international journal of wilderness, vol 11 no 1 april 2005

Conservation PhotographyWilderness ValuesWilderness EducationTanzania, Italy, Russia, Guianas

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

Journal of WildernessAPRIL 2005 VOLUME 11, NUMBER 1

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

3 Can We Let Wilderness Just Be Wilderness?BY CHAD P. DAWSON

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS4 A Wilderness Challenge

BY MICHAEL FROME

STEWARDSHIP8 Conservation Photography

Art, Ethics, and ActionBY CRISTINA MITTERMEIER

SCIENCE AND RESEARCH14 A GIS–based Inductive Study of Wilderness Values

BY GREGORY BROWN and LILIAN ALESSA

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

19 The Fire Effects Planning FrameworkBY ANNE BLACK

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION21 Wilderness Education

The Ultimate Commitment to QualityWilderness StewardshipBY GREG HANSEN and TOM CARLSON

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES26 Conservation Planning in the Tropics

Lessons Learned from theGuianan Ecoregion ComplexBY G. JAN SCHIPPER

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES (continued)31 The Ruaha National Park, Tanzania

BY SUE STOLBERGER

35 Wilderness Is More Than “Nature”BY FRANCO ZUNINO

38 Plant Community Monitoring in VodlozherskyNational Park, Karelia, RussiaBY RALPH DUNMORE

WILDERNESS DIGEST43 Announcements

and Wilderness Calendar

Book Reviews46 The Enduring Wilderness: Protecting Our Natural

Heritage through the Wilderness Actby Doug ScottREVIEW BY JOHN SHULTIS, IJW BOOK EDITOR

46 Wildland Recreation Policy: An Introduction, 2nd ed.by J. Douglas Wellman and Dennis B. PropstREVIEW BY CHAD DAWSON

46 Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Managementand Planningedited by Karen HigginbottomREVIEW BY SARAH ELMELIGI

FRONT COVER A photographer’s dream day at Mount McKinley,Denali National Park, Alaska. Photo by Cathy Hart.

INSET Cristina Mittermeier looking a dung beetle in the eye,Tembe Elephant Reserve, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Photoby Vance Martin.

2 International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2005 • VOLUME 11, NUMBER 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University ofMaine, Orono, Maine; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA,Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, ClemsonUniversity, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks,California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land 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; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers,Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, NorthernArizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.;Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National OutdoorLeadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The WildernessSociety, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness

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

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

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

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

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2005 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

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

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS• Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • National Outdoor 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 Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDAForest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • WildernessFoundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness APRIL 2005 • VOLUME 11, 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

The worrisome factor is that, in spite of the legislation,humans will still go on being humans and will attempt tomanipulate and use wilderness resources. This tendencyand warning to managers was mentioned even by earlywilderness preservationists. For example, Howard Zahniserin his essay Wilderness Forever tells us to be prepared tokeep our support of wilderness in perpetuity, like the wil-derness itself: “We are not slowing down a force that inevitablywill destroy all the wilderness there is. We are generatinganother force, never to be wholly spent, that, renewed genera-tion after generation, will be always effective in preservingwilderness” (in W. Schwartz, ed., Voices for the Wilderness,New York: Ballantine Books, 1969, 106).

In this issue of IJW, Michael Frome outlines a strong andpersonal case for a wilderness challenge to keep wildernessprotection foremost in all designation and legislation discus-sions about wilderness and to avoid the compromises thatcan creep into political processes. The concept of environ-mental stewardship as a national agenda includes wildernesspreservation, according to Frome, and he advocates for greaterpublic awareness of the wilderness concept. CristinaMittermeier articulates the value of photography in makingthe public aware of conservation and preservation issues.Her argument that powerful photographic imagery savedsome areas in Tasmania can be echoed in the United States ifone recalls the use of photography by well-known wilder-ness advocates such as Ansel Adams and David Brower. Theuse of powerful images can generate public awareness at boththe conscious and subconscious levels—a kind of innerinspiration that will “elicit concern and emotion that candirect human behavior,” according to Mittermeier. IJW

Can We Let WildernessJust Be Wilderness?

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

Whether you take a quick or a thorough reviewof the history of the human species on thisplanet, you may arrive at the observation that

as humans we seem almost incapable of just letting wildernessbe wilderness. We seem to have a nearly insatiable need to“improve” and manipulate everything in our environment.The field of human genetics might suggest that this driveto manage our environment has been genetically selectedto ensure that we survive, thrive, and prosper as a species.Some might argue that our “successes” at manipulating theenvironment might also be sowing the seeds of our ownenvironmental self-destruction.

So how do we change that which is so thoroughlyembedded in humans as individuals and in our societies?Although some have mused about making wilderness sac-rosanct or a sacred place in a religious sense to create asocial agreement to protect wilderness areas, the most suc-cessful social experiment to date has been to use legislationthat protects those special remnants of wild places and eco-systems. After accomplishing this legislative protection insome countries of the world, the designated land manage-ment agencies are left with the task of continuing to holdoff the human tendency to incrementally want to “improve”or use what they rationalize as “just some small part of thewilderness.” Such proposals generally argue that theseactivities have little or no measurable or significant impact(e.g., allowing mountain bike use or commercialized tourismuse, collecting fossils for research, permitting cattle grazing).Multiple counterarguments can be made, including thecumulative impacts of such activities, the apparent and realconflicts in use, and others.


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

FEATURES

The first time I read about the Wilderness Act—orthe Wilderness Bill at that time—was in The NewYork Times of May 15, 1956.In the column headed

“Conservation,” John B. Oakes reported that Senator HubertHumphrey of Minnesota was sponsoring legislation toestablish a national wilderness preservation system. “Theidea is certainly worth exploring,” Oakes wrote, “if what isleft of our country in a natural state is worth saving, asmany of us believe it is.”

Oakes outlined the problem as follows:

This isn’t just a question of city folks seeking outdoorrecreation, or enjoying spectacular scenery, or breath-ing unpoisoned air. It goes much deeper; it springsfrom the inextricable relationship of man with nature,a relationship that even the most insensitive andcomplex civilization can never dissipate. Man needsnature; he may within limits control it, but to destroyit is to begin the destruction of man himself. We can-not live on a sterile planet, nor would we want to.

John Oakes stirred myconscience, and my curios-ity, to learn more. Idetermined in due coursethat he was voicing a view-point deeply rooted inAmerican culture and his-tory, manifest in earlier daysthrough the works of JamesFenimore Cooper, WilliamCullen Bryant, John J.Audubon, Ralph WaldoEmerson, Henry DavidThoreau, and John Muir.Muir felt uplifted and exaltedin the wild sanctuary: Wil-derness to him was anexpression of God onearth—the mountains, God’s

temples; the forests, sacred groves. In our own era, the cel-ebrated photographer Ansel Adams expressed the idea: “Hereare worlds of experience beyond the world of aggressive man,beyond history, beyond science. The moods and qualities ofnature and the relations of great art are difficult to define; wecan grasp them only in the depths of our perceptive spirit.”

I found such lofty expressions from political leaderstoo—leaders of both major political parties. One hundredyears ago Charles Evans Hughes, Republican governor ofNew York and later chief justice of the Supreme Court,declared at the dedication of Palisades Interstate Park:

Of what avail would be the benefits of gainful occu-pation, what would be the promise of prosperouscommunities, with wealth of products and freedomof exchange, were it not for opportunities to culti-vate the love of the beautiful? The preservation ofthe scenery of the Hudson is the highest duty withrespect to this river imposed upon those who are thetrustees of its manifest benefits.

In Maine, Governor Percival Baxter, the son of a wealthyfamily, found in Mount Katahdin the gift he wished togive with his own money to the people of his state. Bystipulating that the area “forever shall be held in its natu-ral wild state,” Governor Baxter passed on hisunderstanding of the need for wild places in modern civi-lization. “The works of men are short-lived,” he declaredon November 30, 1941. “Monuments decay, buildingscrumble and wealth vanishes, but Katahdin in its massivegrandeur will forever remain the mountain of the peopleof Maine. Throughout the ages it will stand as an inspira-tion to the men and women of this State.”

Attainments in preservation, as in any manifestation ofethics and idealism, do not come easily. In the case of theWilderness Act, fruition came after eight years of discus-sion and debate by the Senate and House of Representatives,and after 18 separate hearings conducted by congressionalcommittees around the country. I believe it would neverhave happened without the unflinching commitment of a

A Wilderness ChallengeBY MICHAEL FROME

Figure 1—Arthur Carhart, a strong wildernessadvocate. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service.


very broad coalition that ralliedpeople—all kinds of people—aroundthe wilderness cause.

Now I believe the time is at handto review the scope and strengths ofthat coalition, and to renew it to meetnew challenges. On one hand, Ameri-cans can be proud of the 106 millionacres (42.9 million ha) safeguardedby the Wilderness Act. It defines wil-derness in law and public policy andhow it should be cared for and used.It does even more, encouraging us toconserve the feeling and skills of self-reliance. That we have set aside thesespecial places is known throughout theworld; wilderness preservation treatsecology as the economics of nature,in a manner directly related to the eco-nomics of humankind. Keeping bioticdiversity alive, for example, is the surestmeans of keeping humanity alive. Butconservation transcends economics—itilluminates the human condition by re-fusing to put a price tag on the priceless.

Reconstitutingthe CoalitionOn the other hand, I see the wilder-ness concept diluted in proposal afterproposal before Congress, and in man-agement plan after management planprepared by our resource agencies. Ifeel deep concern about the effects ofoveruse, misuse, and commercializa-tion; about allowing motorizedequipment inside wilderness, andabout the willingness to accept some-thing-less-than-wilderness in theNational Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem (NWPS). When you readlegislation providing for “conservation,recreation, and development” in thesame package, you can bet your bot-tom dollar that wilderness protectionwill come last and least.

I don’t mean to target any group orindividuals for blame, for we are allpart of the problem. More important,

we can all contribute to the solution.Reconstituting the coalition—of citi-zen conservationists, scientists, electedpublic officials, public servants in theresource agencies, writers, artists, andthe media – will make it happen. Weall love our country. Although we don’tsay it enough, that is what brings ustogether.

I think of the campaigners for theWilderness Act as true patriots.Howard Zahniser, the principal authorand advocate of the Wilderness Act of1964, was studious, articulate, andcompassionate. “We are not fightingprogress,” Zahniser said. “We aremaking it. We are not dealing with avanishing wilderness. We are workingfor a wilderness forever.” In 1956Representative John P. Saylor of Penn-sylvania introduced the WildernessBill in the House of Representatives. Iknew Saylor as a friend and hero. Inmany ways he was a conservativeRepublican. Nevertheless, for eightyears he led the bill’s uphill legislativebattle and never gave up. In 1961,when the going was tough, Saylordeclared: “I cannot believe the Ameri-can people have become so crass, sodollar-minded, so exploitation-con-scious that they must develop everylast little bit of wilderness that stillexists.”

I remember Senator Frank Churchof Idaho as one of the courageous con-servationists in Congress, and recall inparticular the battle over reclassifica-tion of the old Idaho Primitive Area asthe River of No Return Wilderness.

When Senator Church conductedhearings in different sections of Idaho,people who had never spoken pub-licly before stood up and respondedto him, opening their hearts in praiseof an area larger and wilder thanYellowstone. The designation of thisgreat area as the Frank Church Riverof No Return Wilderness certainly is adeserved recognition of SenatorChurch’s service to his own state andthe nation.

I have known and worked with ablescientists, such as John and FrankCraighead, the experts on the grizzlybear, and with committed wildernessadvocates in the federal agencies. Tomy mind, Bill Worf ranks with ArthurCarhart, Robert Marshall, and AldoLeopold, Forest Service professionals

Figure 2—Howard Zahniser wrote the first draft of theWilderness Bill in 1956.

I see the wilderness concept diluted in proposalafter proposal before Congress, and in management

plan after management plan prepared byour resource agencies.


who led the way in wilderness aware-ness and management. Worf came toWashington, D.C., soon after the actwas passed, to write implementingregulations for the agency. He is a pub-lic servant who never quit, establishingand leading the wonderfully construc-tive organization Wilderness Watchafter he retired.

I’ve known others like him else-where in the Forest Service and in theother agencies as well. I think also ofthe late Paul Fritz. He was a feisty,stocky New Yorker, who came west tostudy landscape architecture at UtahState University, worked for a time forthe Forest Service, then transferred tothe National Park Service. In 1966 hewas placed in charge of Craters of theMoon National Monument, a strikingIdaho landscape of lava fields studdedwith cinder cones. Disregarding bu-reaucratic admonitions in his ownagency, he gained support from localcommunities and environmentalgroups for the Craters of the Moon wil-derness, established in 1970 as the firstnational park unit added to the NWPS.

But my favorite heroes have been myown breed, writers who were activists,

such as Sigurd Olson, Richard Neuberger,Wallace Stegner, and Paul Brooks, andjournalists, notably John Oakes, a cham-pion of wilderness, civil rights, and allgood causes, who rose to be editorial pageeditor of The New York Times.

The best defense clearly is an aware,alert, and involved public. It makesthings happen. It has worked in timespast. It starts at the grass roots withindividual citizens who care about thebeauty of the earth. I will illustrate byciting a case history of defeat turnedinto victory. In 1966 the National ParkService chose the Great Smoky Moun-tains of North Carolina in Tennesseeas the site of its first proposed wilder-ness designation under the WildernessAct of 1964. Unfortunately, the planwas terrible, designed to destroy ratherthan defend wilderness. But it seemedlike a done deal, with all the politicalpower behind it.

Harvey Broome, of Knoxville, Ten-nessee, however, felt otherwise. Hewas my friend and mentor. He earneda law degree at Harvard and had a suc-cessful law practice, but he wascommitted to the work of the Wilder-ness Society, of which he was one ofthe founders and subsequently presi-dent. So he accepted a job as clerk toa judge with the understanding thathe would be allowed time off whenneeds of the Wilderness Society requiredit. With his right-hand man, ErnieDickerman, Harvey led in mobilizingdefense of the Great Smoky Moun-tains. Newspapers from The New YorkTimes to the Portland Oregonian respondedwith powerful editorials; thousands ofcitizens wrote letters demandingbetter stewardship from the NationalPark Service. It took six years, but

ultimately the agency withdrew itshorrendous antiwilderness plan.

Wilderness LegacyLooking back, I remember environ-mental leaders of 40 or 50 years ago asmissionaries. Those people gave usbroad shoulders to stand on. They wantus to work together through tough andtrying times, to sound the alarm and toalert the public, from the grass roots toWashington, in defense of wild places.

That is why I feel we should not al-low the mismanagement of our publiclands, whether classified as wildernessor not. I believe strongly in the prin-ciple of public land ownership and inthe professional agencies that adminis-ter them. I feel alarm at moves todisassemble and privatize nationalparks, national forests, national wild-life refuges, and areas administered bythe Bureau of Land Management. Ihope we will not allow it, for publiclands are the last open spaces, last wil-dernesses, last wildlife havens.

I feel the same about charging feesfor recreation on public lands. It’s aterrible idea. National parks in theUnited States are being reduced fromsanctuaries to popcorn playgrounds,managed as theme parks in the Disneymode rather than by park profession-als in the public interest.

The role of government in recreation—of government at all levels—should be tosupport conservation, physical fitness, andhealthful outdoor leisure away from amechanized supercivilized world. Awholesome natural environment providesthe foundation for a wholesome humanenvironment. We can’t have one withoutthe other. The preservation of nature is ause in its own right—a “wise use.” GiffordPinchot, the 20th-century conservationpioneer, said it this way:

The planned and orderly de-velopment and conservation ofour natural resources is the first

We should not allow the mismanagement of ourpublic lands, whether classified as wilderness or not.

Figure 3—Canoeing in the Boundary Waters Canoe AreaWilderness, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Minnesota.Photo by Thomas Kaffine ([email protected]).


duty of the United States. It isthe only form of insurance thatwill certainly protect us againstthe disasters that lack of fore-sight has in the past repeatedlybrought down on nations sincepassed away. A nation deprivedof liberty may win it, a nationdivided may reunite, but a na-tion whose natural resourcesare destroyed must inevitablypay the penalty of poverty, deg-radation and decay.

Perhaps the most important role ofpublic lands is to safeguard wilderness,nature untamed. Wilderness is at thecore of a healthy society. Wilderness,above all its definitions, purposes, anduses, is sacred space, with sacredpower, the heart of a moral world.Wilderness preservation is not somuch a system or a tactic, but a wayof understanding the sacred connec-tion with all of life, with people, plants,animals, water, sunlight, and clouds.It’s an attitude and way of life with aspiritual ecological dimension.

I remember listening to SigurdOlson speaking at the 1967 SierraClub Biennial Wilderness Conference

When you read legislation providing for “conservation,recreation and development” in the same package,

you can bet your bottom dollar that wildernessprotection will come last and least.

in San Francisco. He hadn’t startedas a professional writer—he had ear-lier been a teacher and a guide—anddidn’t complete his first book untilhe was 55. Yet it became the first ofnine, filled with his perceptions ofNorth country water wilderness inthe center of the continent. Now theSierra Club has honored him with theJohn Muir Award for “the excellenceof his writing and leadership in con-servation that will truly make adifference a hundred years from nowin the face of this land and in the mindof man [and woman].” This is whatSigurd said in accepting the award:

Make the wilderness so impor-tant, so understandable, soclearly seen as vital to humanhappiness that it cannot be rel-

egated to an insubstantial minor-ity. If it affects everyone—and Ibelieve it does—then we mustfind out how to tell the worldwhy it affects everyone. Onlywhen we put wilderness on thatbroad base will we have a goodchance of saving it.

I thought at the time his words were achallenge meant for me. But no, theyare a legacy meant for us all. IJW

MICHAEL FROME, author, educator, andactivist, has written 18 books, includingGreenspeak, Green Ink, and Battle for theWilderness. Former U.S. Senator GaylordNelson of Wisconsin said of him: “Nowriter in America has more persistentlyargued for the need of a national ethic ofenvironmental stewardship.” He lives inPort Washington, Wisconsin.

From CONSERVATION PLANNING on page 30

Gascon, C., J. R. Malcolm, J. L. Patton, M. N. F.Da Silva, J. P. Bogart, S. C. Lougheed, C. A.Peres, S. Neckel, and P. T. Boag. 2000. River-ine barriers and the geographic distributionof Amazonian species. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 97(25): 13,672–677.

Lougheed, S. C., C. Gascon, D. A. Jones, J. P.Bogart, and P. T. Boag. 1999. Ridges andrivers: A test of competing hypotheses ofAmazonian diversification using a dart-poi-son frog (Epipedobates femoralis). Proceed-ings of the Royal Society of London SeriesB-Biological Sciences 266(1431): 1829–35.

Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematicconservation planning. Nature 405: 243–53.

Margules, C. R., R. L. Pressey, and P. H. Williams.2002. Representing biodiversity: Data and pro-cedures for identifying priority areas for con-servation. Journal of Biosciences 27: 309–26.

Mol, J. H., and P. E. Ouboter. 2004. Downstreameffects of erosion from small-scale goldmining on the instream habitat and fish com-munity of a small neotropical rainforeststream. Conservation Biology 18(1): 201–14.

Mori, S. A. 1991. The Guayana Lowland Floris-tic Province. C. R. Soc. Biogéogr. 67: 67–75.

Olson, D. M., E. Dinerstein, E. D. Wikramanayake,N. D. Burgess, G. V. N. Powell, E. C.Underwood, J. A. D’Amico, et al. et al. 2001.Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new mapof life of earth. BioScience 16: 933–38.

Pearce, J. L., K. Cherry, M. Drielsma, S. Ferrier,and G. Whish. 2001. Incorporating expertopinion and fine-scale vegetation mappinginto statistical models of faunal distribution.Journal of Applied Ecology 38(2): 412–24.

Pressey, R. L., and R. M. Cowling. 2001.Reserve selection algorithms and the realworld. Conservation Biology 15: 275–77.

Pressey, R. L., H. P. Possingham, V. S. Logan, J.R. Day, and P. H. Williams. 1999. Effects ofdata characteristics on the results of reserveselection algorithms. Journal of Biogeogra-phy 26(1): 179–91.

Pressey, R. L., T. C. Hager, K. M. Ryan, J. Schwarz,S. Wall, S. Ferrier, and P. M. Creaser. 2000.Using abiotic data for conservation assessmentsover extensive regions: Quantitative methodsapplied across New South Wales, Australia.Biological Conservation 96(1): 55–82.

Pressey, R. L., R. M. Cowling, and M. Rouget.2003. Formulating conservation targets forbiodiversity pattern and process in the CapeFloristic Region, South Africa. BiologicalConservation 112(1–2): 99–127.

G. JAN SCHIPPER, NSF-IGERT fellow,CATIE, Sede Central 7170,Turrialba, CostaRica. E-mail: [email protected].


STEWARDSHIP

talent combined with environmental understanding andconservation commitment.

In recognition of the importance of images for conser-vation and of the growing numbers of professionalphotographers who specialize in producing those images,the first-ever Conservation Photography symposium willconvene from September 30 to October 6, 2005, in An-chorage, Alaska, during the 8th World Wilderness Congress(WWC). Conservation-minded photographers from all overthe world will assemble with scientists, policy makers, gov-ernment officials, lawyers, writers, indigenous leaders, andothers to help craft local and global conservation solutions.The significance of this event is not only that it is the veryfirst time nature photographers have been offered a work-ing seat at an international conservation forum, but it willalso allow photographers themselves to decide if creating anew and distinct discipline in the field of nature photogra-phy is justified.

Numerous items are on the agenda, including the criti-cal importance of professionally executed images toachieving conservation outcomes; how to harness the mar-ket potential of the tens of thousands of amateur naturephotographers around the world who are yet not involvedin conservation—and need to be; and recommending thatconservation organizations legitimize their reliance on im-ages by adding line items to their budgets for the service ofimage professionals.

With the exception of the most technical, peer-reviewedscientific journals, photographs are a necessary and con-stant element of conservation communications. Be it todocument, illustrate, compare, or inspire, images are anindispensable element of the conservation toolbox. Never-theless, despite their critical importance in the crafting anddelivery of messages, conservation professionals often optfor “homemade” amateur or poorly executed images, basedsimply on the argument of cost. The advent of easy-to-usedigital cameras has exacerbated the situation by giving theimpression that taking pictures is a simple undertaking.

Conservation PhotographyArt, Ethics, and Action

BY CRISTINA MITTERMEIER

Article author Cristina Mittermeier at work inAustralia.

Nature photographyis one of the mostversatile artistic en-

deavors. It allows practitionersto specialize in myriad par-ticular subjects within thenatural world, from numerousdifferent perspectives—fromthe journalistic documenta-tion of a species or a landscape,to gallery-quality printedpieces of fine art depictingflora or fauna, macro- ormicroscale, realistic or im-pressionistic. The possiblesubjects and areas of special-ization are as diverse as natureitself.

However, there is an additional step that can be takenby the nature photographer, one in which the practitioneris not just interested in documenting nature or creatingworks of art, but in making images that, in fact, protect thesubject they depict. This is conservation photography.

Conservation photography showcases both the vanish-ing beauty of our planet and its disappearing spirit, and itputs the image “to work.” It is the pictorial voice used bymany conservation organizations to further their messages.For many purposes, amateur photos are good enough todo the job, but professional quality is needed to create im-ages that inspire people and empower them to changebehaviors and take action. Anyone can purchase the equip-ment, travel to interesting regions, and learn the secrets ofwildlife behavior well enough to capture it on film—or inpixels. The empathy, sense of urgency, and the personalcommitment necessary to create awe-inspiring images, andto discover avenues through which those images can helpensure that the wild world persists cannot be purchased.Conservation photography is the result of photographic


Morning light on Little Horn, Cradle Mountain, Lake St. Clair National Park, Tasmania. Photo by Peter Dombrovskis, courtesy of Liz Dombrovskis.


But learning photography is like learn-ing a new language: amateur snapshotsare the few words necessary for elemen-tal communication, whereas theimages created by gifted professionals,those that inspire and enrich our soul,are the equivalent of poetry.

Of equal concern as the poor use andselection of visual materials for conser-vation, is the unfair practice of requestingdonated images from professionals. Toooften, after a project is finished and nousable images are found on the nongov-ernmental organization’s inauguraldigital card of its brand-new camera,organizations often resort to the charity

of photographers. Professional photog-raphers justifiably feel that if everyoneelse has a budget line in conservationproposals, photographers—particularlygiven the significance of their contribu-tion—should have one as well.Thankfully, there are a few conservationorganizations leading the way thatalready understand the importance ofphotography and are serious enough todedicate staff and resources to acquir-ing images and paying professionalphotographers. This effort is evident inthe high-quality materials they produceand in the achievement of their conser-vation goals.

However, it is essential to acknowl-edge the importance of donatingimages, time, and talent to smallgrassroots conservation organizationsand other environmental causes thatmay lack the resources to carry outlarge, complex projects and for whomit is much harder to find funds to hirethe services of professional photogra-phers. This is a matter of civic dutyand a personal commitment to helpthose causes we believe in. Althoughthe donation of images is a great wayto begin on the road toward making aliving as a photographer, we need tobe able to aspire to make a decent liv-ing from our craft.

It is clear that much discussion onthese matters will be needed at the 8thWWC. We will need to clearly articu-late the irreplaceable contribution ofimages to achieve measurable conser-vation outcomes, and we will need tobecome active participants in the con-servation process in order to create theimages most relevant to the ever-evolv-ing conservation agenda. Thesymposium’s mission is to make thecase for the recognition of our craft asan indispensable instrument in theconservation arena, not just in termsof artistic appreciation, but monetarycompensation as well.

ConservationPhotography in TasmaniaBut how does conservation photogra-phy differ from nature photography?Although the similarities are many, themost outstanding difference lies in thefact that conservation photography isborn out of purpose. From the earlyachievements of Ansel Adams in cap-turing the imagination of the Americanpublic with his well-crafted images ofwild America, to the brilliantly executedimages made by National Geographic’s“Nick” Nichols during an epic trek acrossthe Congo that has recently led to the

The first-ever Conservation Photography symposiumwill convene from September 30 to October 6, 2005,

in Anchorage, Alaska, during the 8thWorld Wilderness Congress.

The highland cultures of Papua New Guinea were not discovered by Westerners until the 1930s. Although much as changedsince then, some things thankfully remain the same. This playful moment during the annual cultural sing-sing at Mt. Hagenreminds me that children are the same all around the world, even in some of the most remote regions of our planet. Photo byCristina Mittermeier.


creation of an entirely new protected areasystem in Gabon, conservation photog-raphy has a well-established, yet seldomrecognized record.

The significance of conservationphotography was evident to me whenI first saw the work of Peter Dom-brovskis, a Tasmanian photographerwho was instrumental in saving theTasmanian wilderness from massivedestruction wrought by proposed damconstruction. Working with intuitivecommitment and professional talent,his became one of the finest examplesof conservation photography.

When I first encountered Dom-brovskis’s work, most of my ownphotographic education had beenfocused on learning the specializedtechniques and endless paraphernaliaphotographers employed. At the time,I was making progress in technique,but I felt my images were lacking anelemental, visceral quality. The discov-ery of Dombrovskis’s images duringmy first trip to Tasmania gave me aclear vision for my own career, bothin terms of craft and—most impor-tantly—in terms of mission. Hisphilosophy was a clarion call for pho-tographers to create technicallysuperior, enduring images, that alsodemand that the wild world endure.His philosophy is the guiding principlein my photographic career, and thecontext in which lives the spirit of con-servation photography.

I discovered Dombrovskis’s geniusamong the tourist souvenirs of theHobart (Tasmania) Airport gift shop.His images, like paper jewels, stood outfrom the surrounding Aussie parapher-nalia. The perfect scene of a beautifulmorning-lit outcrop in Cradle Moun-tain National Park was beautiful andtechnically perfect in and of itself, butit had something else. It contained aninvisible sense of the fierce fight thathad been waged just a few years before

to save the jaggedcontours of the wildlandscape it depicted.I felt it. That story, asit turned out, was justone chapter in thelong history ofTasmania’s environ-mental struggles.

Tasmania, likemost European colo-nies, has seen itsshare of ecologicaland ethnologicalblunders, many ofthem devastating. Itsfirst irreversible losscame in 1876 withthe extermination ofthe last TasmanianAborigine—less thana century after Euro-peans first arrived. Itsnext major tragedycame in 1936 withthe extinction of itslargest endemicmammal, the Tasmanian tiger, whichwas followed by the careless introduc-tion of hundreds of invasive speciesthat to this day continue to threatenthe delicate native flora and fauna ofthe island. But it was the obliterationof Lake Pedder, a magnificent and an-cient glacial lake—centerpiece of anational park, and one of Tasmania’smost outstanding natural wonders—that finally spurred public indignation.It has been said that had it not beendestroyed, Pedder would occupy todayas prominent an iconic place in Aus-tralian lore as Ayers Rock and Kakadu.

At the center of the opposition todam Lake Pedder was Lithuanian-bornphotographer and conservationistOlegas Truchanas, a man who even-tually became a mentor and fatherfigure for Peter Dombrovskis, who washimself a Latvian immigrant. Armed

with photographs and films of thearea, Truchanas took the fight to thegovernment and the people. To raisepublic awareness, he called publicmeetings in the Hobart Town Hall and,in his now-famous audiovisual dis-plays, played to capacity audiencesbreathtaking scenes of what was aboutto disappear forever. Sadly, despite animpassioned fight, the governmentsucceeded in damming the Huon andSerpentine Rivers, and in doing so theydrowned both the cries of the protest-ers and the exquisite beauty of the wildlake. Devastating as this defeat was,the silver lining came in the birth of amajor movement to use photographyfor conservation.

The fight over waterpower, however,was not over. Despite being less than 1%the size of Australia as a whole, Tasmaniapossesses half of the country’s

Frost on Snow Berry (Gaultheria hispida) leaves, Milles Track, June, Mount Wellington,Tasmania. Photo by Peter Dombrovskis, courtesy of Liz Dombrovskis.


hydroelectric potential, much of it fromthe powerful, free-flowing rivers thatsurge through the island’s ruggedwestern half. And so, soon after thedramatic loss of Lake Pedder, anotherproposal emerged to dam the FranklinRiver and thus flood one of the last greatwilderness areas in the world. This time,however, the idea was met with a mightyopposition. At the center of the battlewas a well-organized protest that tookthe fight to the court of internationalopinion, including the 2nd WWC in1980, with the support of world-classphotographs by numerous artists,including Peter Dombrovskis.

When Australian premier RobinGray declared the wild river “a brownleech-ridden ditch,” Dombrovskis—ashy, quiet man—chose to raise hiscamera instead of raising his voice.Despite the devastating loss ofTruchanas, who had died in a kayakingaccident, Dombrovskis headed outinto the wilderness to illustrate hispersonal disagreement with thepremier. He did not intend to makecampaign images, but inevitably hisimages became the center of amassively successful publicmovement. He eventually remarked,“In any sort of campaign where youare trying to get people to feel for anarea, to make some sort of decisionabout it, you need powerful images toshow people, to give people an ideaof what those areas are like.”

Like Truchanas before him,Dombrovskis succeeded in capturingthe soul of Tasmania in images. He,too, was able to show the people ofTasmania what they were about to

lose. In the end, the modest beautyand tranquility reflected in hisimages—still published extensivelyeven years after his death—wereenough to turn public opinion.

The opposition prevailed, and thefederal government compensatedTasmania for the estimated lostrevenue of the hydroelectric dam, andthen took it one step further bycreating the Franklin–Gordon RiversNational Park. This new park becamethe major piece in a series ofcontiguous, north-south nationalparks that cover a major portion ofTasmania’s western half.

It became clear to me that themagical quality in Dombrovskis’simages came from his passion toconvey a profound sense of place foran area he loved, one that was at greatrisk, rather than only through theflawless technical merits of his work.I also understood that it was thisspecial mission that invested hisimages with “soul.” Peter once saidthat something of the photographerhimself should be evident in everyimage; something of how thephotographer felt should leap fromevery photo. Otherwise, the photo isjust a piece of paper. You can catchglimpses of Dombrovskis in all hisphotographs: the father, the naturalist,the son, the poet, the gardener, thehusband, the conservationist, and, yes,the photographer. “An ethic of the landis needed because remainingwilderness is threatened bycommercial exploitation that willdestroy its value to future generations,”wrote Dombrovskis when his beloved

Tasmanian wilderness came underattack. An ethic of the land is indeedwhat we need as conservationchallenges gather speed. Our imagesneed to inform and galvanize to action,as well as inspire.

When asked, Peter would say abouthis own work: “I am not aphotographer, I am just making astatement.” Today other photographers,hikers, adventurers, the people ofTasmania, and those from around theworld are able to enjoy the beauty ofone of the most pristine WildernessWorld Heritage Areas on the planet.Tasmanians also realize the benefitsfrom an expanded and thriving naturetourism industry, and prosper from themany ecosystem services provided bythe wildlands that cover most of theisland. A fine statement, indeed.

Mission ofProtecting NatureTasmania provides a clear example ofthe power of images for achievingconservation outcomes. Can thesuccess of this model be replicated toprotect nature and indigenous peoplesin other regions? In today’s inter-connected global society, perhaps theWeb should be the equivalent of theHobart Town Hall, where images canalert people to what is being rapidlylost all over the world.

Beyond documenting nature as anart form, conservation photographyresponds to the mission of protectingnature. After Dombrovskis’s deathpeople remarked that it was not somuch that he photographed inprotected areas, but that protected areaswere created where he photographed.

In conservation photography, thesubject is conveyed by aesthetics anddefined by conservation priorities.Although limited to specific places andissues, conservation photography’spurpose is to elicit concern and

Beyond documenting nature as an art form,conservation photography responds to the mission

of protecting nature.


The number of nature photographers has increasedexponentially in the past decade, and the trend

shows no sign of changing. Many are hobbyists wholove taking pictures of the outdoors, or those who donot need to generate a substantial living from sellingnature photos. This is a boon to conservation organi-zations with low or no budgets for photo use, but adetriment to seasoned full-time professional naturephotographers whose sole source of income is throughthe sale of their work.

No one goes into the field of conservation photog-raphy to make a fortune, but, if the bills aren’t paid,pros can’t afford to keep creating images. Longtime prophotographers have the vast knowledge and field ex-perience to document a critical species or location, andto tell a conservation story. Experienced professionalphotographers have the ability to communicate withall involved, from scientists to administrators, and of-ten have the opportunity to add to the story’s exposurethrough their long-established networks.

The rigors of freelancing make it difficult for the proto invest the time and money in creating images that areuseful to conservation groups but are of little interest togeneral photo buyers. An image of a rare or endangered

plant may be of great value to a particular biodiversitygroup, but of no interest to editorial publications. Withtime and resources, however, a pro is capable of creat-ing a diverse body of work that thoroughly documentsthat plant and its habitat, and provides an in-depth storythat advances the conservation cause through highervisibility in the mainstream media.

Professional photography is a proven catalyst in cre-ating public conservation awareness. In the 1870s theHayden expeditions to Yellowstone hired William H.Jackson to record images that eventually influencedCongress to create America’s first national park. Thework of today’s professionals is visible in books, maga-zines, and countless conservation publications,spreading the word through their photographs.

The key to protecting the environment is to moti-vate those who are in a position to do so. Politicians,private foundations, the general public, and corpora-tions are impacted by great photos by greatphotographers. Let’s make sure that the photographerscan continue to do this critically important work!

WENDY SHATTIL and BOB ROZINSKI’S work can be viewed atwww.dancingpelican.com. E-mail: [email protected].

Full-time Pro Photographers:The Ultimate Endangered Species?

BY WENDY SHATTIL AND BOB ROZINSKI

emotion that can direct humanbehavior. Photographers also need toshoot the whole scene and not just theselect pieces that we, the architects ofthe image, choose to show the public.We also need to work with editors andpublishers to convince them to makeavailable the layout room that may bethe single most important factor ineventually saving an area or a species.In fact, conservation photographyneeds to have a dual strategy: on theone hand, showing the world thebeauty and inspiration found in wild

places and, on the other, the raw,uncompromising reality of theirdestruction.

As conservation challenges in-crease, the need is growing forimages that touch people’s hearts andchange their minds. Photographersof great conviction have alreadyblazed a trail for us, and it is our jobto do the same for the legions of newphotographers who must become anindispensable part of the con-servation movement. IJW

CRISTINA GOETTSCH MITTERMEIER is amarine biologist currently pursuing acareer in photography. She has visited andphotographed in more than 50 countries, ison the board of Nature’s Best PhotographyFoundation, and serves as director ofcommunications for Nature’s BestPhotography Magazine; e-mail:[email protected]. She is co-organizing the Conservation PhotographySymposium at the 8th World WildernessCongress (www.8wwc.org).

REFERENCESDombrovskis, Liz, B. Brown, and J. Kirkpatrick,

1998. Dombrovskis: a photographic collection.Hobart, Australia: West Wind Press. pp. 6–14.


IntroductionOne approach to measuring wil-derness values in the UnitedStates has been to survey thegeneral public as part of theNational Survey on Recreationand the Environment (NSRE)(Cordell et al. 2003; Cordell etal. 1998). The 13-item Wilder-ness Values Scale (WVS) used in

the survey measures both use and nonuse values (e.g., pres-ervation) for wilderness in the National WildernessPreservation System (NWPS). This national survey approachpresents the NWPS as a generalized, abstract system for thegeneral public to evaluate. The most recent results suggestthat ecological and existence values are central to Americans’viewpoint on wilderness (Cordell et al. 2003) and that directuse values are generally less important than ecological, envi-ronmental quality, and off-site values (Cordell et al. 1998).

An alternative, inductive approach to examining wilder-ness values, and the method presented herein, is to presentlandscapes as tabulae rasae to the general public at boththe community and regional levels, so individuals can spa-tially identify landscape values, including those associatedwith wilderness areas. Presumably, if wilderness areas pos-sess a range of landscape values that are proportionatelydifferent from landscapes outside of wilderness areas, thesevalue differences will emerge as a result of inductive analy-sis of the spatial location of values. The emergent values of

wilderness areas can then be compared to those reportedfrom national survey results.

As part of the Chugach National Forest (CNF) planning pro-cess, Brown and Reed (2000) developed a landscape valuestypology to provide residents of local communities with theopportunity to rank and spatially identify landscape values. Thevalues typology, although somewhat different from the WVS,shares 9 out of 13 values with the WVS used in the NSRE (seeTable 1). One of the important issues in the development of theinitial values typology was whether “wilderness” value consti-tuted a separate landscape value, or whether wilderness valuewas an emergent characteristic resulting from a combination ofother landscape values. In the end, wilderness value was notincluded as a separate value in the CNF value typology.

In 2002 the authors measured landscape values for a differ-ent planning area in Alaska, the Kenai Peninsula. In this studywe included wilderness value as a separately defined value inthe landscape values typology. By including wilderness value asa separate landscape value, we set the stage for this study todetermine which nonwilderness landscape values are predic-tive of wilderness values and which landscape values tend toassociate with de facto or actual wilderness units in the NWPS.

Thus, the purpose of this empirical study was threefold:(1) to examine the mix of landscape values that the publicidentifies inside actual or de facto wilderness areas to comparewith values identified outside wilderness areas in order todetermine what, if any, proportional value differences exist;(2) to determine which landscape values best predict perceivedwilderness values from the Kenai Peninsula study using

A GIS–based Inductive Studyof Wilderness Values

BY GREGORY BROWN AND LILIAN ALESSA

Abstract: This study presents the results of spatial analysis of wilderness values in Alaska. Using data from tworegional planning studies, perceived landscape values from inside and outside wilderness areas were com-pared to determine if proportionate value differences exist between wilderness and nonwilderness areas.Multiple regression analysis was used to confirm the results and determine the relative strength of generallandscape values as predictors of wilderness value. Results indicate that wilderness areas reflect values asso-ciated with indirect, intangible, or deferred human uses of the landscape—life-sustaining, intrinsic, and futurevalues—whereas landscape values outside wilderness areas reflect more direct, tangible, and immediate usesof the landscape—economic, recreation, and subsistence values.

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Co-article author Gregory Brown


multiple regression, using the full rangeof landscape values; and (3) to compareour study results with the 2000 NSREsurvey results on wilderness values (i.e.,landscape values that appear dispropor-tionately inside wilderness areas couldbe significant predictors of wildernessvalues in a regression model).

MethodsSurvey MethodsThe CNF planning survey was imple-mented in March 1998 using amodified Dillman (1978) total designsurvey methodology. A survey book-let, consisting of five sections, alongwith a color CNF map was sent to2,766 randomly selected householdsin 12 communities (Anchorage, Coo-per Landing, Cordova, Girdwood,Hope/Sunrise, Kenai, Moose Pass,Seward, Soldotna, Sterling, Valdez,and Whittier) in close proximity to theforest. In addition, a smaller, statewiderandom sample of households wasselected for inclusion in the study.

Of relevance to this study was thepart of the survey that asked partici-pants to place mnemonically codedsticker dots (1/4 inch) representing 13landscape values on the CNF map pro-vided with the survey. Upon return, thelandscape value locations were digitizedonto a scanned and georectified CNFmap image using ArcView GIS software.The map scale was approximately 1inch equal to 8 miles, with the 1/4-inchdiameter dot covering 2 miles across.A total of 768 maps (28% response rate)were returned, with 16,839 point lo-cations digitized for analysis.

The Kenai Peninsula planning surveywas implemented in spring 2002. A sur-vey booklet, consisting of six sections,along with a grayscale map of the studyarea were sent to 2,582 randomly se-lected households in 12 Kenai proximatecommunities (Anchorage, Anchor Point,Clam Gulch, Homer, Hope, Kasilof,

Kenai, Nanwalek/Port Graham, Nikiski,Ninilchik, Seldovia, and Seward).

In addition to the same 13 landscapevalues included in the CNF study, theKenai study also included three “wil-derness” value sticker dots per survey.Similar to the CNF study, the dot loca-tions were digitized onto a scanned andgeorectified map image. The map scalewas approximately 1 inch equal to 7miles with the 1/4-inch diameter dotcovering 1.8 miles across.

One important methodological con-sideration is that the wilderness studyarea in the Chugach National Forestand the designated wilderness area inthe Kenai National Wildlife Refuge werenot identified on the maps enclosedwith the surveys. We make the assump-tion that the survey participants, evenif knowledgeable about the existenceof these wilderness designations, would

likely not have known actual wilder-ness boundaries. Thus, surveyparticipants were “blind” to the researchquestion—perceptions of perceivedwilderness value were based on per-ceived landscape attributes, notwilderness boundary considerations.

Landscape Value Spatial AnalysisTo determine whether the proportion oflandscape values differs based on valuelocation inside or outside a wildernessarea, landscape value point locationswere divided into two sets—those fall-ing inside and those falling outside thewilderness boundary. In the CNF study,the wilderness study area defined by theAlaska National Interests Lands Conser-vation Act (1980) and identified as“recommended wilderness” in the 1984Chugach Land and Resource Manage-ment Plan, was used as the wilderness

Table 1. Value Typologies from Three Surveys

Used in This Study.

Chugach National Kenai NSRE (2000)Forest study1 Peninsula study2 Wilderness Values

(1998) (2002) Scale3

Aesthetic Aesthetic Scenic beautyEconomic Economic Tourism incomeRecreation Recreation Recreation opportunitiesLearning Learning Scientific studySpiritual Spiritual Spiritual inspirationIntrinsic Intrinsic Knowing it existsFuture Future Option for future

generationsOption for personal use

Life sustaining Life sustaining Protecting water qualityProtecting air quality

Biological diversity Biological diversity Protecting wildlife habitatPreserving unique wild

plants and animalsProtecting rare and

endangered speciesTherapeutic Therapeutic N/A4

Cultural Cultural N/ASubsistence Subsistence N/AHistoric Historic N/AN/A Wilderness N/A

1See Brown and Reed (2000).2See Brown et al. (2004).3See Cordell et al. (2003).4N/A—not available; no comparable value item included.


boundary. In the Kenai Peninsula study,the congressionally designated wilder-ness area within the Kenai NationalWildlife Refuge was used as the wilder-ness boundary. Using a spatial “clip”operation on wilderness boundaries,landscape value locations were classifiedas either being inside or outside the wil-derness boundaries.

After assigning an inside or outsidewilderness attribute to each landscapevalue, cross-tabulations with chi-square analysis were completed inSPSS software for each landscape valueto determine whether the relative pro-portion of values located inside thewilderness area deviated from whatwould be expected based on the over-all proportion of landscape valuelocations in the study area. Large de-viations between the number ofobserved and expected landscape values

inside the wilderness boundary resultin higher chi-square values and a lowerprobability that the distribution ofvalues is due to chance alone.

Multiple Regression AnalysisTo conduct multiple regression analy-sis on wilderness value in the KenaiPeninsula study, some preliminarydata preparation was required. A studyarea polygon was established to cap-ture most respondent-identified valuelocations, but to exclude obvious pointoutliers. The selected study area poly-gon consisted of the Kenai Peninsulacoastline buffered to approximately5,000 meters (3.1 miles) offshore.Each of the 14 landscape value pointdistributions were then converted toraster data (grids) in ArcView SpatialAnalyst by calculating the density ofpoint locations using a consistent density

criteria (1,500-meter [0.9-mile] gridcell, 5,000 meter [3.1-mile] searchradius). Each grid was then clipped tothe study area polygon, resulting in11,779 grid cells for analysis.

Each grid cell represents three val-ues (x, y, z), with x and y denotingunique spatial coordinates (latitude andlongitude) and z denoting the calculatedlandscape value density. Thus, a givengrid cell would have 14 separate land-scape value density attributes (includingwilderness value) associated with it. The14 value grids were exported as (x, y, z)data and imported into SPSS softwarefor multiple regression analysis.

The purpose of the regression analy-sis was to determine the relativestrength of the predictor variables, notto validate a wilderness values predic-tive model per se. With wildernessvalue density as the dependent variable,multiple regression was performed withthe 13 other landscape value densitiesas independent variables. Lackingsound theoretical reasons for includingor excluding predictors in the regres-sion model, the “stepwise” method ofregression was chosen to select predic-tors based on a purely mathematicalcriterion. The primary methodologi-cal concern is with the expectedcollinearity, which can influence theimportance of predictor variablesshown by the model’s standardizedbeta coefficients. In the absence of seri-ous collinearity problems, largerabsolute values of standardized betacoefficients indicate stronger predic-tors of the dependent variable.

ResultsA total of 880 full or partially completedsurveys were returned for an aggregateresponse rate of 32%. A total of 561full or partially completed surveys werereturned for an aggregate response rateof 23%. A total of 497 maps (20.4%response rate) were returned, with

Table 2. Similarities and Differences in the Distributionof Landscape Values Inside/Outside Wilderness Areas

from Two Alaska Studies.

Chugach NF study (1998) Kenai Peninsula study (2002)

Inside1

Life sustaining (16.4% vs. 9.6%) Life sustaining (10.1% vs. 6.1%)Intrinsic (11.3% vs. 5.4%) Intrinsic (11.9% vs. 6.1%)Future (13.7% vs. 9.0%) Future (9.8% vs. 6.1%)Spiritual (6.2% vs. 4.9%)

Wilderness (21.7% vs. 8.3%)OutsideEconomic (6.5% vs. 4.2%) Economic (8.3% vs. 2.3%)Historic (5.5% vs. 3.2%) Historic (6.9% vs. 3.9%)Subsistence (7.3 vs. 4.0%) Subsistence (7.6% vs. 4.7%)Aesthetic (12.0% vs. 9.4%)Recreation (13.5% vs. 7.1%)

No difference2

Biological diversity Biological diversityLearning LearningTherapeutic TherapeuticCultural Cultural

RecreationAestheticSpiritual

1Inside and outside classifications represent statistically significant differences in value proportions(chi-square, p < .05).2“No difference” indicates landscape value proportions located inside vs. outside wilderness areasare not statistically significant (chi-square, p > .05), but the relative abundance of values locatedinside/outside is noted.


20,415 point locations digitized foranalysis.

Landscape Valuesin Wilderness AreasThe relative proportion of landscape val-ues located inside and outside wildernessareas in the two studies appears in Table2. The similarity in landscapes valuesappearing inside and outside wildernessareas in the two studies is striking. In theCNF study, proportionately more life-sus-taining, intrinsic, future, and spiritualvalues were located inside the wildernessstudy area (chi-square, p < .05), whereasproportionally more economic, aesthetic,recreation, historic, and subsistence val-ues were located outside the wildernessstudy area (chi-square, p < .05). Therewas no difference in the proportion of bio-logical diversity, learning, therapeutic, andcultural values located inside and outsidethe wilderness study area.

In the Kenai Peninsula study, pro-portionately more life-sustaining,intrinsic, and future values were lo-cated inside the wilderness study area(chi-square, p < .05), whereas propor-tionally more economic, historic, andsubsistence values were located out-side the wilderness area (chi-square,p < .05). There was no difference inthe proportion of biological diversity,learning, therapeutic, cultural, recre-ation, aesthetic, and spiritual valueslocated inside and outside the wilder-ness area. Even where the differencesin proportions were not statisticallysignificant, the relative abundance oflandscape values located inside andoutside the wilderness boundary wassimilar in the two studies.

One important result is that theproportion of wilderness values lo-cated in the Kenai National WildlifeRefuge wilderness area was signifi-cantly higher than the proportion ofwilderness values located outside thewilderness area (21.7% vs. 8.3%).

Prediction of Wilderness ValueThe 13 values in the typology wereused to predict the location of wilder-ness values in the Kenai Peninsulastudy. One value, cultural, failed toenter the regression model because thepredefined tolerance level (.000) toavoid significant multicollinearity wasnot satisfied. Of the 12 remaining pre-dictor variables, 10 were found to bestatistically significant predictors ofwilderness value through stepwise re-gression (see Table 3). All six variablesthat were statistically significant in theinside/outside analysis were also sta-tistically significant predictors in theregression analysis model. The over-all fit of the regression model wasstatistically significant (R = .65).

Whereas the inside/outside analysismeasures whether landscape value as-sociations are likely to exist, the betacoefficients from regression analysis adda second information dimension—the

strength and direction of relationshipbetween the predictor landscape val-ues and wilderness value. The mostsignificant predictor variables, based onthe standardized beta coefficients, wereeconomic value (negatively associatedwith wilderness), intrinsic value (posi-tively associated with wilderness),aesthetic value (positively associated),future value (positively associated), rec-reation value (negatively associated),life sustaining (positively associated),and subsistence value (negatively asso-ciated). Economic value (ß = -.505),intrinsic value (ß = .342), and aestheticvalue (ß = .332) were particularlystrong predictors of wilderness value.

The two variables dropped from theregression equation were therapeuticvalue and scientific (knowledge) value.These results are consistent with the2000 NSRE results that showed “sci-ence” and “recreation” values to be inthe lower echelon of wilderness values.

Table 3. Stepwise Regression Results for Wilderness ValueDensity (Dependent Variable) as a Function of Landscape

Value Densities (Independent Variables).

——— Model fit ———

Multiple R .646R2 .417Standard error .02774

——— Model results ———

df SS MS F Sig.Regression 6.485 12 .540 702.32 .000Residual 9.053 11766 .001

——— Final variables in the equation ———

UnstandardizedStandardized Collinearity Statistics

Variable B SE B Beta t Sig. Tolerance VIFEconomic -.202 .006 -.505 -33.016 .000 .212 4.718Intrinsic .395 .014 .342 27.250 .000 .314 3.182Aesthetic .118 .007 .332 16.344 .000 .120 8.321Future .316 .015 .283 20.624 .000 .264 3.790Recreation -.080 .008 -.194 -10.350 .000 .141 7.113Life sustaining .196 .013 .193 14.644 .000 .286 3.501Subsistence -.054 .007 -.109 -8.199 .000 .282 3.544Historic .047 .009 .081 5.194 .000 .203 4.924Biological .030 .009 .055 3.149 .002 .164 6.087Spiritual -.026 .010 -.031 -2.589 .010 .355 2.820Constant .017 .000 51.30 .000


Collinearity diagnostics on the re-gression suggest probable collinearityin the independent variables, but thiswas not unexpected, as landscape val-ues are not presumed to be spatiallyindependent. The collinearity diagnos-tics show weak independent variabledependencies, with Variance InflationFactors (VIF) values ranging from 2.8to 8.3, below the threshold of 10 forobvious concern (Myers 1990).

DiscussionIf national surveys of Americans con-clude that nonuse values of wildernessas a system are increasingly important,then one ought to find evidence in spe-cific wilderness areas at the state orregional level. Our data from wilder-ness areas in Alaska indicatedisproportionately more values asso-ciated with indirect, intangible, ordeferred human uses of the land-scape—life-sustaining, intrinsic, andfuture values. Values outside wilder-ness areas reflect disproportionatelymore direct, tangible, and immediateuses of the landscape—economic, rec-reation, and subsistence values. Theseresults were confirmed through mul-tiple regression analysis showingintrinsic, aesthetic, future, and life-sustaining values to be relatively strongpositive predictors of wilderness value,whereas economic and recreation val-ues were relatively strong antipodalpredictors of wilderness value. Theseregional results from Alaska are whollyconsistent with the 2000 NSRE resultsand reflect the historical increase innonuse values of wilderness, particu-larly life-support values.

Aside from the value of triangulatingnational survey results, our results sug-gest the potential for using perceivedlandscape values to complement tradi-tional GIS-based wilderness qualityassessments. The traditional approach

to assessing wilderness quality—devel-oping indicators of naturalness andremoteness—does not incorporate so-cial values in the assessment (Lesslie andMaslen 1995). And yet there is recogni-tion that inclusion of social and culturalcriteria could improve the quality ofwilderness assessment (Ananda andHerath 2002), and some research hasactually mapped perceptions of wilder-ness conditions for integration with GIS(Kliskey and Kearsley 1993).

The challenge of integrating mul-tiple ethnocentric definitions ofwilderness into wilderness qualitymapping has resulted in wildernessinventory methods that largely rely onphysical landscape features to the ex-clusion of perceptual measures. Thelandscape values method reportedherein suggests it may be possible toidentify areas with perceived wilder-ness values without actually askingindividuals about the specific locationof wilderness. An indirect method ofmeasuring wilderness quality that in-corporates human perceptions can behighly advantageous where the wilder-ness concept has become bound upin political ideology, as in Alaska. Ifwilderness policy discourse focuses onthe mix of publicly perceived land-scape values that are known tocorrelate with wilderness quality andnot the designation of wilderness perse, it may be possible to maintain oreven expand de facto wilderness ar-eas in an unfavorable political climate.

In practice, the moderate strength ofthe regression model indicates it may notbe possible to derive a simple linear com-bination of landscape values that whollydescribes a wilderness landscape. But thelandscape values approach to mappingwilderness does appear to provideenough predictive power, and is suffi-ciently operational to warrant furtherresearch into its use with future GIS-

based wilderness quality assessments.Future research will seek to determinehow GIS-based methods that use re-moteness and naturalness attributescompare to methods based on mappingperceived landscape values. IJW

REFERENCESAnanda, J., and G. Herath. 2002. Assessment

of wilderness quality using the Analytic Hi-erarchy Process. Tourism Economics 8(2):189–206.

Brown, G. 2002. Alaska Wilderness: Is it ex-ceptional? IJW 8(2): 14–18.

Brown, G., and P. Reed. 2000. Validation of aforest values typology for use in national for-est planning. Forest Science 46(2): 240–47.

Brown, G., C. Smith, L. Alessa, and A. Kliskey.2004. A comparison of perceptions of bio-logical value with scientific assessment ofbiological importance. Applied Geography24(2): 161–80.

Cordell, H. K, M. A. Tarrant, and G. T. Green.2003. Is the public viewpoint of wildernessshifting? IJW 9(2): 27–32.

Cordell, H. K., and J. Stokes. 2000. Future roles:The social value of wilderness: A Forest Ser-vice perspective. IJW 6(2): 23–24.

Cordell, H. K, M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald,and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the publicviews wilderness: More results from theU.S.A. survey on recreation and the envi-ronment. IJW 4(3): 28–31.

Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone sur-veys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Kliskey, A. D., and G. W. Kearsley. 1993. Map-ping multiple perceptions of wilderness insouthern New Zealand. Applied Geography13(3): 203–23.

Lesslie, R., and M. Maslen. 1995. National wil-derness inventory: Handbook of procedures,content, and usage, 2nd ed. Australian Heri-tage Commission.

Myers, R. 1990. Classical and modern regressionwith applications, 2nd ed. Boston: Duxbury.

GREGORY BROWN is senior lecturer in theSchool of Natural and Built Environments,University of South Australia, MawsonLakes Campus, Mawson Lakes, SouthAustralia 5095. E-mail:[email protected].

LILIAN ALESSA is assistant professor,Department of Biological Sciences,University of Alaska, 3211 ProvidenceDrive, Anchorage, AK 99508, USA.E-mail: [email protected].


by mapping out where fire under particular weatherconditions meaningful to tactical and strategic firemanagement may be beneficial, neutral, or detrimental tospecies or other management objectives. In addition toassisting with incident planning, the maps are useful forfire management plan development and revision, as well asrevision of long-range management plans.

Why FEPF?The idea arose after review of various fire and planningprocedures revealed a stubborn disconnect between fire andother resource management planning. Despite a clearbiophysical link, few agency planning efforts specificallydetail how fire is likely to influence the systems under theirmanagement (see Yosemite National Park’s Fire ManagementPlan for a notable exception). The resulting characterizationof fire as either categorically good (WFU zones andwilderness areas) or bad (all other lands) provides littleguidance for fire managers who must decide under whatstrategy to manage a fire (wildland fire use, aggressivesuppression, containment), and where on the landscapethey should use which strategies (where to hit the fire hard,where to herd it, where to play it’s natural role).

The map libraries provide fire managers with a quick, effectivetool for functionally integrating their work into long-range

The fire lookouts began calling in at 4:30 P.M. on Sat-urday July 20 2004. There were several fires onGreen Ridge and in Scimitar Creek on the West Fork

Ranger District of the Bitterroot National Forest (BRF). Thearea allows Wildland Fire Use (WFU) as a managementoption. As part of the Wildland Fire Implementation Plan(WFIP), the Stage I analysis must be completed within twohours to determine whether to allow the fire to burn or tosuppress it. Dave Campbell, district ranger, and Bart Hoag,fire behavior analyst, turned to the BRF’s Fire Effect MapLibrary to locate the fire in relation to lynx habitat and ex-isting whitebark pine stands. Both lynx and whitebark pineare sensitive species in the forest. The area has substantialsuitable habitat, although there are no known lynx in theforest and there is woefully little foraging habitat at present.Most of the whitebark pine stands have a significant com-ponent of spruce and fir growing in them, and recruitmentof young trees is low. But instead of looking to see if theyneeded to keep fire out of these areas, Campbell and Hoagwere using the maps to provide an indication of whetherthe fire might actually benefit these species. In this case, thefire was not in the appropriate habitat, but they turned backto the library once again, this time to the fire behavior maps,to quickly assess the 24-hour-size-up potential of the fire.

During the preseason, forest fire ecologist TonjaOpperman had built both fire behavior and fire effects maplibraries for each of the four ranger districts. The Forest-wide Geographic Information System datasets are housedon the BRF’s computer server. District-specific hard-copymaps and associated descriptions were distributed to eachranger district. To create these maps, Opperman used theFire Effects Planning Framework (FEPF). FEPF is an analyticframework conceived of at the Leopold Institute by theauthor, Carol Miller, and Peter Landres, and demonstratedby Tonja on the Bitterroot. FEPF’s purpose is to helpmanagers functionally link fire and resource management

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

The Fire EffectsPlanning Framework

BY ANNE BLACK


management goals, helping to answer thequestions: should I try to influence thisfire, and, if so, what areas should I attemptto keep fire away from and where shouldI try to encourage the fire to go? Thisinformation is integrated with knowledgeof now classic “values at risk” (e.g., powerlines, residences) to create a morecomplete picture of potential benefits andrisks of fire. The map libraries provideresource staff with a means to quicklyassess the impact of a fire, or a fire season,on progress toward and ability to meetmanagement objectivess.

How Does FEPF Work?The logic behind FEPF is straight-forward: identify and map wheremanagement objectives exist on thelandscape (or where their importanthabitats exist); identify critical fireweather threshold conditions (such as80th, 90th, 99th percentile EnergyRelease Component) and map firebehavior under each of these; identifyhow fire under each threshold

condition is likely to affect themanagement objective (or the habitatparameters on which it depends, suchas large, early seral trees); and use thislink between fire behavior andmanagement objective to create a fireeffects library. The choice of computermodels to generate habitat and firebehavior is up to the user. Here in theUnited States, FireFamilyPlus (FF+) canbe used to determine the typical fuelmoisture and ambient weatherconditions associated with each of thethreshold conditions. FlamMap can beused to generate a wall-to-wall map ofa number of fire behavior parameters(fireline intensity, crown fire potential,rate of spread, heat per unit area). Othercountries may have different programsthat generate similar information. Basevegetation and fuels conditions arederived from existing satellite imageryor modeled via a vegetation dynamicssimulation model. The assessment offire effects is based on species-habitatrelationships and the known effects of

fire on habitat parameters documentedin the scientific literature or developedthrough expert-knowledge systems.

Where to FindMore InformationAs part of our Research ApplicationsProgram, we have established a website forthe FEPF (http://leopold.wilderness.net/research/fprojects/F001.htm) on which wehave posted fact sheets, backgroundinformation, and a draft User’s Guide onthe FEPF. The User’s Guide, which wehope to release in early 2005, providesboth conceptual and detailed instructionsfor generating the necessary FF+ andFlamMap analysis, creating the linkagesand using the output to address variousplanning questions. If you use FEFP,please let us know. We’re interested inimproving our science deliverytechniques. IJW

ANNE BLACK, postdoctoral ecologist,Aldo Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT,59807, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

From WILDERNESS IS MORE on page 37

communes, regional forest services, andprivate owners. And of all 36 areas, oneis designated by a regional forest ser-vice, 27 are designated and managedby communes (two of them enlarged byregional forest services), and seven aredesignated and managed on privateproperties in collaboration with theItalian Wilderness Society.

In Italy and other European coun-tries, most of the environmentalists arenot really interested in wildernesspreservation; rather, they are natural-ists. A very few people are reallyinterested in wilderness preservation.

The general masses of Italian environ-mentalists love animals such as thewolf and the bear, but not so muchtheir habitat. They are interested in theprotection of the species. They do notblock the building of roads that bisectthe wolf habitat, or stop the mass tour-ist use of its habitat, which is acceptedas “ecocompatible” (for example, theAbruzzo brown bear has almost beenexterminated due to this so-called“ecocompatible” tourism). These natu-ralists are more interested in theanimal than its habitat. So, we mustwork to build up a real central Euro-

pean wilderness concept if we wantto obtain some real central Europeanwilderness areas. IJW

FRANCO ZUNINO is active in wildernesspreservation in Italy and the ItalianWilderness Society.

REFERENCESWeinzierl, Hubert. 2003. Courage for wilder-

ness. IJW 9(3): 4–6.Nash, Roderick. 2001. Wilderness and the

American mind (4th ed.). Yale UniversityPress, New Haven, Connecticut.

Diemer, M., Held, M. and Hofmeister, F. 2003.Urban wilderness in central Europe: rewildingat the urban fringe. IJW 9(3): 7–11.


EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

Article co-authors Greg Hansen (left) and Tom Carlson.

IntroductionWhy has education become a critical tool for wildernessmanagers? How can you effectively plan, implement, andmonitor a successful wilderness education program thatwill produce measurable results for your specific needs?And why will education increase in importance in the fu-ture as funding for personnel and on-the-ground wildernessmanagement continues to be inconsistent and/or inad-equate? These and other pressing questions will be discussedbelow in an effort to establish consistent wilderness educa-tion program standards for managers who are currentlyutilizing education or who desire to develop a new wilder-ness education program.

So what are the advantages of conducting wildernesseducation, you ask? Besides the obvious benefits of reduc-ing physical impacts to the resource and receiving highercompliance with regulation, myriad other payoffs exist.Increasing visitor awareness of misunderstood wildernessprograms, such as natural fire or exotic species eradication,can be achieved by blending pertinent information on suchtopics into more general wilderness educational program-ming. Promoting nonrecreational values, such as scientificresearch or maintaining air and watersheds, can be accom-plished by integrating education messaging related to thesevalues into other wilderness management functions—forexample, in-town outreach efforts and backcountry visitorcontact programs.

Furthermore, wilderness education can serve to developand solidify quality partnerships that not only benefit wil-derness but foster gains that reach far beyond the wildernessboundary. Educators can extend themselves through out-reach efforts in a positive and professional manner, thusworking to establish and build contact with prospectivepartners or maintain existing relationships with establisheduser groups, nongovernmental organizations, and othercooperative land management agencies. If you are a proac-tive manager who understands the significance of building

Wilderness EducationThe Ultimate Commitment to Quality Wilderness Stewardship

BY GREG HANSEN and TOM CARLSON

a foundation for proper land use in future users such asschool children, innovative education programs can be ef-fective in reaching young minds receptive to the new andengaging ideology of wilderness.

The author’s combined wilderness management experienceof more than 45 years supports the idea that education is in-valuable in building wilderness constituency, as it provides aproactive human approach to solving problems. The indirectmethod of educating the public often far outweighs directheavy-handed regulatory approaches when attempting to im-prove visitor behavior or make the public more aware of thepurpose behind legally designating wilderness. When regula-tions are necessary, education helps gain compliance byexplaining the necessity for restricting visitor activities to pro-tect the wilderness resource. Although education must besupported by proficient law enforcement, at the end of theday, it is unyielding in its effectiveness if it is well laid out,implemented properly, monitored, and supported by admin-istration. Read on to find out more about developing aneducation program that meets your needs and why educationtruly is the key to future wilderness preservation.

Program PlanningThe expression “failure to plan is planning to fail” is appli-cable to wilderness education. These efforts requireinvestments of staff time and some funding in order to show


results (see Figure 1). Creating, imple-menting, and monitoring the resultsof an education plan provides amethod to focus limited resources andhelp ensure success.

Long-term PlansThe long-term, multiyear WildernessEducation Plan is typically a documentthat is in effect for three to five yearsor longer. It should be both general inscope, by looking at past efforts andresults and current and foreseeableobjectives, but also as specific as pos-sible to identify issues, audiences,themes, and methodology. The planshould provide a road map for imple-mentation of the comprehensivewilderness management plan.

Annual Action/Implementation PlansThe Annual Action Plan is a wilder-ness education Program of Work forthe current year that guides implemen-tation of the long-term WildernessEducation Plan. It describes specificobjectives, projects, audiences, neces-sary monitoring, and any requiredreporting, as well as personnel needs,

funding requirements, and a time linefor when projects will be implementedthroughout the year. If a WildernessImplementation Schedule is preparedannually, this Wilderness EducationAction Plan could be a part of thatbroader effort.

A Wilderness Education Plan Tem-plate has been prepared as a suggestedguide for preparation of a multiyearWilderness Education Plan (see http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/docu-ments/Web-Wilderness EducationPlan Template.doc). This template wasdeveloped by identifying commonsuccessful items in examples of exist-ing Wilderness Education Planssolicited from all federal land manage-ment agencies. The template is notfederal agency policy, but can be usedas a tool to help identify the keyissues, audiences, messages, andmonitoring necessary to prepare andimplement successful long-term Wil-derness Education Plans and annualaction plans.

Part I of the template is the Educa-tion Plan Process. This process is a toolfor identifying specific priorities foreach wilderness organized by the

following categories: issues, targetaudiences, messages, actions, andmonitoring. The template prompts theuser to follow a sequence of steps toidentify an issue, describe why it is aproblem for wilderness stewardship,select key audiences associated withthe issue, and then develop the mes-sages, actions, and monitoringnecessary at each level of the manag-ing organization.

Part II of the template is the Edu-cation Plan Format. This is a suggestedformat for preparing a long-term,multiyear Wilderness Education Plan.It provides a seven-part outline of aWilderness Education Plan that beginswith issues and ends with the AnnualAction or Implementation Plan.

A sampling of current WildernessEducation Plans is provided in the Is-sues Toolbox section of Wilderness.netat www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/. Thesample plans provided vary in detail,format, and length but serve to dem-onstrate various approaches towilderness education planning andimplementation.

Program ImplementationThe primary goals for implementingwilderness education programs are to

• solve problems,• resolve conflicts,• improve user behavior,• reduce physical and social impacts,

and• make the public or agency more

aware of wilderness values.

Implementation StrategiesA few key concepts should be consid-ered when implementing any type ofwilderness education program. Whenfirst starting out, it is imperative tofocus your educational efforts on oneor two priority issues. If you are suc-cessful in resolving these first issues,move on to the next set of priorities,

Figure 1—Wilderness education planning. Photo by Greg Hansen.


Figure 2—Wilderness education implementation of a visitor kiosk. Photo by Greg Hansen.

as administering wilderness is anever-ending cycle of managementchallenges. Expect that there will be acrossover of issues that you are askedto deal with, especially if you managean area for any length of time.

Therefore, managers must continu-ally monitor and evaluate theireducation success and be able tomodify their education programmingin order to keep up with the inevitablereality of change. The point here is tofocus in on one or two priority issues,with long-term objectives of programmodification and possibly eventualexpansion.

If your primary goals for imple-menting a wilderness educationprogram are more generic in nature,such as making the public more awareof wilderness benefits, then a moregeneral means of educational messag-ing should be instituted. Avoid fallinginto the trap of trying to contact thegeneral public using a shotgun-styleapproach, unless this technique istruly merited, as it will result in vagueand inefficient messaging, and youroverall attainments will be limited.

ImplementationTechniquesAn endless number of techniques areavailable to managers who are inter-ested in implementing a wildernesseducation program (Doucette andCole 1993). Outreach or in-towneducation, by comparison, are sub-stantially more efficient than allother wilderness related educationmethods. Educating users beforethey visit wilderness can help betterprepare them for their trip, as theseusers will now have a clear under-standing of what is expected of themand what to expect from the areathey are visiting (see Figure 2). Thiseffort results in higher compliancewith regulations and can serve to

reduce negative social and physicalimpressions upon the land.

Most people visit a managingagency office before entering wilder-ness, and this is an opportune time toeducate. Although the majority of of-fice visits do not exceed a total of fiveminutes, a great deal can be accom-plished if front desk personnelunderstand both wilderness and theinformation they are asked to sharewith the public. Training office person-nel to communicate the most pertinentinformation to visitors is well worththe effort, as these front liners can bevery influential with the large num-bers of people they contact.

Wilderness entry points can beused to promote responsible wilder-ness use, especially if an area is limitedto a few main access portals, as youraudience is funneled in and out ofsemicontrolled locations. But manag-ers should be cautious not to forceeducation contacts on visitors, as thiscan be interpreted by some as beingin conflict with the very philosophybehind the ideal of primitive and un-confined wilderness recreation. Ifvisitors are receptive to having agency

personnel at road heads, or manage-ment problems exist that dictate suchaction, education stations can be setup throughout the year or duringhigh-use times. Although educationmight be the main objective at wilder-ness entry points, other managementduties, such as visitor use data collec-tion and law enforcement patrol, canbe accomplished simultaneously.

Information boards and signs canbe used to pass educational informa-tion along to users at access points.Signs are certainly not as effective as auniformed presence, however, as mostpeople are in hurry to get their tripstarted and pass by without even stop-ping. Message boards that includesome type of “hook,” such as a car-toon or one or two well-designed colorpictures, can help to draw the visitor(Cole 1998), but the amount of timeactually spent reading text is fewerthan five minutes, according to someresearch studies.

Traditionally, much of the educa-tion conducted in wilderness occurredalongside the trail or in backcountrysettings, such as campsites. Althoughnot as effective as educating visitors


Figure 3—Wilderness education evaluation is a necessary process. Courtesy of Greg Hansen.

in town before they arrive,backcountry education is useful andshould be an integral element of anywilderness management program. Inregards to education efficiency in thebackcountry, trailside contacts aremuch more successful than speakingwith users in their campsites. This isso because educators have the oppor-tunity to discuss issues such as propercamp selection and fire restrictionsbefore the user sets up camp and cre-ates impacts that may be completelyunintentional. Education duties can becombined with normal backcountrytasks, such as trail maintenance or re-source monitoring work, by simplytraining all field employees to educateand by making it a formal part of theirposition description.

Written materials are anothermeans of disseminating educationalinformation. Text can be added on theback of a wilderness map, coveringtopics such as group size limits andother pertinent land ethic information.

Brochures that cover a few specificproblem areas are most efficient, butmore general pamphlets can also bedeveloped and disseminated, while

keeping in mind that these do not havethe same power to change visitor be-havior as issue-specific leaflets.

Today, electronic communication isan extremely useful mechanism for dis-seminating wilderness educationalmaterials to a very large audience. Onlinewilderness education websites can takethe viewer on a computerized wilder-ness education experience that is fun andinteractive. Many wilderness areas pro-vide education information via theiragency-based website. To access thesesites, go to http://www.wilderness.net/nwps/ and click on the state and wilder-ness area of interest. To view a qualitywilderness education website, visit theNational Park Service’s Wilderness Viewswebsite at http://www2.nature.nps.gov/synthesis/views/#, Celebrate Wilder-ness’s wilderness education andinterpretation handbook at http://w w w. w i l d e r n e s s . n p s . g o v /toolbox21.cfm, and the Central SierraWilderness Education website at http://wildlink.wilderness.net/.

Credibility with the public is essen-tial to any manager’s success, andtherefore all education efforts must beconsistent. For example, if office per-

sonnel are informing the public thatthey must camp at least 200 feet awayfrom any water source, but field rang-ers are only issuing citations toanybody camping within 100 feet ofwater, litigation is sure to follow. Beconsistent with your information inevery detail and diligent in your ef-forts to update educational messagingas issues and management actionschange or are modified.

Wilderness education can andshould be integrated into all aspectsof wilderness management. However,this is a progressive process that takestime, commitment, money, and support.When implementing a wildernesseducation program, begin with asimple plan that focuses on priorityissues, and expand only when theseissues are resolved or can be managedat an acceptable level. Many wilder-ness education implementationtechniques exist, and managers musttake the most desirable and integratethese into a program that best meetstheir specific education programneeds. By incorporating field-testedconcepts and techniques, managerscan realistically improve and correctuser behavior, increase regulationcompliance, and foster strong publicsupport for designated wildlands—allresulting in a more pristine resourceand a higher quality wilderness expe-rience for the visiting public.

Program EvaluationWhy should managers spend time andmoney monitoring and evaluatingeducation efforts?

• Evaluation offers managers a guidefor achieving education goals.

• Evaluation provides feedback forthe purpose of improving and re-vising education content anddelivery.

• Evaluation allows for an objectivemeasure of the effectiveness of


Continued on page 34

both indirect and direct methodsin relation to solving managementproblems.

• Evaluation creates a written trackrecord for education efforts.

• Evaluation provides documentedresults for gaining future funding.

• Evaluation can justify wildernesseducation program budgeting andpersonnel.

• Evaluation monitors the effective-ness of Wilderness Education Planimplementation.

The primary goal of any evaluationprocess is to determine the effective-ness of education and communicationefforts (Meyer and Thomas 1989).Meyer and Thomas explained that theevaluation process includes an under-standing of what made the programsuccessful or not, and how the pro-gram might be improved for thefuture. Meyer and Thomas stated thatrealistic and attainable goals and ob-jectives are essential to the evaluationprocess. Monitoring existing condi-tions prior to any education programmust be completed before any formof evaluation can begin, as the man-ager must have a clear picture of howeducation changed and/or improvedexisting conditions.

Evaluation should be carried outduring the education program and af-ter the project has been completed.Evaluating educational success can bedone in many ways, such as partneringwith agency scientific stations, univer-sities, or private research companiesto develop evaluation agendas. It isalso possible to develop your ownevaluation process, in consultationwith these types of organizations, andthen implement the process utilizingyour own personnel.

Quality evaluation and monitoringoffers managers the chance to makeupdates and changes when specific

ment report at the end of the fiscalyear, or as detailed as sitting downwith your supervisor weekly duringnormal staff briefings and sharingeducation accomplishment results(see Figure 3). Be sure to go throughthe proper chain of command first,but sending education program re-sults to upper-level offices andwilderness management leadership inyour agency can help to show yourunit’s commitment to and success inimproving wilderness conditions,thus establishing your program.

Although submitting successfulwilderness education programs forrecognition and awards can seem self-serving, future budgeting maydepend upon your ability first to besuccessful, and second to show yoursuccess through formal recognition.Effective reporting and recognition ofyour wilderness education efforts iscentral both to maintaining educa-tional funding and attaining increasedfunding. Reporting should be com-

ness-dependent recreation or solitude.Without an adequate education andinformation program, other types ofmanagement actions (e.g., regulations,restoration, etc.) are far less likely tosucceed.

A complete wilderness educationprogram will include the plans, imple-mentation projects, and monitoring.The successful wilderness educationprogram will be part of a comprehen-sive wilderness stewardship programthat incorporates indicators of changefrom natural conditions and wilder-ness character, resource inventory,monitoring of program results, visitorinformation and contact programs,law enforcement, and partnershipswith other wilderness stewardship or-ganizations.

Wilderness education is the ulti-mate commitment to qualitywilderness stewardship, as the futureof protected wildlands will depend

Wilderness education can and should be integratedinto all aspects of wilderness management.

aspects of the wilderness educationprogram are deemed to be inefficient.Evaluation is a challenge to accom-plish but allows managers tosystematically measure their overalleducation effectiveness, which can beinstrumental in justifying the need foreducation and for funding educationalprogramming.

Reporting the results of your edu-cation program will not only showthat you have taken the time to trackyour successes, it can also be ex-tremely beneficial when fighting tomaintain or increase budgeting foryour program. Reporting can be assimple as handing in an accomplish-

pleted at the end of every primaryeducation work season and through-out the fiscal year.

Summary and ConclusionThroughout the past 40 years, wilder-ness has become a place for socialrelaxation and natural healing for ourrelentlessly fast-paced society. Wilder-ness education and information is abasic, fundamental, and essential partof managing wilderness for future gen-erations. Most administrative actionsimplemented as part of wildernessstewardship are focused on manage-ment of human-caused impacts andproviding opportunities for wilder-


Conservation Planningin the Tropics

Lessons Learned from the Guianan Ecoregion Complex

BY G. JAN SCHIPPER

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

IntroductionUndeveloped tropical areas retain large portions of the earth’sbiodiversity in relatively natural conditions and offer anopportunity for proactive resource planning to combine con-servation with sustainable development goals. These areaspresent a number of conservation challenges (see Table 1),including huge gaps in knowledge of the biodiversity. Un-like many heavily disturbed regions, there is still time to setaside large areas for conservation while simultaneously pro-viding opportunities for socioeconomic development.Participatory planning exercises (e.g., stakeholder andexpert workshops) can be a useful tool to fill informationgaps and to provide multidisciplinary input. We begin byasking the question, where do we best invest scarce resourcesto ensure long-term species persistence and maintenance ofecological integrity and environmental services?

Amazonia is among the largest intact tracts of undevel-oped tropical forest and savanna on the planet. The GuianaShield (see Figure 1) is a biogeographical subregion of north-ern Amazonia (north of the Rio Negro/Amazon), which isboth faunistically and floristically distinct (Huber and

Foster 2003; Mori 1991). The classification of various dis-tinct species assemblages, and thereby subregions, in theAmazon basin is largely attributed to several biogeographiccharacteristics: riverine barriers (Hall and Harvey 2002),ancient ridges (crystalline arches) (Lougheed et al. 1999),and a Pleistocene/Holocene lake system (Frailey et al. 1988).However, the significance of these theories is the subject ofcontinued debate (Gascon et al. 2000), thus I followedwidely recognized ecoregional delimitations for this study(Dinerstein et al. 1995).

The ecoregions comprising the Guianan Ecoregion Com-plex (GEC) (see Figure 2 and Table 2) are large biogeographicalunits delimited at a scale appropriate for conservation plan-ning (Olson et al. 2001). This relatively pristine area has recentlyreceived much international attention due to its “wildernesspotential.” While the mind’s eye wanders over huge tracts ofpristine rain forest and savanna enclaves, it is important toremember that dispersed tribes of Amerindians have occu-pied these forests for many thousands of years.

With the human population rapidly increasing and cen-tralizing, this pristine vision is now changing. Threats are

mounting as the natural resources are dis-covered by international mining and timberinterests, among others. From a satellite im-age, the forest cover of the Guianas appearsnearly continuous, yet just beneath the lushforest canopy are a few surprises. As humansettlements increase in size and number,hunting pressures are amplified across therange of many game species. In addition, il-legal small-scale gold mining in the GuianaShield region and elsewhere has resulted inhigh levels of mercury and other toxins be-ing released into the headwaters (Mol andOuboter 2004). Although these are relativelyFigure 1—The Guianas are located in the northeastern corner of the South American continent.


minor threats to biodiversity whencompared to large-scale clear-cutting,there may be reason for concern.

There is a growing body of literaturedescribing systematic conservation plan-ning versus ad hoc reserve design(Margules and Pressey 2000) and the needto involve stakeholders at all stages of theplanning process (Cowling and Pressey2003). Reserve selection algorithms(Pressey and Cowling 2001) are simplytools for translating the current state ofknowledge for a region into a systematiccontext from which data can be analyzedand iteratively modeled for representingbiodiversity (Margules et al 2002). Pearceet al. (2001) described a process for map-ping vegetation with expert opinion, andreaders are referred to Faith et al. (2003),Ferrier (2002), and Pressey et al. (1999,2000, and 2003) for further discussionson methods and examples of systematicconservation planning.

Challengesand OpportunitiesThe great diversity of habitat types andassociated species and processes thatoccur in the GEC present a number ofdaunting challenges for conservationpriority setting. These challenges areconfounded not only by the complex-ity of the habitat associations presentbut also by the complexity of geopo-litical units (Venezuela, Brazil, Guyana,Suriname, and La Guyane), each withdifferent policy mechanisms, uniquedecision-making processes and legalsystems, varying priorities and eco-nomic security, five different lan-guages, and a great diversity of culturaland ethnic realities. At the scale ofecoregion-based conservation, thiscomplexity presents a daunting taskto both biological and social scientistsand managers. Moreover, the speciesand ecological processes unique to thisregion do not recognize these bound-aries, thus if we are to achieve large-

scale conservation planning based onhabitat representation, we must learnto think across political borders. Thisissue is further complicated by vari-ous disputes between political bound-aries, but that discussion is beyond thescope of this article.

The conservation planning processfor the GEC rapidly becomes an issue

of scale. When an ecoregion is consid-ered the framework for conservationplanning (as opposed to a continent,country, or protected area), there mustbe consideration of the trade-offbetween social and economic realitiesand biogeographic and ecological pro-cesses (Faith and Walker 2002). Thetwo must then be reconciled into a

Table 1. Challenges to Reserve Design and ConservationPlanning in Undeveloped Tropical Areas.

1. Data deficiency: As a general rule, few scientists have explored theseregions and thus there is very little data on even presence or absence ofbiodiversity features.

2. Human diversity: Areas are often multinational, multicultural, andmultilingual.

3. Human interests: Many large tracts of forest are either inhabited byAmerindians, set aside as concessions, or otherwise accounted for innational development goals.

4. Area-sensitivity: Many of the megacharismatic species have large homeranges and require large intact habitats to maintain populations.

5. Seamless maps: National land cover and infrastructure maps exist at acoarse resolution, but classifications are different in each country andcannot be merged.

6. Vegetation classification: Few maps distinguish between the differenttypes of “moist forest” in lowland tropics.

7. Species distribution: Extent of occurrence for most species can bemodeled, but area of occupancy at a landscape scale is not known.

Table 2. Ecoregions of the Guianan Ecoregion Complex.

1. Guianan Moist Forest: Lowland moist forests (rain forest) extending frompatches along the coast to the Tumucumaque and Acarai Mountains tothe south.

2. Guianan Savannas: Patches of savanna mixed with forest enclaves andriparian gallery forest. Predominantly three regions: the Sipaliwini,Rupununi, and Gran Sabana.

3. Guianan Highlands Moist Forests: Moist forest above 500 meters (1,640feet) elevation, predominantly occurring in the western ecoregionscomplex (Pakaraima Mts.) but along ridges and peaks moving east.

4. Pantepuis: These small disparate regions consist of high granitic flat-topmountains (tepuis), with steep cliff faces and montane floral elements onthe peaks.

5. Guianan Mangroves: Coastal zone strip extending in patches up to 5 km(3.1 miles) or more inland and along river mouths.

6. Guianan Freshwater Swamp Forest: Inland coastal zone strip of seasonallyand permanently flooded forests.


cohesive conservation portfolio, withconsideration of scale at each stage ofthe process. This approach ensuresthat any support of decision makingis made with biological and social con-sideration, and can be framed at apolicy scale.

There is great need and opportunityfor conservation in the GEC, includingthe designation of wilderness and otherprotected areas. The region representsamong the last areas in Latin Americato be opened to logging and mining.The numerous navigable rivers haveserved as highways for merchants andsettlers for centuries. As a result, roadsystems are extremely limited, androadless areas are extensive.

The relatively intact ecosystems of theregion thus lend an unusual twist toconservation priority setting. Plannersdon’t have to focus on crisis managementand reactive planning. Opportunityexists to create a dynamic conservationstrategy that can be implemented andchanged as new information becomesavailable. In this sense we are able totake the limited information we have,make the best decisions possible, and

give alternative scenarios to planners—while maintaining the option tocontinuously improve the process asbiological, social, and economicconsiderations fluctuate over time. Bynot having to rush to save every piece ofremaining habitat, which is costly bothfinancially and politically, we can greatlyreduce costs of implementation anddevelop a long-term conservation visionand action plan for the Guianas with thefull participation and collaboration of awide variety of stakeholders.

Because multiple large-scale threatsare not the driving force in large partsof the GEC, biological targets andpriorities can be addressed in a cohesivemanner. This allows for in-depthexamination of specific threats to bothfreshwater and terrestrial biologicalpriorities, as in the case of illegal goldmining. Small-scale illegal gold miningis a terrestrial-based threat with manyfreshwater consequences (Mol andOuboter 2004). Although in and ofitself gold mining has a small effect onforests, it dramatically increases theambient mercury level in thewatershed. Because these activities are

often conducted in the mountainousheadwaters, the effects can be detectedacross many watersheds and with as yetunmeasured effects to stream andhuman health.

Ecosystem processes have rarelybeen quantified, financially orecologically, to an extent that is usefulin long-term planning for conservationor development. Given the relativelyintact ecosystems of the GEC,opportunity exists to mitigatedevelopment in areas where ecologicalprocess and subsequent ecosystemservice is maintained. For instance,since the majority of human impactoccurs along the coast in the GEC,there is a disproportionate amount ofthreat placed on freshwater swamp,the white sand savanna belt, and onmangrove habitats. By using a habitatrepresentation approach, this problemcan be address by looking at theirreplaceability of such uniquelandscape features. In other words,where there are threatened and uniquebiological representation units, thedegree of threat to each can beexamined and addressed in the largerconservation portfolio. Designation ofwilderness and other strict protectedarea classifications may be suitable inhigh priority areas where developmentpressure remains small, whereas otherconservation tools may be used inareas more attractive for development.

Furthermore, the opportunity exists tocollaborate with a full range of thestakeholders in the ecoregion complex todevelop a succinct and cohesive plan, withbuy-in from the various biological, social,and economic interest groups. Rarely isthere such an opportunity to develop amultidisciplinary action plan for bothconservation and development of a region.This challenge embodies the scale ofconsideration in planning within anecoregion complex, allowing for a holisticapproach to conservation planning and for

Figure 2—The Guianas biogeographical region consists of a mosaic of six ecoregions, which when mergedtogether form the Guianan Ecoregion Complex (GEC).


developing a strategy that embodiescompromise, understanding, and sacrificefrom all perspectives. This presents thepossibility of mitigating conflict betweenconservation and development, such thatthe two can be implemented together.

Lessons Learnedfrom the GECThe first stumbling block toconservation in many undevelopedintact ecoregions is the overall lack ofbiological information. To overcomethis obstacle, conservation organi-zations often seek expert opinion andknowledge to fill in the gaps in theavailable literature and currentunderstanding of the ecoregion. In theGEC, an expert workshop was held inParamaribo, Suriname, in 2002 (Huberand Foster 2003) in which biologicaland social science experts convened invarious thematic and regional groupsto compile what is known of the greaterGEC. The integrated result was a broad-scale priority-setting map, with fairlycoarse polygons, representing anoverlap of priorities presented by thevarious thematic working groups. This“first cut” at priority setting has theadvantage of expert consensus, but thedisadvantage of lacking policy-orientedrecommendations at a scale that can beuseful. In the end, the maps producedfrom this endeavor are very useful inidentifying gaps in the currentknowledge of the region, but they aredifficult to interpret at a scale useful tothe establishment of an action plan forpolicy makers.

The success of the 2002 workshopwas largely the result of combining thesocial and biological expert opinions onone map, with clear (albeit broad-scale)priority areas ranked to degree of threatand biological importance. However,what remained was the challenge ofhow to apply these results on theground. To address this task, a second

workshop was arranged between asubset of the major stakeholders at theecoregion complex scale. Thus the scaleof consideration for this workshop wasnarrowed to the GEC, and members ofthe prominent decision-making andplanning organizations were invited toparticipate. This stakeholder workshopwas convened in March 2003 toevaluate and refine the expertworkshop information such that theresults could be scaled down to thepolicy level. Although Brazil andVenezuela were not present, thecountries of the Guianas met to discussplanning issues both within andbetween political boundaries. Bycombining social and biologicalpriority-setting goals across countryboundaries, participants were able toidentify key factors for moving theprocess forward to a policy scale.

In 2004 a series of national expertworkshops were conducted to increase theresolution of this exercise and developseamless maps of biological andsocioeconomic features. These nationalworkshops culminated in an internationalstakeholder workshop in Paramaribo,Suriname (March 2004). The focus of thisworkshop was to refine the scale of analysisto individual conservation landscapes,species, and focal elements using expertopinion combined with spatial decision-support software (MARXAN, http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/marxan.htm) toprovide an objective and systematicapproach using the best availableknowledge. Using this approach, scientistswere able to begin developing seamlessmaps of species area of occupancy,vegetation, cost, and opportunity.

A gap analysis was conducted for allfocal species (defined by endemism andthreat) and all vegetation types, both totake stock of their representation withinthe current reserve network and toidentify areas that are a priority forprotected area designation in the future.An algorithm was derived for weightingfocal species representation in thesoftware analysis based on range size,degree of endemism, and the results ofgap analysis. Experts from nationalworking groups were asked to modifythe criteria used in the software analysis,and a variety of scenarios were derivedbased on scaled representation targetsfor focal species and vegetation types.Finally, experts were invited toparticipate in a yearlong project tofinalize the datasets—specifically theseamless maps, weighting of the focalspecies algorithm, and a systematicreview of criteria for landscape selection.

The results of the national workinggroups described above were presentedin Paramaribo (March 2004) to thebroader international stakeholdergroup, with the experts also present.The result was a cohesive draft and firstiteration of the biodiversity visionpresented for review by implementingagencies, such that their input couldbe taken into account for finalizing thedraft vision and action plan.

By maintaining a transparent processand by using systematic software it waspossible to capture the attention ofstakeholders otherwise suspicious of apresumed bias in expert opinion. Forexample, mining and logging compa-nies seemed more apt to buy into aprocess when it isolated the opinions

Amazonia is among the largest intact tractsof undeveloped tropical forest and savanna

on the planet.


of scientists from the data. A constantchallenge when working with expertsis to encourage them to focus on thebig picture and not simply their studysites. This is especially challenging inan area as data-poor as the Guianas,where expert opinion ultimately is theonly source of knowledge.

ConclusionsThe initial goal of this planning processwas to develop a document that (1) isrepresentative of all importantbiodiversity features, (2) incorporatessocioeconomic data, (3) requires less fi-nancial resources over the long term, (4)overcomes unwieldy information gaps,and (5) is developed across disciplinesto maximize efficiency and stakeholderbuy-in. In achieving representation Ifound that weighted algorithms haveproved useful in setting variable targetsfor species and vegetation scaled bythreat, extent of occurrence, and resultsof gap analysis. I found that socioeco-nomic data became most useful asseamless maps of conservation cost andopportunity. The relative lack of immi-nent threat allowed for a proactiveapproach that greatly reduced costs inboth the planning and implementationstage. I found that using a combinationof expert opinion and systematic plan-ning tools, such as spatial decisionsupport systems (e.g., MARXAN, C-Plan, SPOT) provides the most usableknowledge in a data-deficient area.These same software systems have pro-vided an unbiased approach and areuseful in defining conservation land-scapes only when there is a consensusconcerning the targets being used (i.e.,representation percentages). Because thisis an iterative process that produces vari-ous scenarios suited to the decisionmakers, the data input layers can be pro-gressively improved over time to moreexactly answer the question, where tobest invest scarce conservation resources

to ensure long-term species persistenceand maintenance of ecological integrityand environmental services.

The process and lessons detailedabove use a theoretical framework de-veloped to work at multiple scales, in aregion with poor biological data cover-age and to facilitate expert andstakeholder collaboration with system-atic planning tools such as software.After years of trial and error, I see this asa way to accomplish the goals of con-servation planning set forth in thecontext of sustainable development fora wilderness area. It is essential to rec-ognize here the importance of definingthese goals clearly from the outset andthen modifying them as feasibility be-comes clearer during scenariodevelopment. The Guianas have beenan excellent case study in applying thesetechniques, and I continue to improvethem as new information and concep-tual models take form. I have tried tomove beyond ad hoc planning and havefound that integrating multidisciplinarydata through expert knowledge via asoftware mechanism presents a greatnumber of challenges. However, the pro-cess of working through these challengeshas been the cornerstone to successfulbuy-in and has put us on the path todeveloping iterative scenarios to helpdecision makers translate biological datainto policy. I recommend conservationplanners explore a process by whichtransparency is maintained between allstakeholders such that designing con-servation landscapes can complementnational development goals to provideoptions for a sustainable future.

AcknowledgmentsThis project was supported by NSF-IGERT grant 0114304, the WorldWildlife Fund-Guianas Program, andWWF-U.S. Conservation Science Pro-gram, especially Tom Allnutt, SuzannePalminteri, George Powell, Robin Abell,

and Eric Dinerstein. Michele Fontaine,director of WWF-Guianas, who devel-oped the Biodiversity Vision and ActionPlan. The Biodiversity Vision is devel-oped through funding from the DutchGlobal Environmental Fund, theFrench Global Environmental Fund,and WWF-Netherlands. Thanks toGary Clarke, Bart de Dijn, SamoeSchelts, Marie-Louise Felix, Ted Janz,and Mark Plotkin. IJW

REFERENCESCowling, R. M., R. L. Pressey, R. Sims-Castley, A.

Le Roux, E. Baard, C. J. Burgers, and G.Palmer. 2003. The expert or the algorithm?—Comparison of priority conservation areas inthe Cape Floristic Region identified by parkmanagers and reserve selection software.Biological Conservation 112:147–67.

Cowling, R. M. and R. L. Pressey. 2003. Intro-duction to systematic conservation planningin the Cape Floristic Region. Biological Con-servation 112(1–2): 1-13.

Dinerstein, E., D. Olson, D. Graham, A. Webster,S. Primm, M. Bookbinder, and G. Ledec.1995. A conservation assessment of the ter-restrial ecoregions of Latin America and theCaribbean. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Hall, J. P. W., and D. J. Harvey. 2002. Thephylogeography of Amazonia revisited:New evidence from riodinid butterflies. Evo-lution 56(7): 1489–97.

Huber, O., and M. Foster, eds.. 2003. Conser-vation priorities for the Guayana Shield: 2002consensus. Washington, DC: ConservationInternational—CABS, Netherlands Commit-tee for IUCN/GuianaShield Initiative.

Faith, D. P., G. Carter, G. Cassis, S. Ferrier, andL. Wilkie. 2003. Complementarity,biodiversity viability analysis, and policy-based algorithms for conservation. Environ-mental Science and Policy 6(3): 311–28.

Faith, D. P., and P. A. Walker 2002. The role oftrade-offs in biodiversity conservation plan-ning: Linking local management, regionalplanning and global conservation efforts.Journal of Biosciences 27(4): 393–407.

Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping spatial patterns inbiodiversity for regional conservation plan-ning: Where to from here? 2002 System-atic Biology 51(2): 331–63.

Frailey, C. D., E. L. Lavina, A. Rancy, and J. P. deSouza Filho. 1988. A proposed Pleistocene/Holocene lake in the Amazon basin and its sig-nificance to Amazonian geology and bioge-ography. Acta Amazonica 18 (3–4): 119–43.

Continued on page 7


The Ruaha National Park,TanzaniaBY SUE STOLBERGER

Editors Note: This is the second of two articles concerning the Ruaha National Park (RNP), located insouth-central Tanzania, and describes how a local nongovernmental organization (NGO) can work withthe local parks authority toward achieving common goals in a challenging environment, using wildernessas a common denominator. The first article, written by Mr. MGG Mtahiko, chief warden of the park,appeared in the December 2004 issue of IJW. RNP is still an exceptionally wild, undisturbed area. TheWilderness Zone in Ruaha National Park comprises 6,022 square kilometers (2,325 sq. mi.). Within thisarea lies a seldom-visited and remote wilderness core known as the Isunkaviula Plateau. The WILDFoundation and the Sierra Club have supported the preparation of a wilderness management plan forthe Isunkaviula area. The Friends of Ruaha Society (FORS), a local NGO, works closely with TanzaniaNational Parks (TANAPA) inside RNP to facilitate its wilderness agenda. Outside RNP, FORS works withlocal communities to develop environmental education programs at 10 local schools and to assist in localcommunity wildlife management programs operating in surrounding buffer zones. FORS also has consis-tently sounded alarm bells concerning the drying up of the Great Ruaha River that runs through the park,caused by upstream irrigation projects.


The Friends of the Ruaha SocietyThe first written record of the Ruaha area was in 1877,when it was noted by early explorers as a wildlife haven.In 1912 the Germans established it as a game reserve.Later, it was enlarged by the British, and finally, in 1964,the Tanzanian government declared the area to be anational park encompassing more than 10,200 squarekilometers (3,938 sq. mi.). Subsequently, several gamereserves were added to the north, east, and west so thattoday, the whole ecosystem is more than 45,000 squarekilometers (17,375 sq. mi.).

In the early years, the park was underfunded andunderresourced, tourists were extremely few, and the parkstruggled. In 1984 the Fox family, who had recently built alodge in Ruaha National Park (RNP), gathered together agroup of interested people in Tanzania and formed theFriends of Ruaha Society (FORS) to support thoseresponsible for protecting Ruaha’s wildlife. Funds wereraised locally to buy boots and water bottles for patrols anddiesel fuel and spare parts for vehicles and machinery. Thegroup helped with antipoaching patrols through use of theFORS plane, a Cessna 182 (largely funded by the Tusk Trust

in the UK), and implemented myriad other ideas to helpcreate incentives for the park’s game rangers.

Artist Sue Stolberger shares a digital image with the park botanist, Gladys Ng’umbi. Photo byMichael Sweatman.


By the early 1990s, due to the con-siderable increase in tourist revenue,Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA)became better able to support its manyparks and staff. The role of FORS be-gan to alter. In 1994, instead of buyingthe nuts and bolts needed for the park,

the society shifted its focus to ways topromote the park and to tackle envi-ronmental issues. Initially theyproduced a color leaflet on RNP thatTANAPA still uses for publicity pur-poses. FORS also highlighted theecological disaster that occurred when

the Great RuahaRiver dried up in1993, due to exces-sive agricultural useof water upstream. Meanwhile, FORScontinued to fly theantipoaching pa-trols over the vastprotected area. Inaddition, FORS putconsiderable effortinto protecting thesouthern bufferzone of the park byemploying andequipping villagerangers, workingclosely with the newWildlife Manage-ment Areas (WMA)established by aproject funded by

the British government to reallocatehunting revenues back to the commu-nities living in the WMA. FORScontinued to assist the park in any wayit could, such as by installing VHF ra-dios in all the ranger posts andvehicles, donating the HF radio linke-mail system for park headquarters,upgrading the clinic, and equippingthe ranger posts with rechargeableflashlights.

In 1999 FORS was approached byDr. Dulle, a Tanzanian veterinarianworking for the government. Inter-ested in the need to protectwilderness areas, he realized the ur-gency in educating his fellowTanzanians on the importance oflooking after its rich natural heritage.Within a short space of time FORSand Dr. Dulle devised an environ-mental education project that servedthe primary schools in the areas sur-rounding the Ruaha National Park.

As a result, FORS established envi-ronmental education programs in 10schools. At first, FORS used educationalextension officers to introduce the pro-gram into the schools. Now, twofull-time education program officers,Anna Marie Malya from Tanzania andSarah Vatland from the United States,have been employed. When new top-ics are introduced into each program,each school undertakes training. Afterfour to six weeks, follow-up visits byFORS staff address problems and ob-tain feedback. Initial results are veryencouraging, and FORS is consideringpreparing a comprehensive guide thatwill be easily replicable at schoolsthroughout Tanzania.

Other small income-generatingprojects have also been started in thevillages, such as growing vegetablessuitable for use by the camps and alodge situated in the RNP. The produc-tion of honey and other food items foruse by the camps and lodges are other

Figure 1—Looking up the escarpment into the wilderness area, Ruaha National Park. Photo by Michael Sweatman

Figure 2—Michael Sweatman from The WILD Foundation, presented with gifts by localstudents. Photo by FORS


examples of small industries emerg-ing due to FORS’s efforts.

FORS continues to assist the parkin many ways. As funds become avail-able, the Idodi Secondary School willreceive the environmental educationprogram. FORS also hopes to soonstimulate interest in nature guidingcourses and other tourist-related mat-ters, incorporating local knowledgeand traditions into the program asmuch as possible.

Ruaha Wilderness ZoneRuaha is an exceptional area, situatedin the convergence zone of northernand southern species and habitats (inthe eastern African context). The parkis composed of an area of Rift Valleyfloor, where the Great Ruaha Rivermeanders for 150 kilometers (93 m.),with mainly mixed acacia/combretum/baobab woodlands andopen areas. This vast area is mainlybrachystegia woodland (commonlyknown as miombo). The river valleyarea rises to form the escarpmentedge of the Rift.

In the remote western corner of thepark, the Isunkaviula Plateau rises tomore than 1,800 meters (5,900 ft.)and is regarded as the core wildernesszone. Due to difficult access, this eco-logically important area has not beenstudied in detail and forms an ex-tremely valuable part of the RuahaPark resource. Initial research indicatesthat high altitude and isolation overa very long period have formed anextremely important niche ofbiodiversity. Furthermore, the speciesin the Isunkaviula Plateau appear tobe affiliated with western speciesrather than with those in Africa’s East-ern Arc. Therefore, RNP may well bethe convergence zone of both north-ern and southern species, plus theeastern and western species (in theAfrican context).

WildernessManagement IssuesUnfortunately, the plateau area is usedby poachers as an access route toother areas of the park. Well-usedbicycle trails are encountered. Oninspection of these tracks, there areobvious signs that the bicycles areheavily laden on the return trip, prob-ably with dried meat from poachingcamps located in other remote, inac-cessible areas of RNP. In order for

these poachers to make easier accessroutes for themselves, they light manyfires that continue to destroy the re-maining forests, with much damageevident. This is a critical issue as theremaining stands of this ancient for-est area are very small. This area is inurgent need of protection. However,with the RNP already struggling tokeep up the required standardsneeded in the areas used by tourists,areas such as Isunkaviula are very

Figure 3—TANAPA Game Ranger Jonathon Simbeye on guard duty in Ruaha. Photo by Michael Sweatman

Figure 4—Curriculum feedback session, local teachers with Friends of Ruaha Society staff, Sarah Votland andAnna Marie Malya. Photo by Michael Sweatman


antipoaching patrols along the westernboundary. Soon a temporary ranger postwill be established that will enable the rang-ers to be based closer to this unique area.

The people who live around theperipheral areas of the park are hunter-gatherers by tradition, with intimatelocal knowledge of nature handeddown from generation to generation.FORS is anxious to keep these veryvaluable skills alive. The group aimsto start by establishing a program, us-ing the Idodi Secondary School as abase for the training of guides, usingas much local “bush craft” as possible.

When walking one day with one ofour village scouts, we stopped to lis-ten to a red chested cuckoo that was

Initial research indicates that high altitude andisolation over a very long period have formed an

extremely important niche of biodiversity.

vulnerable as funds and resources arelimited.

Looking after wilderness areas is a deli-cate balancing act. It requires extremelycareful handling with low impact devel-opment, such as walking trails and remotecamping areas accessible only by foot. Al-though the Isunkaviula Plateau would bea magnificent addition to Ruaha’s alreadystunning array of wildland experiences, itwill require funding. FORS has been col-laborating with the chief park warden, Mr.MGG Mtahiko, to see how they could as-sist with protecting this very special andunique area from destruction. A start hasbeen made with the WILD Foundationand Sierra Club supporting the creationof an easier, peripheral access route for the

calling for the first time. When the birdwas finished, the scout turned to meand said, “When that bird starts to call,the village people know that the rainwill come very soon, and that it is nowtime to plant their crops.” I asked him:“How can you be so sure that the birdsare right?” The reply came swiftly,without hesitation. “They know: thesebirds talk to the rain.”

FORS’s challenge is to honor andhelp maintain these natural and hu-man-made systems in an effort to keepthe balance of Ruaha as it has alwaysbeen—using local knowledge, folk-lore, and tradition to form an integralpart of the Ruaha experience. IJW

SUE STOLBERGER is an internationallyknown artist and former chairperson of theFriends of Ruaha Society. Her home is atent inside the RNP on the banks of theGreat Ruaha River. Mail: Ruaha NationalPark, P.O. Box 369, Iringa, Tanzania.

From WILDERNESS EDUCATION on page 25

upon the manager’s ability to educatethe public on how to responsibly en-joy wilderness while understandingthe many benefits this unique resourceprovides to all people. IJW

REFERENCES:Doucette, Joseph E., and David N. Cole. 1993.

Wilderness visitor education: Informationabout alternative techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep.INT-295. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service,Intermountain Research Station.

Cole, David N. 1998. Written appeals for atten-tion to low-impact messages on wildernesstrailside bulletin boards: Experimental evalu-

ations of effectiveness. Journal of Park andRecreation Administration 16(1): 65–79

Gunderson, K., and L.H. McAvoy. 2003. Anevaluation of the wilderness and land ethiccurriculum and teacher workshops, Interna-tional Journal of Wilderness 9(1): 38–40, 35.

Hendricks, William W. 1999. Persuasive com-munication and grade level effects on be-havioral intentions within a wildernesseducation program, International Journal ofWilderness 5(2): 21–25.

Hendee, John C. and Dawson, Chad P., 2002,Wilderness Management, Third Edition:481–483, 497, 499–500

Meyer, Kristen, and Susan Thomas. 1989. Design-ing your wilderness education action plan. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

GREG HANSEN worked for 20 years inwilderness management and is retired asthe U.S. Forest Service National Leave NoTrace Outdoor Ethics program coordinator.He currently is serving as a technicalconsultant/instructor for the Arthur CarhartWilderness Training Center and as anatural resource management instructor.E-mail: [email protected].

TOM CARLSON has had 26 years inwilderness management and is the U.S.Forest Service representative to the ArthurCarhart National Wilderness TrainingCenter in Missoula, Montana. E-mail:[email protected].


Wilderness IsMore Than “Nature”

BY FRANCO ZUNINO

Editor’s note: This article provides a continuing commentary on the emergence of a “wilderness move-ment” in Europe. The author (previously published in IJW) here comments on other IJW articles, primarilyWeinzierl (2003) and Deimer Held and Hofmeister (2003). We welcome this escalating and seriousappraisal of European wildness and wilderness.


In recent years, in Italy and other countries of Europe(certainly in Switzerland and Germany), the word wil-derness has been discovered, and this may be a good

thing. Yet there is a problem of interpretation: too manypeople are speaking of wilderness as nature, and they sim-ply use this “new” American word when they previouslyused the term nature. However, this is not a correct use ofthe word wilderness because wilderness is a philosophy andconcept of preservation.

Very few know the connection of the word to the wil-derness philosophy and the wilderness concept ofpreservation. The best-informed people are saying that wil-derness areas are the very small pieces of virgin—or almostvirgin—or pristine woods of these countries. Obviously,biologically speaking, this interpretation is correct, but ithas gone astray because wilderness is not only an environ-mental subject, it is also a concept of preservation andconservation. This concept is meant to be about a largeexpanse of the environment, or land, not dissected by roadsand other human structures.

I found the articles of H. Weinzierl and of M. Diemer,M. Held, and S. Hofmeister that appeared in the IJW(December 2003) very interesting because the Europeanauthors are writing of wilderness in a country very nearmine. These authors appeared to me to make the same errorsof many Italian naturalists and protectionists by callingwilderness what was called nature until few years ago.

Also, in Roderick Nash’s (2001) book Wilderness and theAmerican Mind, I think that some of the author’s ideas aboutthe roots of the wilderness philosophy are incorrect: as withmany Italians today, he confuses the words nature andwilderness. The wilderness concept is an American idea, with

its roots in America, not inEurope, Italy, or Greece.The philosophy aboutnature is another story.Wilderness is not nature,wilderness is also nature;this is a point of confusionthat is spreading in allcentral European countries.

From what I know ofGermany, there are somesmall parcels of almost-wild or near-virgin orrewilded woods andmountains, but almost nolarge area without roads.An area of 1,000 hectares(2,470 acres) is a rarity, I think. Small, wild, wooded areasmay not be classified wilderness, and it is correct to callthem what they were called until recently: a nature reserveif protected, or wild woods if not protected.

It is important not to cause confusion or createmisinformation with the use of the words wilderness andwilderness area. If we began to call wilderness whatpreviously we called nature, we would do a disservice tothe wilderness philosophy and a worse disservice to thewilderness concept of preservation. The “forever wild” ideais the spirit of the Wilderness Act and was used byAmericans in the middle of the last century (e.g., RobertMarshall, Aldo Leopold, Howard Zahniser, Arthur Carhart,and others) as the concept for wilderness as a designationof a special area and not simply any natural area.

Article author Franco Zunino. Photo by Massimo Odella.


inspired by the U.S. Wilderness Acts.Also, in Europe, an area cannot bewilderness simply because it containspopulations of wolf, brown bear, orlynx; otherwise a large part of my over-populated and urbanized countrycould be considered wilderness.

Wilderness areas are the wildest ex-amples of nature in a cultural,ecological, and political context. Theymust meet some minimum criteria forwildness. It is difficult, therefore, toclassify many European areas as wilder-ness, especially when compared toelsewhere. In Italy we have adopted theterm wilderness area to maintain a di-rect connection to the spirit of thewilderness concept. But we are con-scious that our wilderness areas are onlysmall, and likely less-wild examples ofthe (normally much larger) wildernessareas in the United States, Australia,South Africa, and elsewhere. Therefore,it is correct to classify our wildernessareas in a different category from thoseareas protected by national legislationin the United States and elsewhere.

It is not easy to establish how largea wild area must be to be classified aswilderness, but I think that small vir-

gin or wild woods cannot be calledwilderness, if they are not enclosed inlarger areas with characters of wildcountry (valley, ravines, plateaus, orlarge areas of plain woods), where itis possible to walk for hours withoutseeing roads or other human struc-tures. So we must be very careful notto risk overuse of the term wildernessand the essence of wilderness areas.

We must remember that when AldoLeopold visited Germany he didnot accept their approach to forestmanagement, a practice that eventu-ally spread to most of the centralEuropean countries. This Germanschool of forestry regards the forestsand mountains as “fields” for the cul-tivation of trees, crossed with manysmall and large forest roads. Weinzierlwrote that “foresters, hunters, anglers,water managers and road builders allassume that the good Lord is incapableof keeping his creation in order with-out their help,” (2003, p. 5) and thisis true in almost all central Europeancountries. Since it is very hard to stew-ard a new vision of nature, we must“show more courage” for wilderness.We must hinder the current trend ofour media to speak of wildernessrather than of nature, because unlesswe obtain more knowledge about theword wilderness, we run the risk ofreducing the intrinsic and very realsense of its philosophy. Wilderness isnot only “to live and to let live”(Weinzierl, 2003, p.5), above all it isto let wild!

Biologically or environmentallyspeaking, it is correct to consider that “anumber of isolated wilderness areas ex-ist in relatively remote locationsthroughout central Europe” (Diemer,Held, and Hofmeister 2003, p. 7), but itis not correct to consider them “… syn-onymous with national parks of whichthey comprise core zones,” becausewith such a definition we negate the

Figure 1—Bric Zionia Wilderness Area (Liguria Region). One of the first wilderness areas designated by amunicipality; afterwards enlarged by an agreement with a private landowner. Photo by Franco Zunino.

Figure 2—Val di Vesta Wilderness Area, in the Alto GardaBresciano Regional Park (Lombardia Region). Designated by theRegional Forest Service. Photo by Franco Zunino.

What if we began to refer to anynational park, protected area, orenvironmental area as wilderness? Withsuch criteria, almost all the NorthAmerica is wilderness. And I think thatvery few American conservationists orpreservationists would agree to such aninterpretation of the term wilderness.

We in Italy have classified verysmall wooded parcels that we directlyobtained (about 112 hectares, or 276acres) or acquired (until now 3.5 hect-ares, or 8.6 acres) as wilderness, butthese woods are part of larger wild ar-eas without roads. It is possible toclassify these areas as wilderness ac-cording to the wilderness concept


wilderness concept. Preserving smallparcels of pristine or rewilded habitat isnot an act of wilderness preservation,but only one of biological preservation.

In Europe, the focal point for wil-derness area designation should notbe based on an environmental statesuch as pristine habitat nor on “tractsof land specifically set aside to evolvewithout human interference” (Diemer,Held, and Hofmeister 2003, p. 10),but rather on the existence of a largewild area without paved roads, forestroads, or other modern human struc-tures. The environmental state maynot be “without human interference”in a European wilderness area, becausehuman use may be include primitivemethods (by foot or horse) and use ofnatural renewable resources (e.g.,hunting wildlife).

A small wood divided up or sur-rounded by roads, even one in apristine state, cannot be designated asa wilderness area. If we adopt that cri-terion in Italy, almost all the naturereserves would be called wilderness.This designation would be incorrectbecause these nature reserves, al-though biologically preserved (nopastures, no cutting of woods), aremanaged simply as nature parks withroads, marked paths, and recreationfacilities—use that is not in the spiritof the wilderness concept. We are bat-tling to obtain formal wildernessdesignation for these nature reservesby subtracting the normal tourist useand maintaining their wildness with“forever wild” criteria.

It is absolutely absurd to postulatethat proposed urban wilderness could“complement the more remote wilder-ness areas, such as national parks andreserves throughout central Europeand elsewhere” (Diemer, Held, andHofmeister 2003, p. 11). The small“urban wildernesses” described bythe authors are a good thing, but in

Figure 3—Amici di “Scolopax” Wilderness Area, now in thePartenio Regional Park (Campania). Designated thanks to ahunters’ society. Photo by Franco Zunino.

Figure 4—Burrone di Lodisio Wilderness Area (Liguria Region). One of the Italian Wilderness Areas designated through anagreement with a private property, and afterwards enlarged with a direct purchase of land by the Italian Wilderness Society.Photo by Franco Zunino.

Europe, we risk confusing the wilder-ness philosophy and criteria of what awilderness area must be with a largeexpanse of continuous natural environ-ment. The spirit of the U.S. WildernessAct and the Eastern Wilderness Actteaches that is the philosophical pathwe must follow in Italy. If national parksand other reserves are to declare wil-derness areas within their boundaries,the area must have an official desig-nation by the authorities that manageit. Otherwise, it cannot be a wildernessarea, because a de facto wilderness isnot a wilderness preserved by a law,decree, or formal act that designatesand protects it through managementdirection.

This type of designation that I firstheard at the 3rd World Wilderness Con-gress, in Findhorn, Scotland, in 1983,is one we have used in Italy over the last

15 years to obtain the designation of 36wilderness areas for a total of about28,000 hectares (69,200 acres). Of thesewilderness areas, three are in nationalparks (one established by the nationalparks authority itself, and the other twoby a commune), and seven are in re-gional parks but designated by

Too many people are speaking of wilderness asnature, and they simply use this “new” Americanword when they previously used the term nature.

Continued on page 20


IntroductionNational parks are rela-tively new in the system ofRussian nature reserves;the first two were createdin 1983. The primary func-tions of national parks(managed by the FederalForest Service) are to pro-tect and restore natural andcultural heritage, maintainpublic access to lands forrecreation, educate thepublic on environmentaland conservation issues,foster conservation science

for the protection of nature and culture, and carry out eco-logical monitoring (Colwell et al. 1997).

The location of this study, Vodlozhersky National Park(VNP), lies within eastern Karelia (Pudozh District) andthe western part of the Arkhangelsk region (Onega Dis-trict) to the north. Established in 1991, VNP comprises467,000 hectares (188,992 acres) (Antipin and Tokarev

n.d.), and lies on a mire plain containing a number ofpaleovolcanic and rift formations. Its climate is of the bo-real-temperate-continental type (Danilov-Daniljan 1995),in which precipitation exceeds evaporation, favoring for-mation of mires.

The park’s forest complex, part of the northern-middleEuropean taiga, is almost 10 times larger than other Euro-pean sites of this type, and may be one of the world’s largest.VNP’s forests are within the virgin basin of the Ileksa Riverand Vodlero Lake. About 96% of the park’s area consists ofclimax ecosystems. As of 1996, 90% of VNP’s territory wasuntouched by commercial logging or other human activi-ties (Danilov-Daniljan 1995).

Typical taiga coniferous forest occupies the middle por-tion of VNP, composed of spruce forests (54%) and pineforests (44%), with secondary growth of birch and aspenforests (2%). Within a natural succession stimulated by firesand windfalls, the park’s trees range in age from 200 to 280years; some dated samples are 500 to 600 years old.

Mires constitute the second major ecosystem in VNP,making up about 200,000 hectares (80,939 acres) and 41%of its area. Most mires in the park form complex systems of5,000 hectares (2,024 acres) each (Antipin and Tokarev n.d.).According to Danilov-Daniljan (1995), the Vodlozhero mirecomplex in the south of the park “has no equal in Europe[for] its size and state of preservation.” These mires providevery large reserves of berry-producing species such as cran-berry (Vaccinium oxycoccus) and cloudberry (Rubuschamaemorus). Most of VNP’s mires are of the raised, transi-tional type. In the Ileksa River basin, oligotrophic sphagnummoss and pine-undershrub mires occupy about 20% to 30%of the area. Over such a large tract, a great number of transi-tional mires are found in the park, and for that reasonDanilov-Daniljan (1995) stated that they could be considered


Plant Community Monitoring inVodlozhersky National Park,

Karelia, RussiaBY RALPH DUNMORE

Article author Ralph Dunmore.

The park’s forest complex, part of thenorthern-middle European taiga, isalmost 10 times larger than other

European sites of this type, and may beone of the world’s largest.


“a standard of a kind.” Reflecting twomajor mire floristic provinces, VNP’slocal mires are significant for their veryhigh flora diversity and complex eco-logical structure.

VNP lies within the northwest sectionof Russia’s taiga forests. These forestedreaches are composed primarily of pine,spruce, fir, cedar, larch, birch, and aspen.The Republic of Karelia is heavily forested(about 70% of its area is covered by pineand fir) and is a major supplier of woodand wood products. In addition, this re-gion has many complex mires. Kuznetsov(n.d.) reports 283 plant species occurringin Karelian mires, 22% of which are re-garded as rare in some parts, or all, of therepublic.

Occupying a low plateau, Kareliahas many rivers and lakes, includingEurope’s two largest lakes, Ladoga andOnega. Geologically, Karelia lies withinthe eastern part of the Baltic Shield(Elina and Filimonova 1996), and be-cause of glaciations, about two-thirdsof the republic’s territory is a flat mire/morainal plain; the remaining area haswater-glacial forms: lakes, outwashplains, and lake terraces. The regionhas long, snowy, severe winters andshort summers. Inland waters are icedover for more than half of each year

Russian scientists have begun design-ing a coordinated system for monitoringbiological diversity in their country(Blagovidov et al. 1995). Thus, the Eco-logical Centre of VNP and the KarelianResearch Centre of the Russian Acad-emy of Science have initiated ecologicalstudies to establish a scientific basis forthe management, conservation, andpreservation of plant communitieswithin VNP. As part of my doctoral in-ternship in natural history, I joined withRussian scientific colleagues for the es-tablishment of plant communitymonitoring sites in one section of VNP.The goals of this article are to: (1) reportsome representative results of these plant

surveys, (2) focus attention on theunique opportunities for ecological re-search in the Ileksa area of VNP, and (3)invite hemispheric collaboration and de-velopment of scientific, conservation,and educational efforts within VNP.

Field MethodsA permanent camp, on the east bankof the Ileksa River (see Figure 1), ap-proximately 75 meters (69 yards)south of its confluence with theNovguda River, was a base for the fieldstudies conducted mid-August

through early September 1996. Thesesurveys constitute a baseline for fur-ther monitoring of the sites at five-yearintervals.

One representative circular plot(201 square meters, 240 square yards)was chosen a priori in each of fournearby plant communities: maturepine, mature pine-spruce, forest-mireboundary, and mire. Structural classesfor tree species included seedlings,saplings, small trees, and large trees.Data taken at each plot for live treesincluded species, number of live stems

Table 1. Importance Values for Live Trees inFour Community Types at the Ileksa Site, 1996.

Species

Site Pinus Picea abies (L.) Betula pendula Salix spp.sylvestris L. Karst Roth

Community Small Large Small Large Small Large Small Largetrees trees trees trees trees trees trees trees

Mature pine — 75.0 — — — — — —

Maturepine-spruce — 67.1 91.2 28.7 13.7 — 7.7 —

Forest-mireboundary 60.9 91.7 16.0 — 23.1 — — —

Mire 91.7 79.2 — — — — — —

Figure 1—Norway spruces above silver birches along the Ileksa River. Photo by Ralph Dunmore.


(all four structural classes), azimuthreading, and estimates of height andcrown cover. Importance Values (IV)were computed as relative density plusrelative frequency plus relative basalarea divided by 3.

For shrubs, herbaceons plants, andmosses, data were collected from eight40-square centimeter, (258-squareinch) subplots within each plot, andincluded species and estimates of per-cent cover. IVs were calculated asrelative cover plus relative frequencydivided by 2.

Betula verricosa occurred together asthe only tree species in the two ma-ture-tree communities (pine andpine-spruce), primarily in the small-tree class, with P. abies attaining thehighest IV values. Populus tremula oc-curred only as small trees in the moist,mature pine-spruce forest, and thewetter forest-mire boundary commu-nity. All four tree species occurredtogether in only one community type,the mature pine-spruce forest, with P.abies alone found in both tree size

saplings, and 22-fold for seedlings.Within the mature pine community (thedriest community), only P. sylvestris (ofthe two potential canopy-dominant spe-cies) had any regeneration, and only aslarge trees (see Table 2).

Overall, P. sylvestris regenerated inall four classes in the two wettest com-munities (forest-mire boundary andmire), but only as large trees in the twoless moist communities (mature pineand mature pine-spruce). P. abies, how-ever, showed no regeneration in thedriest site (mature pine community)and only as large trees in the nextmoistest community (mature pine-spruce). It attained regeneration assmall trees, saplings, and seedlings inthe wet forest-mire boundary commu-nity, but no regeneration in the wettest(mire) community.

Seedling regeneration occurredonly in the forest-mire community andmire community (see Table 2). Bothpotential dominant-canopy speciesproduced seedlings; stems/hectare forP. sylvestris exceeded that of P. abies inthe forest-mire community by a fac-tor of 1.8. Only P. sylvestris producedseedling regeneration in the mire com-munity. The IV for P. sylvestrisexceeded that of P. abies in the forest-mire community.

IVs for Vaccinium vitis-idaea werehighest among all 11 species (nineshrubs and two herbaceous plants) inthe mature pine, mature pine-spruce,and forest-mire boundary communi-ties. In the mire community,Chamaedaphne calyculata attained thehighest IV. Overall, the three highestIVs among all communities were re-corded in the mature pine andpine-spruce forests (V. vitis-idaea [2]and Calluna vulgaris [1]). Only V. vitis-idaea and V. myrtilis occurred in all fourcommunities. The fourth highest IVwas noted for C. calyculata in the mirecommunity.

Table 2. Regeneration (stems per ha.) ofDominant Canopy Potential Tree Species in theFour Community Types at the Ileksa Site, 1996.

Small LargeCommunity Type Species Seedlings Saplings trees trees

Mature pine Pinus sylvestris L. — — — 2,188

Picea abies (L.)Karst — — — —

Mature pine-spruce Pinus sylvestris — — — 1,194

Picea abies — 199 2,586 796

Forest-mire Pinus sylvestris 796 2,586 1,592 1,393

Picea abies 398 398 398 —

Mire Pinus sylvestris 8,754 1,990 1,592 398

Picea abies — — — —

Vodlozhersky is a wondrous postglacial landscapeof extensive wetlands and old-growth forests.

ResultsAmong the two potential canopy treespecies, Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies,only P. sylvestris occurred in all fourcommunity types, as large trees (seeTable 1). Highest IVs, both for small-tree and large-tree classes, also wereattained by P. sylvestris. This speciesoccurred only as small trees in thewettest community types (forest-mireboundary and mire). Picea abies and

classes. P. abies also had the highest IVin that community.

In large-tree regeneration (see Table2), the highest value (stems/hectare[2.47 acres]) attained by P. sylvestris sur-passed the highest of P. abies by 2.8-fold.However, for small trees, the greatestregeneration of P. abies exceeded thehighest of P. sylvestris by a factor of 1.6.Similarly, regeneration of P. sylvestris ex-ceeded that of P. abies by 6.5-fold for

boundary


A total of 13 other plant species (oneeach of sedge, lichen, and lycopodium,and 10 sphagnum mosses) was countedin the four communities. Species diver-sity was highest (S = 10) in the secondwettest community (forest-mire bound-ary), and lowest (S = 4) in the driestcommunity (mature pine).

DiscussionVNP’s Ileksa locality offers unique op-portunities for long-term ecologicalinquiries into the complex of interact-ing abiotic factors (soil type, geologicalformation, water table and flow, light,and available nutrients) and naturaldisturbances (fire, windthrow) andhow they affect plant ecology (speciescomposition, regeneration, and re-placement within and betweencommunities) in a large taiga ecosys-tem with minimal effects from historichuman activities (logging, mining,water pollution, soil disturbance,roads, pipelines, and settlements).

Some of our planet’s largest unbro-ken tracts of wilderness lie withinRussia’s 14 principal bioregions(Dinerstein et al. 1994; Blagovidov etal. 1995; Martynov et al. 1995). Eventhough Russia itself is the world’sgreatest region of temperate and bo-real biological diversity (Colwell et al.1997), that country’s nature reservesface threats of degradation from theever-changing face of Russian econom-ics—as evidenced by developingmarkets—which exploit its naturalresources (Colwell et al.). Concurrentwith Russia’s financial woes, thatcountry’s governmental support forconservation has faltered, with sharplyreduced funding for the protection ofbiological diversity (Simonov andStepanitsky 1995).

In the face of these challenges to re-source conservation, the establishmentof VNP in 1991 represented much-needed protection of a large, relatively

“untouched” tract in northwestern Rus-sia. Yet, even though 50% to 100% oflands within any Russian national parkmay be designated as a reserve for rec-reational, educational, and scientificactivities, remaining lands are open toresource exploitation. Thus, severalyears after formation of VNP, Danilov-Daniljan (1995) was concerned that theRussian timber industry continued touse areas adjacent to the park for log-ging, and had proposed to build a roadfor timber transport through the park’scenter. In addition, open mines andfacilities for ore processing wereplanned for construction near VNP’sborders.

In September 2001 VNP became thefirst Russian national park designated asa UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, as ap-proved by the Bureau of theInternational Coordinating Council ofthat organization’s Man and the Bio-sphere Programme. VNP is now the coreof the 862,360-hectare (348,992-acre)biosphere reserve of the same name. This

reserve is primarily a boreal forest eco-system, containing some of the lastremaining uncut pine-spruce forests inEurope (Zeljadt 2001). Realizing the im-portance of integrating local peopleswith their economies, Vodlozhersky Bio-sphere Reserve will focus, among otherefforts, on monitoring fish populationsand reviving traditional forms of forestagriculture,including the cultivation andharvesting of native berry species suchas cranberry and cloudberry.

Vodlozhersky’s new title is indicativeof its precious floral, ecological, and geo-logical status. Its new status is a clearinvitation to European and NorthAmerican scientists, especially botanists,ecologists, land managers, conservationbiologists, and teachers, to join theirRussian colleagues in long-term studiesof a near-pristine complex ecosystem, ina national park that is really a test caseto see how Russian national parks willfare as biosphere reserves (Gräbener2001). As Colwell et al. (1997) point out,an effective reserve system needs to be

Figure 2—Vodlozhersky National Park scientists conducting a mire survey. Left to right: Pavel Tokarev, Nikolai Balykov, andVladimir Antipin. Photo by Ralph Dunmore.

Some of our planet’s largest unbroken tracts ofwilderness lie within Russia’s 14 principal bioregions.


able to maintain ecosystem processes,such as hydrological cycles, nutrientcycling, predator-prey interactions,and natural disturbance regimes.

Vodlozhersky is a wondrous post-glacial landscape of extensivewetlands and old-growth forests,moose (Alces alces) and wolf (Canislupus), capercaille (Tetrao urogallus)and the elusive great gray owl (Strixnebulosa), giant ant mounds andstunted poplars, summer whitenights and shimmering Aurora bo-realis. Its long-term success as a vitalpart of the Russian reserve systemcan be assured by active collabora-tions among scientists, students,land managers, and conservationteachers from both Russia and otherparts of the West.

AcknowledgmentsI extend thanks and gratitude to myRussian friends and colleaguesVladimir Antipin, Pavel Tokarev, andNikolai Balykov. For collaboration withthe staff of VNP/Biosphere Reserve,

interested scientists are urged to con-tact Dr. Vladimir Antipin, KarelianResearch Centre, Russian Academy ofSciences, Institute of Biology (e-mail:[email protected]). Visits andexchanges of conservation students,managers, and teachers can be facili-tated by Pocono EnvironmentalEducation Center (e-mail: [email protected])and Margaret Williams (editor), Rus-sian Conservation News (e-mail:[email protected]). IJW

REFERENCESAntipin, V., and P. Tokarev. N. d. Mire ecosys-

tems of the Vodlozhersky National Park,northern Russia. Petrozavodsk: RussianAcademy of Sciences.

Blagovidov, A., I. Chebakova, and M. Williams.1995. Priorities for investment: Action planfor protected area system of Russia. Mos-cow: The World Bank.

Colwell, M. A., A. V. Dubynin, A. Y. Korolink,and N. A. Sobolev. 1997. Russian naturereserves and conservation of biological di-versity. Natural Areas Journal 17(1): 56–68.

Danilov-Daniljan, V. I. 1995. Nomination ofVodlozhersky National Park for inclusion inthe World Heritage List. Moscow.

Dinerstein, E., V. Krever, D. M. Olson, and L.Williams. 1994. An emergency strategy to

rescue Russia’s biological diversity. Conser-vation Biology 8:934–39.

Elina, G. A., and L. V. Filimonova. 1996. Rus-sian Karelia. In Paleological events duringthe past 15,000 years (regional synthesesof paleological studies of lakes and mires inEurope), ed. B. E. Berglund, H. J. B. Birks,M. Ralska-Jasiewiczowa and H.E. Wright,353–66. New York: Wiley.

Gräbener, U. 2001. A personal appraisal ofthe implementation of the Seville strategy inRussia. Russian Conservation News 27:15.

Kuznetsov, O. N.d. Rare and protected vascu-lar plants of the flora of mires in easternFennoscandia. Petrozavodsk. Russian Acad-emy of Sciences.

Martynov, A. S., V. V. Artyjkhov, Yu. A. Bobov,S. N. Bobylev, E. N. Bukvareva, R. O.Butovsky, N. B. Chelintsev, V. E. Flint, I. E.Kamennove, Yu. G. Puzachenko, and T. O.Yanitskaya. 1995. Analysis of social andeconomic factors influencing the biodiversityof Russia. Moscow: PAIMS Publishing House.

Simonov, E., and V. Stepanitsky. 1995. Leadersof Russia’s protected areas take desperatemeasures in a desperate situation. RussianConservation News 2:3.

Zeljadt, E. 2001. New biosphere reservesestablished in northern Eurasia. RussianConservation News 7:41.

Dr. RALPH DUNMORE is an enthusiasticnaturalist and gardener who can be contactedby e-mail at [email protected].

Eroding hoodoos and their remnants in the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness (Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico).Photo by Chris Barns.


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

Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Largest Amount ofWilderness EverDesignated in NevadaOn November 30, 2004, PresidentGeorge W. Bush signed the LincolnCounty Conservation, Recreation,and Development Act of 2004.Supported by the state’s entirecongressional delegation, the actdesignates 14 new wilderness areastotaling 768,294 acres (311,050 ha)in eastern Nevada’s Lincoln County.The areas range in size from 5,371 to157,938 acres (2,174 to 63,942 ha).The final legislation contained severalprovisions that conservationistsopposed—including grants of rights-of-way for utility and water pipelinecorridors and shortcuts for effectiveenvironmental review. Importantareas were also left unprotected,including the Pahranagat Range, arugged and scenic mountain rangejust an hour and a half north of LasVegas that contains a stunning arrayof petroglyphs and other culturalresources. Nonetheless, the actrepresents the largest singlewilderness designation in the state’shistory and one of the largest suchcongressional actions in the lastdecade.

IJW Solicits Nominationsfor Stewardship Award

The IJW solicits nominations for the Keith Corrigal Excellence in

Wilderness Stewardship award to honor persons whose efforts to

protect and manage wilderness are worthy of special recognition.

The award honors the late Keith Corrigall, who was wilderness

branch chief for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) during its

wilderness program’s formative years, from the mid-1980s to the

mid-1990s. Keith was a strong leader and advocate for wilderness

education, protection of wilderness and wilderness study areas, low

impact use of all public lands, and wilderness skills training. His

influence extended beyond BLM to all the wilderness agencies, uni-

versities, and environmental organizations. Keith’s quiet

determination, passion, and high standards for wilderness and all

resource management provided leadership and mentoring to all his

colleagues and cooperators. Rarely outspoken, he set an outstand-

ing example of dependability, vision, and professionalism that

charted direction and fostered cooperation. The Keith Corrigal Award

for Excellence in Wilderness Stewardship is given annually to an in-

dividual or team of persons whose efforts to protect and/or steward

wilderness is worthy of special recognition. Nominees may be pro-

fessionals or citizens involved in wilderness work. Nominations are

solicited until August 30 each year for the annual award. To submit a

nomination, send a 500-word statement and a second supporting let-

ter to Steve Hollenhorst, IJW Digest editor, IJW Corrigal Award (e-mail:

[email protected]), describing why the award is deserved, with

complete postal, e-mail, and telephone contact information for the

nominee(s) and the person(s) making the nomination.


New WisconsinWilderness HonorsGaylord NelsonThe Gaylord A. Nelson ApostleIslands National LakeshoreWilderness permanently protects33,500 acres (13,562 ha) of wildlandon the waters of Lake Superior.Known as the ancestral home of theOjibwe people, the Apostle Islandsinclude remarkable cliff formations,sea caves, and some of the mostpristine sand landscapes remaining inthe Great Lakes region. Wildernesspermanently protects 80% of the 21forested islands that form the ApostleIslands archipelago and 12 miles ofpristine shoreline located on LakeSuperior’s southern shore in north-western Wisconsin. Broad bipartisansupport from both Republican andDemocratic parties, local municipalitiesand unprecedented public supportensured that the process moved quickly.Over the last few years visitors to theislands (including sailors, hikers,campers, kayakers, and sightseers of thehistorical lighthouses) have numbered170,000 to 186,000. The founder ofEarth Day, Gaylord Nelson is the elderstatesman of the environmentalmovement and a long-time leader of thewilderness movement. The ApostleIslands wilderness designation is afitting testament honoring thecontinuing conservation legacy of thisformer U.S. senator and governor fromWisconsin.

Funding forNorthwest TerritoriesProtected Areas StrategyThe Canadian federal governmentannounced $9 million of fundingover five years to protect importantecological and cultural lands in theMackenzie Valley of the NorthwestTerritories (NWT) through the NWTProtected Areas Strategy (PAS).

Funding has also been committedby environmental groups, theCanadian Parks and WildernessSociety and its partners, WorldWildlife Fund Canada, DucksUnlimited Canada, and the govern-ment of the Northwest Territories.Together this funding will allowimplementation of the PAS in theMackenzie Valley to take place aheadof proposed industrial developmentssuch as the Mackenzie ValleyPipeline. The NWT Protected AreasStrategy is a partnership thatincludes eight aboriginal organi-zations in the NWT, the territorialand federal governments, northern-based environmental organizations,and representatives from the oil, gas,and mining industries. The PASallows communities to protect areasthat are important for culture andwildlife in order to balance economicdevelopment with the protection ofthe land for future generations. Afive-year Action Plan has beendeveloped by the PAS partners toachieve these goals in the MackenzieValley. The funding will allow for theimplementation of the plan beforeconservation opportunities are lostthrough industrial development. Formore information on the PAS, visitthe Canadian Parks and WildernessSociety at http://www.cpaws.org/.

World Database onProtected AreasThe 2005 version of the WorldDatabase on Protected Areas (WDPA)was released at the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources (IUCN) inBangkok, Thailand, on theNovember 18, 2004. The WDPAprovides the most comprehensivedataset on protected areas worldwideand is managed by United NationsEnvironment Programme Wilderness

Conservation Monitoring Centre inpartnership with the IUCN WorldCommission on Protected Areas andthe World Database on ProtectedAreas Consortium. The WDPA is afully relational database containinginformation on the status, environ-ment, and management ofindividual protected areas. TheWDPA allows for protected areasearches by site name, country, andinternational program or conven-tion. Statistical information relatingto WDPA datasets is also available,in addition to information on thedefinitions and categorization ofprotected areas worldwide. TheWDPA can be downloaded at http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/wdbpa/.

New Protected AreaConservation Awards forYoung ConservationistsThe IUCN World Commission onProtected Areas (WCPA) announcestwo new awards for young peopleworking in protected area andbiodiversity related conservation. Thefirst award is made available throughWCPA and the Consortium forInternational Protected AreaManagement (CIPAM) and will givetwo training scholarships to youngprofessionals in protected areas eachyear. The second, an annual award foryoung conservation leaders, will beoffered jointly by WCPA and theInternational Rangers Federation(IRF). Awardees for the joint WCPA-CIPAM prize will be selected based ona global essay competition and takepart in international protected areatraining seminars organized byCIPAM. For the joint WCPA-IRFaward, a call for nominations will beposted on both the IRF and WCPAwebsites in the near future. “It is abouttime that young people’s efforts in thisfield are recognized,” said David Zeller,


president of the International RangersFederation. For more information onthe awards, visit the WCPA website athttp://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/.

Vietnam DesignatesNew Marine ReserveMore than 160 coral reefs off the coastof the Vietnamese province QuangNam, harboring more than 200 fish,coral, and reptile species, are nowprotected. The new Cu Lao ChamMarine Reserve, set up with assistancefrom the government of Denmark, isthe second Marine Protected Area(MPA) in Vietnam. The reserve protectsan important part of Vietnam’s marinebiodiversity and is a critical element inefforts to reestablish a healthy fisheryand preserve coral reefs and pristineturquoise water for sustainable tourism.The establishment of Cu Lao Cham alsomarks a positive trend, as Vietnamplans to establish a total of 15 MPAs inthe future. A collaborative managementmodel will be implemented at the CuLao Cham Marine Reserve in whichlocal communities are involved in thepark management, the park contributesto their income, and tourism activitiesare developed in accordance with thepark’s management plan. For moreinformation, visit http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/vietnamese-MPA.pdf.

Once the Iron Curtain,Now the EuropeanGreen BeltAt a meeting of European con-servationists at Fert-Hanság NationalPark, the European Green Belt Projectwas recently launched to create asingle ecological corridor out of the“rubble” of the former Iron Curtain.It is hoped that the Green Belt willbecome an icon for nature conservationand sustainable development inEurope. Experts from the 22

countries that border the Green Beltagreed that this project has animportant role to play in the futureof trans-boundary cooperation. TheIron Curtain, a political, ideologicaland physical barrier that separatedEurope for more than 40 years,created a forbidden zone to peoplealong its entire length. Elsewherelandscapes were being shaped andmodified by intensive agriculturaland development processes, buthabitats within the forbidden zonewere given a 40-year breath of life.Thus, many of Europe’s importanthabitats and ecosystems fall along theroute of the former Iron Curtain. Forfurther information, see www.greenbelteurope.org and www.iucn.org.

Assessing Protected AreaManagement EffectivenessMeasuring the success of protectedareas in meeting their plannedgoals can involve a significant

amount of f ieldwork and datacol lec t ion—a chal lenge forresource-strapped managers. Newscorecards, produced by the WorldBank, provides a simple, site-leveltool to he lp managers andstakeholders assess their protectedareas without additional field levelresearch. A version for marineprotected areas is available onlineat http://www.mpascorecard.net. Aterrestrial version can be found atwww.panda.org/downloads/forests/Summary_final.pdf. The scorecardsare not intended to replace morethorough methods of assessment.Rather, they provide managers withan overview of the progress of theirmanagement efforts and illustrategaps in management that should beaddressed. The scorecards aredesigned to be filled in by managersor other site staff, and are adaptableto site and regional needs.

IJW First 10 Yearson CD

A new CD due out in the summer of 2005 will feature the first 10

years of IJW, including all 30 issues complete with front covers,

tables of contents, and 48 pages of content. The CD will be

packaged as an interactive Adobe Acrobat version that is readable

and searchable and with standard security to prevent copying of

text and figures. The CD will be available for both Macintosh and

IBM-type personal computers. The CD is meant to offer a complete

set of IJW issues through 2004 for new subscribers, teachers,

managers, advocates, and libraries without a complete set, as back

issues are not available for most older issues. The new product

will be for sale in a color cardstock CD sleeve and available through

Fulcrum Publishing. Order information will be available in the

August 2005 issue of IJW.


The Enduring Wilderness:Protecting Our NaturalHeritage through theWilderness Actby Doug Scott. 2004. FulcrumPublishing, Golden, CO. 200 pp.,$12.95 (paper).

This book, as part of the Speaker’sCorner book series recently intro-duced by Fulcrum Publishing, isdesigned to stimulate, educate, andfoster discussion on significant publicpolicy issues in the United States.Doug Scott, long-time wilderness ad-vocate and currently the policy directorfor the Campaign for America’s Wil-derness, takes this opportunity to offeran illuminating history of the passingof the Wilderness Act, highlight itsramifications and significance, andprovide a clarion call for grassrootsadvocates to continue to create newwilderness areas in the United States.

The historical component of thebook provides an excellent overviewof the battle to pass the Wilderness Actin 1964. Scott emphasizes that con-cern over the impermanence ofexisting wilderness designations led tothe Wilderness Society’s attempt tocreate the Wilderness Act. Scott alsofocuses on the unforeseen impacts ofRepresentative Wayne Aspinall’s insis-tence that only Congress could addany new wilderness areas to the wil-derness system. Although initially seenas a major blow to the legislation, wil-derness advocates soon realized thatCongress was often far more willingto create designated wilderness thanland management agencies. Moreover,

“however sincere the promises of pro-tection in administration orders andplans [in agencies] may be, anythingless than statutory protection is tem-porary at best and illusory to boot”(107). Finally, the act hastened theformation of a grassroots, decentral-ized wilderness movement, includingpeople like Doug Scott.

Scott also provides an interestingdiscussion of the current political cli-mate in the United States regardingwilderness designation, noting that thecurrent administration is attemptingto bypass or weaken the permanenceof wilderness designation promised bythe Wilderness Act. Scott is a strongsupporter of compromise over dog-matic advocacy, and believes thewilderness movement, although hav-ing broad public support, “mustidentify, persuade and enlist new con-stituents for wilderness” (122). Heprefers the term wilderness stewardshipto wilderness management, as he feelsit better reflects the Wilderness Act’smention of nonhuman influences.

A strength of the book is its use ofnumerous, well-selected sidebarquotes, although there are several in-stances of repeated quotes in the text,and the lack of an index is unfortu-nate. In sum, however, Doug Scottprovides a wonderful, deeply personalview of where the wilderness move-ment came from, reminds us of thecontinuing significance and ramifica-tions of the Wilderness Act, reviewsthe current political challenges facingthe wilderness movement, and high-lights the need for more advocates tocontinue this long battle. The Endur-

Book Reviews

WILDERNESS DIGEST

ing Wilderness succeeds magnificentlyin stimulating readers’ awareness ofthese issues, and assures us of the needto keep fighting for additional desig-nations of wilderness in the UnitedStates. As seven of eight acres of wil-derness on federal lands are de factowilderness rather than designated wil-derness, advocates are keenly neededto ensure that agencies give a fair, thor-ough evaluation of public lands forwilderness designation.

Review by JOHN SHULTISIJW Book Editor

Wildland Recreation Policy:An Introduction, 2nd ed.by J. Douglas Wellman and Dennis B.Propst. 2004. Krieger Publishing,Malabar, FL. 374 pp., $49.50 (paper).

The American wildland and wilder-ness estate had its roots in the earlyland use policies and philosophies ofutilitarian conservation and the ro-mantic notions of preservation andnature appreciation. The interest inprotecting wildlands and natural land-scapes has created a complex systemof policies and institutions, with man-agement responsibilities from publiclyowned urban lands to remote wilder-ness areas.

The authors build a 140-year his-torical policy review by focusing on thephilosophical roots of policy, its formu-lation, implementation, and themanagement of wildlands. How wild-land resources came to be central to theprovision of public recreation is illus-trated through a brief review of the


institutional origins of the U.S. ForestService (USFS) and National Park Ser-vice (NPS). The chronology is selectiveto provide a broad overview of thepeople and events that shaped the in-stitutions and policies of wildlandrecreation. The chapters find a goodbalance of efficiently outlining the his-toric milestones to bring life and interestto the topic without tediously trying torecapitulate too much of the complexhistory of the debate and issues.

The themes of (1) balancing pres-ervation versus use and economicdevelopment and (2) competition be-tween the USFS and NPS lead thereader through the early conflicts thatled to U.S. wilderness policies andlegislation. Urban national parks andurban forestry programs led to theformulation of wildland recreationpolicy within urban landscapes andenvironments.

The chapter on origins and formu-lation of policy leads to two chapterson the implementation of the policiesand the difficult issues of allocationand management of wildland re-sources. The current issues, conflicts,and management dilemmas are moreunderstandable given the backgroundprovided. The multiple dilemmas ofbalancing preservation versus use, rec-onciling very changeable and diversepublic interests and providing publicbenefits, are brought into focus. Theimplication for managers today is thatthey must understand how we arrivedat the current challenges if they are tointegrate the origin and evolution ofpolicy into contemporary decisionmaking.

Wildland Recreation Policy workson two levels: (1) as a case study ofthe policy process from philosophi-cal origins to formulation andimplementation; and (2) as an over-view of the social and political forcesthat shaped the wildland resource

and its management for recreation.My only concern about the book isthat a reader could arrive at the mis-taken impression that wilderness ispredominantly a place for recreation,when that is but one of numerous val-ues of wilderness as defined inwilderness legislation. Overall, theauthors succeed in providing an in-troductory text suitable for students,managers, policy makers, and wild-land users studying how the policyprocesses affect wildland manage-ment issues today.

This is a well-organized book thatgives examples of how recreation plan-ners and managers have had aprofound and pivotal role in the policyprocess. Chapter 11 focuses on therealities of policy implementationthrough specific examples of the dy-namic nature of a manager’s job insituations that have no easy or singlesolutions. The authors show how over-all policy affects specific decisions inwildland resource and recreation man-agement, and this approach is effectivein this second edition of a very read-able book.

Review by CHAD DAWSON,IJW Managing Editor

Wildlife Tourism: Impacts,Management and Planningedited by Karen Higginbottom. 2004.Cooperative Research Centre forSustainable Tourism, Griffith University,Gold Coast MC, Australia. 277 pp.$89.95 AUS.

Wildlife tourism (WT) is a rapidlygrowing sector of the nature tourismindustry, and it is already a strong con-tributor to many local and nationaleconomies. In the first chapter of Wild-life Tourism, WT is defined as “tourismbased on encounters with non-domes-ticated (non-human) animals” (2).

This broad definition leaves the indi-vidual authors of each chapter thefreedom to discuss various issues re-garding WT, ranging from zootourism, to hunting and fishing, tononconsumptive recreation in wilder-ness. Through this variety, the readeracquires a deeper understanding of theimmense and international signifi-cance of the WT industry.

Wildlife Tourism provides informa-tion on (1) the history and scope ofactivities related to WT, (2) the envi-ronmental impacts of WT, and (3) sus-tainable management frameworks andbusiness plans for the future. This di-vision and presentation of the mate-rial is logical and clear, even for thosewho have little background in thisfield. The first two sections of the bookdiscuss definitions and types of WT,followed by their positive and nega-tive impacts on communities, species,habitats, and economies. The secondsection is by far the book’s best, pre-senting information in a clear andcomprehensive manner that shouldinterest people of all levels of exper-tise and interest. The last section ofthe book—managing and planningwildlife tourism—is perhaps the mostdifficult, as it does not flow assmoothly as it could from the previ-ous sections. When reading this com-ponent, I became confused about thedesired audience for Wildlife Tourism;there is much discussion of markets,business plans, and a brief how-to sec-tion for starting a WT operation.Given the subtitle, I anticipated thissection would outline the currentmanagement problems and offermanagement solutions that wouldensure the sustainability of the indus-try. To be fair, these issues are brieflyaddressed in chapter 11 (“ManagingImpacts of WT on Wildlife”). Here, auseful general management frame-work (213) is presented and further


broken down into suggestions ad-dressing specific management goals(218–19). These few pages are likelythe most valuable in Wildlife Tour-ism. Readers interested in additionalinformation on planning and man-aging WT may wish to read MichaelManfredo’s (2002) excellent book,Wildlife Viewing: A ManagementHandbook, from Oregon State Uni-versity Press.

Each chapter in Wildlife Tourismcontains several boxes highlightingcase studies and references to currentliterature that support the specific is-sue being addressed. These areextremely useful for understanding theconcepts and providing examples ofvarious management approaches,which are discussed on an interna-tional scale. In sum, Wildlife Tourismis a very good introduction to this

increasingly important field, contain-ing many relevant and educationalinternational examples of this formof tourism, both successful and un-successful.

Review by SARAH ELMELIGI, master’s

candidate in the Resource Recreation and

Tourism Program at the University of

Northern British Columbia, Prince George,

BC, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

Salmon Glacier along the Alaska/Canada border in the Misty Fjords National Monument Wilderness (U.S. Forest Service, Alaska). Photo by Lynn Kolund.

international journal of wilderness, vol 11 no 1 april 2005

Documents