive in this cold white wildernesswhere they will live and travel untilthe ice breaks up in mid-July 2002

allowing boats to pick them up andreturn them to “civilization”.

The result of IBM’s sponsoring awebsite can be seen at www.arcticyear.org with twice weekly updates, viairridium satellite phone, from theyoung people. Lesson ideas for teach-ers and links to other wilderness

websites are also available. The resultsof competitions and activities with awilderness focus, put forward by theGeographical magazine and the JohnMuir Trust in the United Kingdom,will appear on the website while theyoung people are in the Arctic (Au-gust 23rd 2001 to July 19th 2002).Additionally, there is room for otherorganizations to post ideas, articles,and challenges on the website. Thesesmall groups of young people livingin a wilderness environment for a pe-riod of four months also provides anopportunity for research by those in-terested in the educational impact andvalue of wilderness. In October 2001,the young people were busy buildingremote research camps (the scienceprojects revolve around physiology,the aurora borealis, and seasonal af-fective disorder) as quickly as the rap-idly decreasing hours of daylightwould allow. The young people weregiven 24-hour solo periods for reflec-tion in a simple, small shelter,equipped with a heating stove and rifle(in case of curious polar bears), wherethey were asked to consider and at-tempt to answer five questions on theirattitudes toward the wilderness and tocompare their lifestyles here with theirlifestyles back in suburban UnitedKingdom. Their insights are posted onthe website at www.arcticyear.org.

Anyone with an interest in contrib-uting to the site, or using the venturefor educational research, should contactthe project manager, Sarah Butikofer([email protected]) at IBMin the United Kingdom.

MARK EVANS is an expedition leaderduring the Arctic Year Expedition fromAugust 2001 to July 2002. E-mail:[email protected].

Expedition base camp on Svalbard in October 2001. Photo by Mark Evans.

Students working at base camp during the October 2001 expedition. Photo by Mark Evans.


Global Summit WillHighlight 2002International Year ofthe MountainsThe United Nations General Assemblydeclared the year 2002 as the Interna-tional Year of Mountains (IYM). During2002, people will participate all over theworld in events to celebrate mountainsand discuss ways to promote their con-servation and sustainable development.The Global Mountain Summit, to beheld in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan from Oc-tober 29 through November 1, 2002,will be the feature event of the IYM,drawing together the ideas and recom-mendations, from all levels and sectorsof society, generated by previous eventsinto proposals for concrete action. Thedecision to hold a summit was made inresponse to a proposal by the govern-ment of the Republic of Kyrgyzstan,and builds on the 1992 Earth Summit’sChapter 13 of Agenda 21 that focuseson mountain issues. For more on thesummit, including themes, programinformation, and registration materi-als, visit the summit website atwww.mediantics.com/mountainsummit/. For more information on all2002 IYM events, see the website atwww.mountains2002.org/.

Alberta’s BighornWildland off the Map—Protection WeakenedThe Alberta government is no longerhonoring the 4,000 sq km BighornWildland, designated by Minister DonSparrow in 1986. The government hasbegun erasing the Wildland’s bound-aries from official maps, including newprintings of Alberta road maps. Dur-ing the government’s Special Placesprocess, the Public Advisory Commit-tee recommended that the Bighorn beformally designated as a wildland parkby the end of 1994. The local SpecialPlaces Committee in Rocky MountainHouse, however, did not recommendthe Bighorn Wildland for protection.They believed the Bighorn Wildlandwas already protected. The move willallow oil and gas drilling in some ofAlberta’s most pristine wilderness. Thespectacular alpine and foothills landsof the Bighorn were once part of thenational parks system. The Bighornland base includes 3,677 sq km des-ignated as Prime Protection and 268sq km zoned as Critical Wildlife Habi-tat. Source: Alberta Wilderness Asso-ciation http://AlbertaWilderness.ca.

Announcements andWilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Resort Owners Vow toFight Ruling to BreakWilderness CampsThree Salmon River outfitters in Idahoplan to appeal a decision by the For-est Service (FS) requiring removal of“camps” they operate on a stretch ofriver that runs through the FrankChurch-River of No Return Wilder-ness. Recently a federal judge ruledthat the outfitters’ lodges were illegaland only tent camps were allowedunder the Wild and Scenic Rivers Actand the 1980 Central Idaho Wilder-ness Act. The camps existed before theCentral Idaho Wilderness Act waspassed in 1980. They have operatedsince the 1930s through special usepermits issued by the FS. The threeoutfitters claim that Senator FrankChurch, who is not alive to clarify hisintent, meant for the river camps tostay. But Bill Worf of Wilderness Watchsaid the existing structures were builtillegally. For more information, see thecourt decision at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ (go to: Recent Orders> LaPorte > High Sierra Hikers Ass’n,et al. v. Powell et al., Case # C-00-1239-EDL).

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


Federal Judge ReducesCommercial Uses in TwoHigh Sierra WildernessesOn November 1, a federal judge in theNorthern District of California ordereda 20% reduction in recreational use bycommercial pack stations within por-tions of California’s High Sierra. Thefederal injunction applies to the AnselAdams and John Muir Wildernesses,in which the Forest Service (FS) hasidentified problem areas where “cur-rent use is affecting resource quality.”The federal injunction came as a re-sult of an earlier June 5 ruling by thesame judge, Elizabeth LaPorte, that theFS had violated the National Environ-mental Policy Act (NEPA) by issuing“special use permits” to commercialpack outfits without first completingan analysis of the environmental im-pacts. Both rulings were issued in re-sponse to a lawsuit filed by the HighSierra Hikers Association, WildernessWatch, and FS Employees for Envi-ronmental Ethics. LaPorte also orderedthe FS to evaluate, for the first time,the cumulative environmental impactsassociated with the many pack stationsoperating in the two wildernesses. Theagency will have until 2005 to ana-lyze the impacts of the numbers ofstock animals used by commercialoutfits, limits on group size, trail suit-ability for various types of use, andother factors that the FS has not pre-viously evaluated in an open processwith full public participation. In herruling, LaPorte explained that “thepack stations [with only two excep-tions] have no valid authorization tooperate in the wilderness areas untilcompliance with NEPA is achieved.”But her ruling allows the outfits tocontinue their operations, albeit at re-duced levels and subject to several newcourt-ordered restrictions, until the FScompletes the required studies. To

ensure FS compliance with NEPA,LaPorte also ordered the FS to followup on the cumulative impacts studiesby preparing site-specific environmen-tal analyses for each individual packstation by 2006. The court’s ruling canbe viewed at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ (go to: Recent Orders> LaPorte > High Sierra Hikers Ass’n,et al. v. Powell et al., Case # C-00-1239-EDL).

New Bibliography:Environmental Changeand Its Impact on Species/Ecosystems/AgricultureA new bibliography is now available onglobal climate change (defined hereinas global warming or ozone depletion)and its impacts on flora and fauna spe-cies and critical supporting ecosystems.Compiled by William C.G. Burns of theAmerican Society of International Law,Wildlife Interest Group, the work in-cludes 3,300 citations from peer-re-viewed and gray literature (such asjournal articles, newspaper articles, re-ports, and materials on the Internet).Additional citations will be added ev-ery two months. Ultimately, each entrywill be categorized in a variety of ways,permitting key word searches and com-pilations by subject, region, or author.To access the bibliography, go to theAmerican Society of International Law,Wildlife Interest Group website at http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/bib.shtml.

Announcing the WorldParks Congress 2003The 5th World Congress on ProtectedAreas (WCPA) will take place inDurban, South Africa, from MondaySeptember 8 to Wednesday Septem-ber 17, 2003. Only four previousWorld Parks Congresses have beenheld, beginning with the first in Se-

attle, USA, in 1962. This is the firstWorld Parks Congress to be held inAfrica. The congress will build on newconservation directions that haveemerged from IUCN’s World Conser-vation Congress, held in Amman, Jor-dan, in October 2000. The Ammancongress focused on the relationshipbetween environment and security,which links strongly with the themeof the 5th World Parks Congress—“Benefits Beyond Boundaries.” Thecongress operates without official del-egations and is expected to attractaround 2,000 individually invited par-ticipants. The International PlanningCommittee will oversee the invitationprocess and will look to invite thoseparticipants who can contribute mostto influence outcomes. The invitationprocess will draw on the expertise andknowledge in the WCPA network toensure the most appropriate peopleattend. Most participants will be ex-pected to fund their own attendanceat the congress, however, a numberwill be sponsored to attend. For moreinformation on the congress, visitIUCN WCPA website at http://www.wcpa.iucn.org.

Gammon Ranges NationalPark to be Fully Protectedfrom Future MiningThreatsThe South Australian state govern-ment has moved to reproclaim theGammon Ranges National Park toprevent any mining in the park. Theannouncement followed a recent de-cision by the Supreme Court dis-missing the mining company’s legalchallenge to the decision to blockthe mine proposal. For more infor-mation, visit the The WildernessSociety (Australia) website at http://www.wilderness.org.au/.


Squamish Nation ReleasesDraft Land Use PlanThe recently released Squamish Na-tion draft land use plan calls for theestablishment of four “Wild SpiritPlaces” covering 8.5% of their tra-ditional territory. Located in thesouthwest corner of British Colum-bia, the Squamish Nation Territoryincludes some of BC’s most conten-tious land use conflict zones, includ-ing the old growth forests of theElaho Valley—the site of several en-vironmental protests and a violentattack on protesters by loggers. The“Wild Spirit Places” would be off-limits to industrial logging or othercommercial developments and man-aged by the Squamish Nation. TheSquamish Nation Land use plan canbe viewed on the Squamish Nationwebsite www.squamish.net.

University of Montanaand University of NatalOffer New Master’sDegree in Protected AreaManagementBased on a relationship developed dur-ing the 6th World Wilderness Congressin Bangalore, India, the University ofNatal, South Africa, and the Universityof Montana, USA, will be launching ajoint master’s degree in protected areamanagement this coming July. The pro-gram provides a one-year master’s de-gree, targeting professionals inwilderness, park, or wildlife reservemanagement. The program includesone semester of coursework with theremaining time applied to either a field-based internship or a research project.The material and activity will have asouthern African context, but will wel-

come students with a global perspec-tive. The Universities are working to-gether with the U.S.D.A. Forest Service,South African National Parks, KwaZuluNatal-Wildlife, and the Wilderness Ac-tion Group to develop supporting re-search programs that facilitate student,faculty, and managerial exchange. Asymposium at the 7th World Wilder-ness Congress in Port Elizabeth, SouthAfrica, began the process of compilingresource materials in a southern Africacontext in support of this program. Formore information contact Wayne A.Freimund, Director, Wilderness Insti-tute, The University of Montana [email protected] or Charles Breen,Coordinator, Protected Area Manage-ment Program, The Centre for Environ-ment and Development, The Universityof Natal at [email protected]. Formore information, visit the UM websiteat www.forestry.umt.edu/wi/Africa.

use distribution and participation by dif-ferent user groups. Research conductedat regional scales would help managersmake decisions for their individual wil-dernesses that optimize the benefits pro-vided by a regional system of parks andwildernesses. Finally, more in-depthresearch is needed on the nature of thewilderness experience and how it is af-fected by visitor density.

REFERENCESFreimund, Wayne A. and David N. Cole,

comps. 2001. Visitor use density and wil-derness experience. Proc RMRS-P-20.Ogden, Utah: USDA, Forest Service, RockyMtn. Res. Station.

DAVID N. COLE is research biologist at theAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807,USA. E-mail: [email protected].

From ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCHINSTITUTE on page 19

The International Journal of Wilderness’ role in

improving wilderness information, education

and communications is recognized

and supported by

The Thoresen Foundation,

and our sponsors on

the back cover.

Many and sincere thanks to all of them

for this generous support.


Dear IJW editor,A flagship wilderness area recentlycelebrated a major milestone. The areawe now call the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) re-ceived its first wilderness designation75 years ago last fall. This move, de-cades before the 1964 Wilderness Actestablished a National WildernessPreservation System that now includesthe BWCA, came early in our nation’swilderness movement and began aneffort to protect Minnesota’s spectacu-lar lakeland wilderness that continuesto this day.

On September 17, 1926, U.S. Ag-riculture Secretary William M. Jardineissued his wilderness and road policyfor Superior National Forest. It endedthe worst segments of an ambitiousroad-building plan that hoped to push“a road to every lake” in the nationalforest and gave the nation one of itsearliest designated wildernesses. It wasthe first wilderness to be designatedby an administrative official as high asthe secretary of agriculture.

The Jardine policy recognized “theexceptional value of large portions ofthe Superior National Forest, contain-ing its principal lakes and waterways,for the propagation of fish and game,for canoe travel, and for affording rec-reational opportunities to those whoseek and enjoy wilderness conditions.It will be the policy of this Departmentto retain as much as possible of theland which has recreational opportu-nities of this nature as wilderness.”

The Izaak Walton League of Americaand the Superior National Forest Rec-reation Association led conservationistsin opposing the road plan. They sug-gested instead that the entire SuperiorNational Forest be designated as wilder-ness. Aldo Leopold also entered the frayby the fall of 1926, having moved toWisconsin from the Southwest. Becausethe Superior National Forest did not yetinclude large portions of the currentBWCA (such as the Basswood-Snow-bank-Kekekabic-Ottertrack country)and because the existing national forestcontained many private inholdings,Leopold felt that the wilderness planproposed by the conservationists wasimpractical until the FS had acquiredmore lands.

Secretary Jardine issued his roadand wilderness policy to respond tothese competing issues. He expresslypermitted the construction of someroads, but ruled against most of theEly-to-Gunflint road across the heartof the BWCA, as well as some of theshorter spur roads to lakes now withinthe wilderness. And Jardine did see thewisdom of designating 1,000 squaremiles of the best canoe country as wil-derness, initially called the SuperiorWilderness Area.

What does Jardine’s wilderness des-ignation three-quarters of a centuryago mean for us today? Incompletethough it was by today’s standards, andimperfectly implemented, Jardine’sdesignation was nevertheless a crucialfirst step in wilderness protection for

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Letters to the Editor

To end the threat of road buildingin the Superior wilderness, Jardinedeclared that “no roads will be builtas far as the Forest Service can controlthe situation.” To emphasize this point,Jardine promised that “the Forest Ser-vice will leave no less than 1,000square miles of the best canoe coun-try in the Superior without roads ofany character.”

Jardine’s wilderness policy for theSuperior came just two years after thenation’s first wilderness had been estab-lished. In 1924, U.S. Forest Service (FS)forester Aldo Leopold had persuaded hisagency to set aside a wilderness area inthe Gila National Forest in New Mexico.The Superior’s formal wilderness desig-nation made it only the second wilder-ness in the nation.

The road-building plan for the Su-perior was debated from 1923 to 1926and consisted of several major road seg-ments. The Ely-Buyck road (the EchoTrail) would travel northwest from Elythrough Buyck; the Gunflint Trail, thena very primitive road, would be up-graded to link Grand Marais andGunflint Lake; and the Ely-GunflintRoad would follow the route of the cur-rent Fernberg Road east of Ely and thenthe Kekekabic Hiking Trail east acrossthe wilderness to Gunflint Lake. Fromthese main roads, shorter spur roadswould run from the Ely-Buyck roadnorth to Lac La Croix, north to LoonLake and south to Trout Lake; from theSawbill Trail to Brule Lake; and fromGunflint Lake to Seagull Lake.

Wilderness Celebrates 75 Years


the Boundary Waters. All subsequentefforts to protect the area were builton this first step.

Coming from Calvin Coolidge’s ad-ministration, arguably one of the mostconservative ever, the Jardine policy re-minds us that wilderness protection cutsacross ideological perspectives and partylines. Conservatives and liberals, Demo-crats and Republicans have all sup-ported wilderness protections for theBWCA through the decades.

Coming so early in the evolutionof the wilderness concept nationally,Jardine’s designation also placed theBoundary Waters in the forefront of

about ownership. You don’t have toown the land, they had discovered,to hijack the timber, forage, water andminerals, to dump the external costson society at large, and to be subsi-dized in the process” (p. 116). Thebook primarily focuses on forest man-agement on federal lands, with wil-derness, water-related, forage, andmining activities receiving less scru-tiny. It is unfortunate that wildernessmanagement receives relatively littleattention, although his provocativethesis of “institutional overshoot” canbe applied to all categories of federallands management.

Plundered Promise concludes bymaking a strong case for limiting cor-porate power, decentralizing decisionmaking and management, and allow-ing fair-minded, educated local resi-dents (do they still exist incontemporary society?) and resourcemanagers to put the “public” back inpublic lands: “Shifting the emphasis

the national wilderness movement, aposition of prominence that has con-tinued to this day.

Despite 75 years of wilderness des-ignations and policies, much work re-mains before us to more fully protectthe BWCAW for future generations.Motorboats still whine on more than afifth of the wilderness water area, jeepsand all-terrain vehicles still drive acrosswilderness portage trails, ecological pro-cesses like fire or forest succession toooften can’t operate freely or naturally,airborne pollutants such as mercurycontaminate the area’s lakes, the sheernumber of us who visit the area often

threatens the area’s wilderness charac-ter, and global warming may bring dra-matic changes to the area.

Yet the effort to tackle these challengesis well worth it, to pass on unimpairedto our children and to the world a wil-derness treasure beyond price. It’s a chal-lenge that William Jardine, gazing out atus from 75 years in the past, would prob-ably urge us to meet.

Kevin ProescholdtKEVIN PROESCHOLDT is a wildernesspolicy expert and coauthor of TroubledWaters: The Fight for the Boundary WatersCanoe Area Wilderness. E-mail:[email protected].

Book ReviewsPlundered Promise:Capitalism, Politics and theFate of the Federal LandsBy Richard Behan.2001. Island Press, Washington, D.C.,and Covelo, California. 240 pp.,$29.95 (cloth).

Richard Behan is not one to mincewords: Plundered Promise is a forceful,uncompromising critique of the rolecapitalism and politics play in the mis-management of federal lands in theUnited States. Behan, a senior resourcemanagement scholar, places the blamesquarely on economic and politicalsystems that he suggests have “over-shot” their traditional roles. Originally,corporations and governments servedsociety, but now, states Behan, thetables have turned: “The economicstructure of corporate capitalism hascaptured the politics of governance,and American people have becomesubservient to their economic andpolitic institutions” (p. 160).

Behan’s analysis concentrates on thepast and present relationship betweencorporations, federal politics, and in-terest groups in public land manage-ment. In identifying the sources ofcurrent management problems, hehighlights the roles of the U.S. Con-stitution and early federal legislation(1788–1891), the rise of corporatecapitalism and mass consumption/marketing (1891–1934), the birth ofprofessional management and mul-tiple use philosophies (1934–1976),and the “era of overshoot” (1976 tothe present), when he believes bothcorporate and political institutionsbecame corrupted and began to feedoff a disempowered public.

As a result of this increased powerand corruption, Behan suggests thatfederal lands have come to serve pri-vate (i.e., corporate) rather than pub-lic interests. By the mid 1900s,corporate “users of all the federallands had become hugely indifferent


on the federal lands from private goodsto public values has got to be workedout by neighbors and their guests instrongly localized dialogues, not byphony presidential pandering and cer-tainly not by statute” (p. 227).

As the above quotes suggest, this isa blistering attack on the management

for an expanded role of culture andmanagement in wilderness areas lo-cated in developing nations, and notethe importance of so-called “peasant”or “social” ecology—active land man-agement by local and/or indigenouspeoples—in wilderness. Perhaps thebest consensus is expressed by Ed-ward Whitesell: “In short, interna-tional preservation politics must beapproached with humility and re-spect for both other peoples and other(nonhuman) members of the naturalcommunity of life. The many inad-equacies of current approaches to wil-derness preservation, at home andabroad, demand innovation and thesharing of ideas of the wild amongall people who would resist the do-mestication of the earth” (p. 197).

The World and the Wild addressesone of the most pervasive and chal-lenging issues in contemporary wilder-ness preservation: What is the role ofpeople in maintaining remnants of thewild, particularly in the developingworld? It performs a great service inproviding a well-chosen range ofvoices to help guide the reader throughthis incredibly complex issue.

Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW bookreview editor. E-mail: [email protected].

ing issues. Editors Rothenberg andUlvaeus have done an excellent job inensuring that most of the readings re-late to these common issues andchoosing well-written selections.

The stated purpose of the bookwas to “reinvigorate the effort to un-derstand, reveal, and save wildernessbeyond the usual futile polarities” cre-ated by such authors as WilliamCronon and J. Baird Callicott. Theseauthors have recently set the “catamongst the pigeons” by challengingthe cultural appropriateness of thewilderness concept, suggesting it per-petuates a naive and misguided du-ality of humanity and nature. Mostof the authors in the book address thearguments of Cronon and Callicott,but use different approaches to reachtheir varied conclusions: some di-rectly wrestle with issues, others il-luminate them through indirectstories or case studies; some are stri-dent in tone, others gentle.

There is much anguish in thesepages, with most of the authors col-lectively—and with great humility—philosophically “wringing theirhands” over these difficult issues andcoming to different conclusions.Some authors believe there is no placefor people in wilderness, but most call

The World and the Wild:Expanding WildernessConservation Beyond ItsAmerican RootsEdited by David Rothenberg andMarta Ulvaeus.2001. University of Arizona Press,Tucson. 250 pp., $19.95 (paper)

Why hasn’t the wilderness conceptspread more widely throughout theworld? Each of the 18 chapters in thisanthology wrestle with the philosophi-cal and (to a lesser extent) practicalissues created by the transplanting ofthe wilderness concept from theUnited States to so-called “developing”nations. Several common issues arediscussed in each chapter: Should theconcept of wilderness separate hu-mans and nature? Should we combineconcerns about wilderness preserva-tion with social equity (e.g., povertyreduction) issues? What should be therole of local and/or indigenous peoplesin managing and maintaining wilder-ness? And what are the impacts of ac-knowledging that wilderness isessentially a cultural construct devel-oped in the West? As in most antholo-gies, there is some repetition of ideasand concepts, but part of the joy ofreading such a collection is to see howeach author reacts to these challeng-

of federal lands, with an analysis thatis scholarly but eminently readable,thanks in part to Behan’s palpablesense of outrage and acerbic wit, bothof which characterize the book. Hisanalysis of the (mis)management offederal lands and the potential solu-tions he provides are almost as wide-

ranging as they are provocative. Giventhe state of the federal lands and thequality and strength of Behan’s argu-ments, this book demands a widereadership.

Review by JOHN SHULTIS, IJW bookreview editor. E-mail: [email protected].

international journal of wilderness, vol 08 no 1, april 2002

Documents