International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 09 No 2, August 2003

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESThe Politics of WildernessMoving to UseBY JOHN SHULTIS

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSSupport Is Building for Global WildernessConservationBY CYRIL KORMOS and VANCE G. MARTIN

STEWARDSHIPThe Wilderness Simulation ModelA Historical PerspectiveBY JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK

Chief’s Excellence in Wilderness StewardshipResearch Award

The Soul of Environmental ActivistsBY BARBARA McDONALD

Celebrating a Decade of ServiceThe Arthur Carhart National WildernessTraining CenterBY CONNIE G. MYERS

Bill Worf Wins 2003 Corrigall WildernessStewardship Award

On Writing Wilderness EthicsSome Further Musings on the “Spirit Of Wildness”BY LAURA WATERMAN

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHIs the Public Viewpoint of Wilderness Shifting?BY H. KEN CORDELL, MICHAEL A. TARRANT, andGARY T. GREEN

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTENatural Fire Regimes in WildernessBY CAROL MILLER

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

Journal of WildernessAUGUST 2003 VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2

3

4

14

FRONT COVER image of a sunset over the wilderness area on Lake St. Lucia,South Africa. Photo courtesy of Ulf Doerner. INSET PHOTO of a Zulu woman creatingmats out of sustainably harvested grass, St. Lucia area, South Africa. Photocourtesy of Vance G. Martin.

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATIONAn Evaluation of Appalachian Trail Hikers’ Knowledgeof Minimum Impact Skills and PracticesBY PETER NEWMAN, ROBERT MANNING, JIM BACON,ALAN GRAEFE and GERARD KYLE

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVESBill Bainbridge of South Africa Receives HonoryDoctorate for Wilderness WorkBY DRUMMOND DENSHAM

WILDERNESS DIGESTANNOUNCEMENTS AND WILDERNESS CALENDAR

LETTERS TO THE EDITORResponse to “Don’t Blame Science”BY JAMES GLOVER

BOOK REVIEWSNatural Area Tourism: Ecology, Impacts and Management

By David Newsome, Susan A. Moore, andRoss K. DowlingREVIEW BY SANJAY K. NEPAL

Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelinesfor Planning and Managementby Paul Eagles, Stephen McCool, and ChristopherHaynesREVIEW BY DIANE KUEHN

Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protectionof Resources and Values, (3rd ed.)by John C. Hendee and Chad P. DawsonREVIEW BY RUPERT CUTLER

9

13

18

22

27

33

34

39

40

45

46

46

47

23

2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2003 • VOLUME 9, NUMBER 2

EDITORIAL BOARDAlan W. Ewert, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind., USA

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

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., 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.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, Clemson University, 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, Sterling College, Craftsbury Common, Vt.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.;Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, WildernessTransitions 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 Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF,Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona StateUniversity, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURES

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

The Politics of WildernessMoving to Use

BY JOHN SHULTIS

Is there a growing schism between the public and po-litical view of wilderness? As Cordell, Tarrant and Greennote in their article in this issue of the IJW, American

residents seem to be far more supportive of the preserva-tion rather than use function of protected areas, includingand perhaps especially in wilderness. Numerous public surveysin other Western nations (e.g., Canada) also demonstratethe primacy of the nonuse values of wilderness. Interest-ingly, the tourism function of protected areas is often leastvalued among the public, although the same is not true formany politicians.

Indeed, this public sentiment runs counter to the current“business model” of wilderness management currently invogue in many Western nations. The rise of neoconservativeeconomic doctrines among most Western political partiesand publics has led to significantly decreased governmentspending. Government revenues are down as well, due todecreased individual and corporate taxes. Some agencies thatmanage wilderness have had to increase revenue generationto make up for these losses. As a result, user fees have be-come de rigueur in some protected area agencies and sites.This is an interesting paradox: The public generally supportsuser fees in wilderness areas, yet also believe that non-usevalues (e.g., existence or bequest values) should receive great-est attention in wilderness management. Thus, in a(neoconservative) political sense, there seems to be a shifttoward the primacy of the use function—particularly tour-ism—in all forms of protected areas, including wilderness.At the same time, the public is most supportive of the pres-ervation function of protected areas.

Where will this increasing split between political sup-port for use functions and public support for preservationfunctions lead us? On the one hand, the focus on revenuegeneration demonstrates that politicians are now awareof the economic impact of wilderness on its surrounding

region. This increased awarenessof the significance of the eco-nomic benefits of protected areasmay lead to a heightened interestin the creation of new protectedareas and give land managementagencies more political clout.

On the other hand, the in-creasing focus on use values mayhave less salubrious conse-quences for wilderness andwilderness users in the long term.If use functions (i.e., visits byrecreationists or tourists) becomeincreasingly dominant, it becomes increasingly difficult tolimit ecological impacts (see book reviews). An increasedcommercialization of wilderness and the wilderness expe-rience may also proceed in tandem with increased revenues.Neither outcome would aid the ecological integrity ofprotected lands.

Developing nations, as noted by the Kormos and Martinarticle, also tend to rely on the revenue-generation functionof protected areas to create new protected areas. In the shortterm, the international momentum to create new protectedareas for tourism purposes may indirectly increase conser-vation of wilderness landscapes. But it may also mean thatwilderness advocates must work harder to champion theecological benefits of wilderness preservation. In the longterm, it may be counterproductive to allow use functions todominate wilderness management; ultimately, long-termpreservation must prevail as the dominant function.

JOHN SHULTIS is an associate professor at the University ofNorthern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada and anIJW editor. E-mail [email protected].

Article author John Shultis.


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

FEATURES

Support Is Building for GlobalWilderness Conservation

BY CYRIL KORMOS and VANCE G. MARTIN

Wilderness conservation has always been a con-tentious issue, even more than the creation ofnational parks or other protected areas. Many

reasons account for this reality, including a negative responseby some development advocates to the idea of leavingwildlands essentially untouched, the fact that wildernessis sometimes misperceived as being anti-people, or thatit is mistakenly regarded as a distraction from what areconsidered to be more pressing sustainable developmentconcerns.

Despite these historical objections, new evidence in sup-port of wilderness conservation makes us optimistic. In thisarticle we review some recent information documentingwilderness values and demonstrating its expanding, prac-tical appeal in developing as well as developed nations. Thisnew information supports the growing idea that wilderness

protection, through very large parks that include de factowilderness within their boundaries and other explicit wil-derness designations, is viable and valuable. Positive changefor global wilderness is occurring. In support of this devel-opment, the following is a summary of some new wildernessinitiatives and information, beginning with an overview ofsome important prowilderness actions around the globe.

New International WildernessConservation InitiativesThe government of Gabon announced its decision at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Sep-tember 2002 to set aside 10% of its land surface in a newnational park system covering 2.6 million ha (6.4 millionacres). This decision is remarkable because of the size ofthe proposed system, much of which is substantially intactrain-forest ecosystem. It is also remarkable for its economicimplications. Recognizing that oil revenues in Gabon aredeclining, President Bongo has chosen to focus on conser-vation and tourism as sources of revenue, rather thanturning to logging for a short-term fix. Also important isthe strength and diversity of the coalition behind the initia-tive. Besides the big NGOs one would expect and whomwe applaud—Conservation International (CI), WildlifeConservation Society, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—alsoworking closely with the government of Gabon and localand regional NGOs is the U.S. administration, much criti-cized for its stance on environmental issues. Secretary ofState Colin Powell and two of his assistant secretaries vis-ited Gabon, as well as Republican members of The WILDFoundation’s Congressional Advisory Committee. As a re-sult, at the WSSD in Johannesburg, Secretary Powellcommitted U.S. funding and expertise to Gabon and a widerCongo Basin Initiative. Additional congressional hearings

Authors Vance G. Martin (left) and Cyril Kormos (right).


have been held, and a further appro-priation is being considered.

Similar to the Gabon initiative is thegovernment of Suriname’s decision in1998 to set aside 1.6 million ha (4million acres) of pristine tropical rainforest as the Central Suriname NatureReserve (CSNR), bringing the nation’sprotected area to 10% of its land sur-face. Suriname’s was also a decision toforego logging and other extractive in-dustry revenue in favor of a policy ofconservation-based income. TheCSNR was established through a jointventure between the government ofSuriname, CI, the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), and the United NationsDevelopment Programme. The CSNRis now a World Heritage site, and atrust fund has been established for itslong-term management.

Also announced at the WSSD was amajor new Amazonian initiative by thegovernment of Brazil in cooperationwith the World Bank, the GEF, andWWF. This initiative, launched with thecreation of the largest park in the world(the almost 4-million-ha [10-millionacres] Tumucumaque National Park),will establish 50 million ha (124 millionacres) of new federal protected areas overthe next 10 years. The TumucumaqueNational Park is especially important be-cause it protects one of the last roadlessareas in the Brazilian Amazon, and oneof the wildest parts of the planet, as defacto wilderness.

Wilderness conservation is alsomaking strides in southern Africa, inparticular with transboundary pro-tected areas. Since the 1997 creationof the first official transfrontier parkin Africa, the Kgalagadi TransfrontierPark between Botswana and SouthAfrica, several major transboundaryprojects have gained momentum.Among them is the Great LimpopoTransfrontier Park, officially created in2002. This 3.5-million-ha (8.6-mil-

lion-acre) area encompasses KrugerNational Park in South Africa,Gonarezhou National Park in Zimba-bwe, and Limpopo National Park inMozambique, thus potentially reopen-ing migratory routes for several largemammal species. In an even more re-cent initiative, South Africa,Swaziland, and Mozambique beganworking toward establishing a parklinking their countries.

Another initiative in South Africawill expand the Baviaanskloof Wilder-ness Area to create a largerBaviaanskloof Mega-Wilderness Com-plex. This proposal, launched at the7th World Wilderness Congress(WWC) in 2001, is critical to protect-ing the biodiversity of the area. Onceagain, it reflects a strong commitmentamong local governments, NGOs, andinternational organizations, respec-tively the Eastern Cape provincialgovernment, the Wilderness Founda-tion (South Africa), The WILDFoundation, CI, and the GEF (Martinand Muir in press).

This list of projects conserving glo-bal wilderness is not comprehensive; it

ignores such important initiatives as thePalmyra Atoll in the South Pacific; theCardamom Mountains in Cambodia; alarge debt-for-nature swap and a newpark in the Cordillera Azul in Peru; theAdams, Paparoa, and Rakiura (new wil-derness) designations in New Zealand;and the Spergeibit Wilderness NationalPark in Namibia, just to name a few.

These projects and this list are im-pressive. They represent progress andthey feed our optimism. These newwild parks and reserves represent afraction of what needs to be done glo-bally to protect the planet’s last wildplaces, but they are evidence that con-servation can be at the heart of nationaleconomic development strategies, of-fering an alternative to traditionalextractive industries.

How MuchGlobal Wilderness Is Left?There have been four major assess-ments of how much global wildernessis left, each varying in its criteria fordetermining what would qualify andeach coming up with a different esti-mate of how much wilderness is left.

Figure 1—Futi Channel, a wetland area linking southern Mozambique and South Africa. Photo by J. Culverwell.


Collectively they provide critical infor-mation about the world’s remainingwild area.

The first global wilderness assess-ment was the 1987 wilderness surveyby McCloskey and Spalding, pre-sented at the 4th WWC in the UnitedStates (McCloskey and Spaulding1988). That Sierra Club survey, en-titled “A Reconnaissance-LevelInventory of World Wilderness Areas,”analyzed jet navigation charts to iden-tify areas larger than 400,000 ha(161,943 acres) with no permanenthuman infrastructure. The study con-cluded that approximately one-thirdof the planet’s land surface was still ina wilderness state. The author’s explicitintent was to provide an accurate esti-mate that would provide the basis forfurther study.

Building on the McCloskey andSpaulding survey, the 1994 study byHannah et al. published in Ambio pro-duced a GIS map of global humandisturbance in natural ecosystems.This study derived a Habitat Index,

and used a three-category scale—un-disturbed, partially disturbed, andhuman dominated—to map the re-sults. Undisturbed areas had primaryvegetation and population densitieslower than 10 people per sq. km. (andunder one person per sq. km for arid/semiarid and tundra communities).Partially disturbed areas had secondary,but naturally regenerating vegetationand at least some agricultural devel-opment. Human-dominated areaswere urban or agricultural environ-ments. The minimum units mappedwere 40,000 ha (98,000 acres). Mixedunits were mapped using the domi-nant land cover, and aggregated into100,000-ha (247,000-acre) units. Thesurvey was called “preliminary” be-cause some of the data wereincomplete or inconsistent, but thestudy nonetheless produced interest-ing findings: approximately 52% of theEarth’s surface was undisturbed, 24%was partially disturbed, and 24% washuman dominated. Removing “rock,ice, and barren land,” the study found

that 27% was undisturbed, 37% par-tially disturbed, and 36% human dominated.

CI’s assessment of the planet’s re-maining wilderness is summarized in its recent book Wilderness: Earth’s Last Wild Places (Mittermeier et al. 2002). Three criteria were used to determine what areas qualified. The first was size—a threshold was set at 1 million ha (2.47 million acres). The second criterion was intactness—the area had to have 70% of its habitat intact and had to maintain “intact faunal assem-blages” of mammals and birds, and in particular large predators. Finally, the study used a population criterion, ap-plying a threshold of fewer than five people per sq. km. Based on these cri-teria, the study found that 46% of the planet qualified as remaining wilder-ness. Of the 37 areas studied, five were areas of high biodiversity and 11, called “mega-wilderness areas,” were greater than 100 million ha (247 mil-lion acres).

The Wildlife Conservation Society’s (WCS) study titled “The Human Foot-print and the Last of the Wild” focused on four factors reflecting human in-fluence on natural environments (Sanderson et al. 2002). The four cri-teria were population density, land transformation, human access (via roads or natural access points), and electrical power infrastructure (i.e., light visible by satellite). Scores were assigned for each factor and combined to generate a Human Influence Index rating. The results were then mapped. To determine what areas remained truly wild, the study then selected the areas in the top 10% in terms of wild-ness in each biome. The result, according to this WCS analysis, was that 27% of the Earth’s land surface remains wild.

Although the WCS result indicated much less remaining wild area than

Figure 2—Waterway and dense tropical rain forest of Gabon. Photo by Vance G. Martin.


CI’s, the discrepancy is partially ex-plained by WCS’s exclusion of Antarctica from its analysis. With vir-tually no infrastructure, a very small human population, and 10% of the Earth’s land surface, if Antarctica were included it would presumably raise the percentage of remaining wilderness to or near 37%. Moreover, CI’s survey also conducted a second analysis us-ing a lower population criterion (less than one person per sq. km) and an area that might more closely resemble WCS’s top 10% wild areas. The result for this lower population density analysis was that 38.5% of the Earth’s land surface qualified as wild. Viewed in this light, the WCS and CI studies produced more similar results.

These four studies are not directly comparable because of their differ-ent methods and criteria as to what constitutes remaining wildness. For example, as the authors of the WCS study point out, their analysis does not in fact measure actual human impact, but rather “suggests areas of influence where humans have more or less responsibility for biological outcomes” (Sanderson et al. 2002, p. 898). CI produced estimates ofecological intactness. But collec-tively, the studies and theirdifferences in methods will guidefuture efforts. Further, all four stud-ies indicate that significantwilderness remains, more than onemight expect; at the same time, how-ever, little of what remains is veryfar removed from human influence.

The window of opportunity to pro-tect wilderness will therefore close quickly. As conveyed in the CI report (Mittermeier et al. 2002, pp. 34–39), the importance of these last wild places requires that we think beyond the usual, intensively managed national park model and consider larger con-servation areas while we still can.

How Much Are WildernessEcosystem ServicesWorth?It is increasingly recognized that wil-derness is valuable for the ecosystemservices it provides (e.g., clean waterand air, carbon sequestration, nutrientcycling, erosion control, flood control,etc.), and that these services have eco-nomic value that can be estimated. Aseminal study by Costanza et al. (1997)published in Nature estimated the eco-nomic value of global ecosystemservices by taking local assessments ofecosystem values and then extrapolat-ing to a global scale. The result was anestimate ranging from $16 to $54 tril-lion (18 to 61 trillion in 2000 dollars),or an average of $35 trillion (38 tril-lion in 2000 dollars).

As the Costanza’s et al. study ac-knowledged, however, the assessmenthad built in several uncertainties. Onewas a lack of data for a number ofbiomes, including deserts, tundra, andcroplands. Another was the uncer-

tainty inherent in attempting to ex-trapolate from local data to a globalscale. A third issue was the fact thatthe methodologies used to determinethe values of the various ecosystemservices were all different. Finally, afourth issue was that the study pro-vided the gross value of ecosystemservices—the economic benefits ofconversion were not subtracted to pro-vide an estimate of net economicbenefits.

A more recent study published inScience (Balmford et al. 2002) titled“Economic Reasons for ConservingWild Nature” and launched at theWSSD, sought to remedy these issuesin the 1997 study. The new effort com-pared the benefits of protection versusthe benefits of conversion as directlyas possible, selecting for analysis fivedevelopment projects where data wereavailable both on the revenues gener-ated by conversion as well as the valueof the ecosystem goods and servicesprovided by the intact habitat. Thedata included values for marketed and

Figure 3—Gabon has perhaps the largest population in the world of western lowland gorillas. Photo by Vance G. Martin.


nonmarketed goods and services aswell as local and global benefits. Fur-thermore, to ensure consistency, thestudy only compared data that weregenerated using the same methodolo-gies for each particular good or service.

Across the five projects in fourbiomes that were evaluated, the studyfound that the total economic value ofconversion was roughly half the totaleconomic value of conservation. Thestudy estimated that the cost of con-verting relatively intact habitats wasapproximately $250 billion per year.Conversely, the study placed the costof conservation (i.e., of establishing acomprehensive global terrestrial andmarine protection system) at roughly$45 billion a year, and estimated that aglobal protection system would provideservices with a net value between $4.4and $5.2 trillion a year. In other words,the study concluded that a global pro-tected areas system would pay for itself100 times over.

More research is needed to elabo-rate on these findings. As Balmford etal. (2002) indicated, they were onlyable to identify five case studies in fourbiomes where information was avail-able on both conversion andecosystem services values. On theother hand, the authors point out thattheir calculations would have to be offby a factor of 100 before the $45-bil-lion cost of a global protected areas

system became unjustifiable in stricteconomic terms, an unlikely eventgiven their conservative approach.This study makes a very compellingcase for conservation of intact habi-tats. Of course the social, cultural, andspiritual benefits of conserving re-maining wilderness only adds to theeconomic benefits, and may be evenmore important in rallying support forparticular areas.

ConclusionWe believe that the wilderness conceptwill continue to gain momentum incoming years and as a result, that op-portunities for large-scale conservationwill continue to grow simultaneouslywith the need to protect and sustainsuch areas. We are also mindful thatwilderness areas will continue to beunder tremendous pressure, and thatwilderness conservation will onlysucceed if it is a part of large-scale “sus-tainable development” discussions andaction. By collaborating with the WorldConservation Union (IUCN) and theWorld Commission on Protected Areason a new Wilderness Task Force, weare working to ensure that wildernessquestions are firmly on the interna-tional agenda in September 2003 at theWorld Parks Congress in Durban,South Africa, and that these discussionscontinue at the 8th WWC (likely in2005). Maintaining an international

wilderness dialogue through thesevenues, and continuing progress infield projects, research, and grassrootsinitiatives, will ensure that the manysocioeconomic, spiritual, and scien-tific values of wilderness are sustainedin both developed and developingcountries.

REFERENCESBalmford, Andrew, et al. 2002. Economic rea-

sons for conserving wild nature. Science297: 950–953.

Costanza, Robert, et al. 1997. The value of theworld’s ecosystem services and natural capital.Nature 387: 253–260.

Hannah, Lee, et al. 1994. A preliminary inventoryof human disturbance of world ecosystems.Ambio 23 (4–5): 246–250.

Martin, Vance G. and Andrew Muir. In press.Wilderness and Human Communities: Proceed-ings of the 7th World Wilderness Congress,November 2001. Golden Colo.: FulcrumPublishing.

McCloskey, Michael J. and Heather Spaulding.1988. A reconnaissance-level inventory ofthe wilderness remaining in the world. InVance G. Martin and Partha Sarathy, eds,For the Conservation of the Earth: Proceed-ings of the 4th World Wilderness Congress,Sept. 11–18, 1987, Denver and Estes Park,Colo. Golden, Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing. p.18–41.

Mittermeier, Russell A., et al. 2002. Wilderness:Earth’s Last Wild Places. Cemex, 19–54.

Sanderson, Eric W., et al. 2002. The HumanFootprint and the last of the wild. BioScience52 (10): 891–904.

CYRIL KORMOS is vice president for policyof The WILD Foundation, joining WILDafter six years at Conservation International,most recently as senior director forprogram management in the president’soffice. E-mail: [email protected].

VANCE G. MARTIN is president of TheWILD Foundation, an executive editor andco-founder of the International Journal ofWilderness, and co-chair of the newWilderness Task Force of the IUCN. E-mail:[email protected].

All four studies indicate that significant wildernessremains, more than one might expect: at the same time,however, little of what remains is very far removed fromhuman influence.


STEWARDSHIP

The WildernessSimulation Model

A Historical Perspective

BY JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK

IntroductionRecent application of simulation modeling to wildernessand river settings (Daniel and Gimblett 2000; Gimblett etal. 2000, 2002) has revived interest in the Wilderness Simu-lation Model (WSM) first developed by Smith and Krutilla(1976) and based on an idea by Stankey (1972). Stankeyhypothesized that visitors’ satisfaction with a wildernessexperience was inversely related to the number of encoun-ters they had with members of other parties. Fisher andKrutilla (1972) conceptualized this idea into a model thatestablished the optimum level of use in a wilderness areato be the point at which the incremental benefit of an addi-tional party is just offset by the decrease in the benefits ofthe parties encountered. The practical application of thisconcept required that an empirical relationship betweenthe benefits enjoyed during an outing and the number ofparties encountered be measured and that a means for esti-mating encounters be developed. Numerous sociologicalstudies were launched to examine the relationship betweenbenefits and encounters, but, other than laborious field-work, no means existed for enumerating encounters.

In order to overcome this obstacle, researchers fromResources for the Future began to develop a computer modelthat would simulate visitor travel behavior in a wildernessand record encounters between parties. The WSM was asimulation program written by Heck and Webster (1973)in the General Purpose Simulation System language run-ning on an IBM mainframe computer.

Visitor data required to run the model included weekly,daily, and hourly distributions of use; party-size distribu-tions; and mode of travel mix. For example, small parties onhorseback were distinguished from large hiking parties. Areainformation included the trail segments and campsites in

the network and the time it tookparties of different sizes to hikeor ride each trail segment ineach direction. Finally, the vari-ous routes that might be takenwere enumerated along withtheir probability of being se-lected. The WSM scheduledparties of different sizes andtypes to arrive on differentweeks, days of the week, andhours of the day, assigning eachparty a route that included thetrails over which they traveledand the campsites they used.The WSM recorded the num-ber of encounters for each party,with whom each encounter occurred, the location of thoseencounters, and the types of encounters (meeting, overtak-ing, or camp). Output from the WSM included numeroustables showing encounters by party type, location, trip length,and total use level.

Prototype testing of the WSM was conducted on theSpanish Peaks Primitive Area (Smith and Krutilla 1976)and the Adirondack Forest Reserve (Smith and Headly1975). Subsequently, the model was enhanced by Resourcesfor the Future under contract with the U.S. Forest Service(Shechter 1975). This new WSM model was applied to theDesolation Wilderness in California (Shechter and Lucas1978) and to the complex of wilderness areas surroundingand including Yosemite National Park (van Wagtendonk1979). Modification of the WSM for river settings allowedit to be applied to the Green and Yampa Rivers in Dinosaur

Article author Jan van Wagtendonk. Photo byDon Barry.


1971. Use permits were the primary datasource for the WSM (van Wagtendonk1978). Party size, mode of travel, arrivalpatterns, and the zones throughwhich a party planned to travel wereall obtained from the permit. Zoneinformation was converted into routesusing methods described by vanWagtendonk (1978). Permits avoidedthe costs associated with visitor sur-veys and allowed all routes actuallyrecorded to be simulated rather thanjust a sample of possible routes. Thevalidity of the information on the per-mits and the travel behavior of partiesthat did not get permits were deter-mined. In Yosemite, van Wagtendonkand Benedict (1980a) found that 92%of the parties had permits and that62% of them made changes to theirtrips. The average trip was shortenedby a half day and spatial changes werecommon.

A study was conducted in Yosemiteto determine trail travel times for par-ties on 1-mile trail segments (vanWagtendonk and Benedict 1980b) asinput to the WSM. It took an averageof 34.8 minutes for backpacking par-ties, 36.4 minutes for day-hikingparties, and 27.3 minutes for horse-riding parties to travel all the sampletrail segments (see Figure 2). Party sizewas not significant for all three typesof parties, and slope-direction classwas significant only for backpackingparties. For these parties, average timesfor uphill travel were greater thandownhill travel, and time increased asslope increased.

Modifications to the WSM madefrom the Desolation Wilderness studyallowed the Yosemite study to focuson trailheads, campsite encounters,and campsite use levels. The decisionto concentrate on campsites was basedon work by Absher and Lee (1981)that indicated the sociological effect oftrail encounters depended more on the

Figure 1—The Yosemite Wilderness is located in the central Sierra Nevada, an area of granite peaks and glaciatedvalleys. Photo courtesy of the National Park Service.

Monument (Lime et al. 1978) and to theColorado River in Grand Canyon Na-tional Park (Underhill et al. 1986). Afinal application of the WSM to a trailsystem was done by Potter and Man-ning (1984) on the AppalachianNational Scenic Trail in Vermont. Thestudies related to Yosemite National Parkare presented here as a case study to il-lustrate the process of using the WSM.

Yosemite National ParkSimultaneous with the effort to applythe WSM to the Desolation Wilderness,

scientists and managers at Yosemite Na-tional Park began assembling thenecessary information to run the WSM(van Wagtendonk 1979). The YosemiteWilderness was designated in 1984 andencompasses 704,638 acres (281,855ha) of the park (see Figure 1). Contigu-ous wilderness areas include the112,227-acre (44,891-ha) EmigrantWilderness on the Stanislaus NationalForest, the 48,601-acre (19,440-ha)Hoover Wilderness on the Toiyabe andInyo National Forests, and the 93,958-acre (37,583-ha) Ansel AdamsWilderness on the Inyo and SierraNational Forests. There are 55trailheads with 695 miles (1,112 km)of trail and 375 campsites in theYosemite Wilderness. An additional 46trailheads feed 416 miles (666 km) oftrail and 197 campsites on Forest Ser-vice wilderness areas adjacent to thepark. Use in the Yosemite Wildernessin 1975 was 219,000 visitor-nights(van Wagtendonk 1981).

Wilderness use in the Yosemitecomplex has been regulated throughthe use of wilderness permits since

Figure 2—Backpackers and day hikers are the most commontype of visitor in the Yosemite Wilderness. Photo courtesy ofYosemitefun.com.


behavior of the encountered party andthe location of the encounter than onthe number of encounters (see Figure3). A single encounter with an ill-be-having party could have a muchgreater impact than meeting numer-ous parties exhibiting acceptablebehavior. In areas where people ex-pected to meet others, the impact ofan encounter was less than in areaswhere they were not expected (see Fig-ure 4). Trailhead quotas were selectedby Yosemite managers as the preferredmethod for rationing use because con-trols at the entry points allowedmaximum freedom to visitors in theinterior of the area (van Wagtendonkand Coho 1986).

The 20,000 wilderness permits is-sued in 1973 were used for thebase-case simulation because travelbehavior that year was not limited; usein subsequent years might have beenaffected after use limits were imposed(van Wagtendonk 1981). Two visitoruse levels and two trailhead allocationpatterns were examined and comparedto the base case. The use levels were a50% increase from the base case anda 50% decrease. The first trailhead al-location scenario was based on dailyentry quotas derived from a computerprogram (van Wagtendonk and Coho1986) that compared actual use levelsin zones to desired levels and reallo-cated entries until no zone exceededits limit. Desired zone use limits werebased on van Wagtendonk (1986).The second trailhead scenario roundedthe daily entry quotas up to the near-est number divisible by five.

Across all WSM simulations, therelationship between camp encountersper party-night and party-nights waspositive and linear (see Figure 5). Theresulting number of encounters wasless than half that reported for theDesolation Wilderness. Two reasonsaccounted for this difference. First, a

greater number of trailheads gavevisitors more opportunities to disperseand, consequently, experience fewerencounters per party-night. Second,the wilderness permits providedthousands of potential routes com-pared to only hundreds from thediaries used for the Desolation Wilder-ness. This diversity of routes dispersedparties during the WSM simulations,resulting in fewer encounters perparty-night.

Trailhead entries for the base-casesimulations ranged from one personper day through the most lightly usedtrailheads to over 100 people per daythrough the three most populartrailheads. The simulations based onthe trailhead visitor quotas reducedthe peaks in use both temporally andspatially, but did result in increasedvisitor encounter levels in the moresparsely used areas. These resultswere similar to the results from theDesolation Wilderness, as would beexpected when visitor use is dis-persed.

Combined with the trailhead quotaprogram, the simulation results pro-

vided the information needed by man-agers to implement quotas for theYosemite complex of wilderness areas.In that sense, the simulator was a suc-cess. However, the cost of runningsimulations on a remote mainframecomputer was expensive and limitedthe feasibility of further experiments.

Future ApplicationsThe WSM has proven its usefulnessin applications from simple, linearriver systems to large, heavily usedwilderness areas. All of these studiesshowed that trail and camp encoun-ters were directly related to total visitor

Figure 3—Encounters between stock parties and hikers can be positive if both groups are perceived as behaving properly.Photo by Scott Carpenter.

Figure 4—Camping where no one else is expected to be adds toone’s wilderness experience. Photo by Kent van Wagtendonk.


use levels and that management al-ternatives that reduce visitor use willlead to reduced user-user encounterlevels. In addition, the WSM was ef-fective for evaluating the temporaland spatial effects of various trailheadallocation patterns that were then ap-plied to a complex of wilderness areasin California.

Recent advances in computer tech-nology and behavioral science haverendered the WSM out of date. Asearly as 1985, Rowell (1986) pre-sented a version of the WSM that ranon a personal computer and had thecapability to be used interactively togeographically display outputs. Theconcepts developed by Rowell havebeen incorporated into newer models.

Wang and Manning (1999) used anobject-oriented dynamic simulation

package to model carriage-road use inAcadia National Park in Maine.Lawson et al. (2002) applied the samemodel to simulate user encounters atArches National Park in Utah. A GISwas used to derive routes for themodel, but graphical output was notpart of the model. Gimblett et al.(2000) combined object-orientedtechnology with geo-referenced tem-poral data to dynamically simulatevisitor behavior in a heavily used natu-ral setting in Sedona, Arizona. Outputfrom the simulator can be displayedin graphs and as two-dimensional orthree-dimensional maps. Using anautonomous agent-based model,Daniel and Gimblett (2000) simulatedriver trips on the Colorado River inthe Grand Canyon. Gimblett et al.(2002) plan to apply their model toderive patterns of dispersed use in theAnsel Adams and John Muir Wilder-ness areas in California, returning toone of the areas where the WSM wasfirst applied. These innovative newmodels show how far the science ofsimulating wilderness has come in lessthan three decades. The old WSM isprobably gone, but not forgotten.

REFERENCESAbsher, J. D., and R. G. Lee. 1981. Density as

an incomplete cause of crowding inbackcountry settings. Leisure Science 4 (3):231–248.

Daniel, T. C., and R. Gimblett. 2000. Autono-mous agents in the park: An introduction tothe Grand Canyon river trip simulationmodel. IJW 6 (3): 39–43.

Fisher, A. C., and J. V. Krutilla. 1972. Determi-nation of optimal capacity of resource-basedrecreation facilities. Natural Resources Jour-nal 12 (3): 417–444.

Gimblett, R., T. Daniel, and M. J. Meitner. 2000.An individual-based modeling approach tosimulating recreation use in wilderness set-tings. In D. N. Cole, S. F. McCool, W. T.Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, Wilderness Sci-ence in a Time of Change Conference—Vol-ume 4: Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, andVisitor Management, May 23–27, 1999,Missoula, Mont. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-4. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky MountainResearch Station, 99–106.

Gimblett, R., J. Lynch, T. Daniel, L. Ribes, andG. Oye. 2002. Deriving artificial models ofvisitor behavior from dispersed patterns ofuse in Sierra Nevada wilderness. In A.Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar,eds, Conference Proceedings: Monitoringand Management of Visitor Flows in Recre-ational and Protected Areas, January 30–February 2, 2002, Vienna, Austria. Vienna:Bodenkultur University Vienna, 180–186.

Heck, N. A., and D. B. Webster. 1973. Wilder-ness Area Simulation Model: User’s Manual.Washington, D.C.: IBM and Resources forthe Future. N. T. I. S. Accession No. PB-233364/9/INW.

Lawson, S., R. Manning, W. Valliere, and B.Wang. 2002. Using simulation modeling tofacilitate proactive monitoring and adaptivemanagement of social carrying capacity inArches National Park, Utah, USA. In A.Arnberger, C. Brandenburg, and A. Muhar,eds. Conference Proceedings: Monitoringand Management of Visitor Flows in Recre-ational and Protected Areas, January 30–February 2, 2002: Vienna, Austria. Vienna:Bodenkultur University Vienna, 205–210.

Lime, D. W.; D. H. Anderson, and S. F. McCool.1978. An application of the simulator to ariver setting. In M. Shechter, and R. C.Lucas, eds. Simulation of Recreational Usefor Park and Wilderness Management.Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, chapter 9.

Potter, F. I., and R. E. Manning. 1984. Applica-tion of the wilderness travel simulation modelto the Appalachian Trail in Vermont. Envi-ronmental Management 8 (6): 543–550.

Rowell, A. L. 1986. A wilderness travel simula-tion model with graphic presentation of traildata. In R. C. Lucas, comp., Proceedings—National Wilderness Research Conference:Current Research, July 23–26, 1985, Fort

Figure 5—Camp encounters as a function of party-night(Y= -0.02 + 0.011X) in the Yosemite Wilderness complex(R2 = 0.97).

Encounters per Party-Nightfor the Yosemite Wilderness Complex

The WSM has proven its usefulness in applicationsfrom simple, linear river systems to large, heavilyused wilderness areas. All of these studies showedthat trail and camp encounters were directly relatedto total visitor use levels and that managementalternatives that reduce visitor use will lead to reduceduser-user encounter levels.


Collins, Colo. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-212.Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agricul-ture, Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation, 478–482.

Shechter, M. 1975. Simulation Model of Wil-derness-Area Use: User’s Manual and Pro-gram Documentation. Washington, D.C.:Resources for the Future. N. T. I. S. Acces-sion No. PB-251 635/9/INW.

Shechter, M., and R. C. Lucas. 1978. Simula-tion of Recreational Use for Park and Wil-derness Management. Baltimore, Md.: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Smith, V. K., and R. L. Headly. 1975. The use ofcomputer simulation models in wildernessmanagement: A case study of theAdirondack Forest Reserve. In S. Ladany,ed., Management Science Applications toLeisure Time. Amsterdam: North-HollandPublications.

Smith, V. K., and J. V. Krutilla. 1976. Structureand properties of a wilderness travel simu-lator: An application to the Spanish PeaksArea. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Uni-versity Press.

Stankey, G. H. 1972. A strategy for the defini-tion and management of wilderness quality.In J. V. Krutilla, ed., Natural Environments:Studies in Theoretical and Applied Analy-

sis. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press, 88–114.

Underhill, A. H., A. B. Xaba, and R. E. Borkan.1986. The wilderness simulation model ap-plied to Colorado River boating in GrandCanyon National Park, USA. Environmen-tal Management 10 (3): 367–374.

van Wagtendonk, J. W. 1978. Using wilder-ness permits to obtain route information. InM. Shechter, and R. C. Lucas, eds., Simula-tion of Recreational Use for Park and Wil-derness Management. Baltimore, Md.: JohnsHopkins University Press.

———. 1979. Use of a wilderness simulatorfor management decisions. In R. M. Linn,ed., Proceedings of the First Conference onScientific Research in the National Parks, vol.1; November 9–12, 1976; New Orleans,La. Transactions and Proceedings Series 5.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of theInterior, National Park Service, pages 1039-1040.

———. 1981. The effect of use limits onbackcountry visitation trends in YosemiteNational Park. Leisure Science 4 (3) : 311–323.

———. 1986. The determination of carryingcapacities for the Yosemite Wilderness. InR. C. Lucas, comp. Proceedings—National

Wilderness Research Conference: CurrentResearch, July 23–26, 1985; Fort Collins,Colo. Gen. Tech Rep. INT-212. Ogden,Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, For-est Service, Intermountain Research Station,456–461.

van Wagtendonk, J. W., and J. M. Benedict.1980a. Wilderness permit compliance andvalidity. Journal of Forestry 78 (1): 399–401.

———. 1980b. Travel time variation onbackcountry trails. Journal of Leisure Re-search 12 (2): 99–106.

van Wagtendonk, J. W., and P. R. Coho. 1986.Trailhead quotas: Rationing use to keep wil-derness wild. Journal of Forestry 84 (11):22–24.

Wang, B, and R. E. Manning. 1999. Computersimulation modeling for recreation manage-ment: A study on carriage road use inAcadia National Park, Maine, USA. Envi-ronmental Management 23 (2): 193–203.

JAN W. VAN WAGTENDONK is aresearch forester with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Western Ecological ResearchCenter, Yosemite Field Station, El Portal, CA95318, USA. Phone: (209) 379-1306.E-mail: [email protected].

Chief’s Excellence inWilderness Stewardship Research Award

Dr. Jan van Wagtendonk has been selected as thisyear’s recipient of this research award to recognize

his long-term commitment and accomplishments withdirect application to wilderness stewardship.

Dr. van Wagtendonk, who works for the U.S. Geo-logical Survey, and is stationed at Yosemite National Parkin California, has been the leading researcher and advo-cate for wilderness science in the Department of theInterior for over 30 years. A highly productive researchcareer has led to involvement in developing wildernessfire management and visitor use management programs

for Yosemite National Park that have contributed sub-stantially to interagency wilderness managementprograms in the Sierra Nevada. Jan has worked acrossboundaries enthusiastically, energetically, and effectivelywith surrounding National Forest wilderness managers.His work on fuels dynamics, fire prescriptions, remotesensing, and GIS applications to fire management havemade major contributions to wilderness fire programsboth in the Sierra Nevada and across the country. TheIJW editorial board is pleased to jointly recognize Dr.van Wagtendonk for this award.


The Soul ofEnvironmental Activists

BY BARBARA McDONALD

ecently in the Soul ofthe Wilderness seg-ment, one IJW editor

called soul the “experiences, feel-ings, and values behind theinformation presented” aboutwilderness (Martin 2002, p. 3).Soul in this sense is not limited towilderness advocates. Mostenvironmental activists havespecial feelings for the naturalenvironment. Robert Perschel ofThe Wilderness Society recently

observed that “we need to find a way to bring spirit andvalues and ethics and religion into our lives, into our work,and into our contact with the entire landscape—not justthose places that are protected forever as wilderness”(Perschel 2002, p. 150). Spirit and soul, although intangible,may enhance environmental experiences at all landscapescales and may play an important, but transparent, rolein the lives of committed environmental activists.

The interrelationship of environment and spirit is nota surprise to most of us. We have our own personal ex-perience, and we have a growing literature on religiousand spiritual orientations to the environment. This lit-erature is largely historical, anecdotal, or philosophical.Most of the literature explores the environmental atti-tudes and actions that emerge from religious or spiritualcontexts, such as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, or Ameri-can Indian spiritualities (Gottlieb 1996; Kearns 1996;Shultz, Zelenzy, and Dalrymple, 2000). Spirituality andsoul, however, may also emanate from environmentalexperiences, attitude, and action (Gair 1999; Johnson2002; Leenders and Henderson 1991; Shaw and Wendl-Berry 1999; Stringer and McAvoy 1992).

The idea that soul is discovered as people become engagedin environmental experience and action is what inspired myrecent study into the spirituality of highly committed environ-mentalists. I interviewed 18 individuals who were engaged ina variety of action on behalf of the environment. At first I askedgeneral, open-ended questions of these activists. The questionsbecame more focused as I integrated the framework providedby Joel Kovel (1991) in his five essays on spirit. Kovel pre-sented an interrelated set of experiences that have the potentialto bring soul into one’s life. These soul experiences are groundedin the direct experience of a vital force, spirit, God, or in expe-riencing vital spirit through other forms or beings. When suchpersonal experiences are imbued with deep meaning, they maycreate a desire to take action that leads one to a spiritual path.I found, as all who have explored the phenomenon of spiritu-ality have found, that language inhibits the full expression ofthose deep meanings. With this limitation in mind, here aresome of the soul and spiritual experiences of highly committedenvironmentalists.

The Direct Experience of the Vital ForceKovel wrote that spirituality is rooted in the “direct apprehen-sion of a vital and material force pervading the entire universe”(1991, p. 22). The direct personal experience of the vital forcedoes not require any mediating form or being, but it may in-volve other earthly forms or beings (see Figure 1). Viktor Frankl(2000) noted that even Samuel mistook God’s call for the voiceof a human: “If Samuel failed to recognize that the call came tohim from transcendence, how much more difficult it must befor an ordinary person to discern the transcendent character ofthe voice he perceives through his conscience” (p. 62). I foundthat direct experience of the vital force was uncommon for theseenvironmentalists, as it may be in most human experience.

Even though such direct experience is uncommon, Steve, a52-year-old environmental education center director, described

STEWARDSHIP

Article author Barbara McDonald.

R


a transcendent experience that changedthe course of his life. His experiencedemonstrates vividly what a direct ex-perience of the vital force may be like.After a particularly long string of whathe considered failures, Steve spentmonths alone in an isolatedbackcountry cabin, trying to figure outwhere he was going with his life:

On this particular evening Icame up and I stood on thatstump and it began to snow,and I closed my eyes and Icould feel kind of cool-likesnowflakes falling, and Iremember them specificallytouching my eyelids andbecame sort of absorbed inthe sounds of the watercoming out of the mountainand was completely absorbed.I was totally outside of myselfand lost all track of time. Atsome point, I consciouslybecame aware of my pulse,and I remember experiencingthe sense of amazement that Ihad become so calm and soquiet that I could actually feelnot just my heart beating, butI could feel the blood movingthrough my body. … At somepoint I realized what I wasexperiencing. The movementinside of my body wasn’tblood it was energy, and itwasn’t coming from me it wasgoing through me and it wascoming out of the earththrough the stump right upthrough my feet and throughmy entire being … I remem-ber having a consciousthought that this is justenergy moving through me.The conscious awareness wasof being absolutely connectedto the Earth. I was justanother tree standing on theside of the mountain, just likethe stone on the bank of thecreek, just like a grain of soil,just like the snowflakesfalling on my feet andshoulders.

Valerie, a 51-year-oldenvironmental educa-tor, reported that shesometimes directly ex-periences a powergreater than the humanexperience: “Almost mywhole life I’ve had justflashes I used to callthem, this absoluteknowing or intuition,gut … it was more thisabsolute instant of clar-ity where I felt that Iknew what I needed todo or what I needed to say or just thisimmense peace and trust that this isright. …It was not about me, it wassomething about me was opened tothat force that is greater than us.”

Experiencing Vital Forcein the WorldIn contrast to the direct experience ofthe vital force, this force may be expe-rienced as, or through, a form or being.Examples include an inspirationalsunrise, the beauty of a flower, themagic and wonder of a newborn hu-man, or the anonymous kindness ofanother person (see Figure 2). Formost of these environmentalists, thevital force was experienced in orthrough the natural world. Joyce, a46-year-old environmental singer-songwriter, said that she finds God in“steelhead salmon and salt marshes.”When Joyce explained that “we allcarry that of God within us,” she meantnot just humans, but all of the Earthand its life. Ted, a 64-year-old volunteercreator of a Christian environmentalprogram, was “converted” as he said,to environmentalism in his 50s whenhe saw a flower whose beauty “mademy heart stop.” Douglas, a 69-year-oldenvironmental consultant who hasspent his lifetime creating trails, said,“I’m not involved [with any religion].

I believe in God if that’s what youmean. Anyone who works with theforest has to, if they are honest. I be-lieve in evolution of course, but Godmade evolution.”

Ellen, an 82-year-old Catholic nun,reported that she had struggled for yearswith the dichotomy between the sacredand the secular. After a lot of reading,studying, and learning, Ellen observed:“It finally settled all of [my] strugglesabout this dichotomy between the sacredand the secular, and made me realize thatthe universe is God’s primary revelationbefore any scriptures, and nature itself isa showing of the divinity.”

Many of the environmentalists ex-pressed the belief that the Earth is God’screation, and that because it is, peoplehave a responsibility to take care of it.These individuals observed that care for

Figure 1—The interrelationship between the environment and spirituality is wellrecognized. Photo by Barbara McDonald.

Figure 2—Individuals experience vital force through forms andbeings in the natural world. Photo by Barbara McDonald.


the Earth is respect for divine creation.Vicky, a 51-year-old director of an envi-ronmental education center, and Terry, a57-year-old wilderness consultant, men-tioned their affinity for the Earth-basedspirituality of the American Indians. Vickysaid: “I am a great admirer of the NativeAmericans and their attitude toward theenvironment and the way that it was tiedup in their religious beliefs. To me a lot ofthose things are one and the same. Re-spect for life or any other type of life,whether it’s bacterial or plant life or ani-mal life, to me is critical.”

The Meaning of Vital ForceFollowing their experiences of the vitalforce, whether directly or through thenatural world, these individuals reportedcomprehending a greater meaning intheir life. The most powerful meaningto emerge for them was that we are allconnected—humans, other animals,and the Earth—and that humans havea responsibility to these others. Valerie,for example, noted that “we do not havedominion over anything but ourselves,and I think it’s our job to understandour place in nature. We are a part of it.”Pasi, a 29-year-old community activist,said that environmentalism “is sustain-ing life in whatever form it takes,whether it’s plant, human, a tree, an ani-mal, or whatever. It’s all tied together,it’s all connected.”

This sense ofconnectivity, inter-dependence, andresponsibility ledmany to think ofthemselves as stew-ards of the Earth.Stewardship wassometimes describedas a benefit to futuregenerations. As Tedsaid, “I think the basefor [stewardship] is ifwe are causing spe-

cies to go extinct, we are not doing theenvironment any good for ourselves,and, in the long run, we are hurting our-selves one way or another.” Stewardshipwas also indicated as an approach to takeon behalf of the Earth itself and its crea-tures. Most of the environmentalists saidthat nature has a right to exist indepen-dent of any human purpose, and Dave,a 66-year-old environmental consultant,said that he was close to even feelingthat “rocks have rights.”

Spirit, Desire, andEnvironmental ActivismWhen spiritual meaning directs a lifepath, it is often expressed as a desire toengage in social action (Kovel 1991). Forthese environmental activists, the desireto work for the environment came fromtheir experience of an inescapable con-nection with the Earth, an awareness ofhow the natural environment is being de-graded by human activity, and a feelingof responsibility. Mark, a 55-year-oldwildlife professor, linked human connect-edness with responsibility by saying thathe was responsible because “everything Ido has a consequence. I don’t know you.I’ve never met you. But I am responsiblefor your well-being. I’m responsible forthe trees’ well-being and the rocks’ wellbeing. Once again, that holism.” Whenmeaning is revealed through an experi-ence of vital force, desire and action are

likely to follow. Educating others was themost frequently mentioned form of en-vironmental activism, with 12 of 18individuals being engaged in some formof educating others. Indicative of the edu-cators, Steve said that “what I try to donow, I try to find a way to help peoplemake a connection with the environment,not just in terms of educational experi-ences, but significant emotionalconnections.” The remaining six environ-mentalists engaged in other forms ofaction, including nonprofit environmen-tal leadership, lobbying, and consultingon environmental and wilderness man-agement and policy. Quinton, a57-year-old environmental volunteerwho sits on the boards of seven environ-mental organizations, reflected: “What Ivalue the most is my connection withnature. I see how it has helped me. It’swhere I go to relax and rejuvenate andget my energy back. If somebody elsedoesn’t have that then they are really miss-ing something. I want them to have that,it’s important to me.”

Paths of SoulThe environmental commitment of theseenvironmentalists, and more specifically theirenvironmental spirituality, was sustainedmost often through their connection withnature and was imbued with the meaningof biological and emotional intercon-nectedness, interdependence, andresponsibility. Most indicated that they choseto nurture soul by choosing a path that suitedtheir particular experience of vital force. Somefollowed an established religious path, suchas Joyce’s Quakerism or Ted’s Christian envi-ronmental ministry. Many of theseenvironmentalists chose less traditionalmeans of nurturing soul. Steve, for example,said, “I don’t go to a church, I go to a forest.”Marty, a 59-year-old executive director ofan environmental organization, believes inGod but no longer attends church. She con-nects with God through “prayers at night,by being out in the world, by just having a

Figure 3—Although environmentalists work most often in urban and suburban settings,they feel most spiritually connected in wilderness. Photo by Barbara McDonald.


regular feeling of gratitude for things thathave been given to me.”

DiscussionThe committed environmentalists par-ticipating in this study shared anumber of characteristics, yet also dif-fered in important ways. All spendquiet time in contemplation, medita-tion, or prayer, often in the naturalenvironment. All feel connected tonature, and this has great meaning forthem, to the point of inspiration. Twoself-identified atheists defined theirconnection using biological terms,while the others acknowledged theiremotional connection as well. A num-ber of religious orientations wererepresented, yet every participant re-ported being tolerant of and open toothers’ spiritual and religious beliefs.Other shared characteristics includedcreatively engaging in active care forthe Earth and for other humans as wellas commitment to their environmen-tal work. Every individual perceiveda vital force, but the atheists differedfrom the rest by attributing that forceto the sciences, such as biology, ecol-ogy, chemistry, and physics and usingconcepts such as motion, matter, andenergy. A few individuals reportedhaving transcendent experiences,where vital force was experienced di-rectly. Most of those interviewedexperienced vital force through earthlyforms and, most often, through thenatural environment in places such aswilderness. The environmentalistsdescribed vital force in many ways,mostly aligning with their religiousorientation or lack of it. Their descrip-tors of the vital force included God,chi, higher power, the universe, andeven the master of chaos. Many ad-mitted that they do not know whatvital force is, they just know that it is.

Results from this study indicate thatsoul is experienced personally and can-

not be universally defined. We can, how-ever, conclude some things from thisstudy of the spirituality of highly com-mitted environmentalists. First, there isa vital force that can be perceived di-rectly and through the natural world.This vital force may be imbued withdeep meaning, provide a sense of con-nectivity and responsibility, and inspireaction on behalf of the natural environ-ment. When vital force is personallyexperienced, it may inspire a traditionalor nontraditional spiritual practice spe-cifically intended to nurture soul.

This study did not specifically focuson wilderness activists; however, theenvironmentalists I interviewed supportwilderness, and their environmentalwork parallels the work of wildernessactivists. One study participant, Valerie,who reviewed this article noted: “I thinkall environmentalists are wilderness ad-vocates, although their day-to-day workis based in more urban-suburban sur-roundings—where the people are! Wewant people to experience nature daily,not just as a place where one has to driveto get there. But it is in wilderness wherewe feel most at home in our souls.” En-vironmental activists are inspired byknowing that they are connected to thevital force of life in its natural diversityand, most poignantly, in wilderness (seeFigure 3). The soul-fulfilling experiencesthat happen in a wilderness setting arethe ones that we may talk about mostoften. The soul of the wilderness, how-ever, may be invoked just as truly frominside a city limit as the inside of a wil-derness boundary. For those who haveexperienced vital spirit through the natu-ral world, soul also emerges from workingfor wilderness, not just in it.

REFERENCESFrankl, V. E. 2000. Man’s Search for Ultimate

Meaning: A Psychological Exploration of theReligious Quest. New York: MJF Books.

Gair, N. P. 1999. Out into the wilderness: Theinspirational or spiritual effects of the out-doors. Horizons 6: 17–20.

Gottlieb, R. S. 1996, ed. This Sacred Earth:Religion, Nature, Environment. New York:Routledge.

Johnson, B. 2002. On the benefits of wilder-ness. IJW 8 (3): 28–32.

Kearns, L. 1996. Saving the creation: Christianenvironmentalism in the United States. Soci-ology of Religion 57: 55–70.

Kovel, J. 1991. History and Spirit: An Inquiryinto the Philosophy of Liberation. Boston:Beacon Press.

Leenders, G., and B. Henderson. 1991. Dia-logue of new directions: The spiritual heartin adventure learning. Journal of Experien-tial Education 14 (2): 32–38.

Martin, V. G. 2002. Wilderness: It’s got soul.IJW 8 (2): 3.

Perschel, R. 2002. Work, worship, and the natu-ral world: A challenge for the land use pro-fessions. In S. R. Kellert, and T. J. Farnham,eds. The Good in Nature and Humanity:Connecting Science, Religion, and Spiritu-ality with the Natural World. Washington,D.C.: Island Press, 145–160.

Shaw, M., and D. Wendl-Berry. 1999. Encoun-tering the earth: Martin Shaw talks to DavidWendl-Berry about rites of passage, visionquests and encountering the earth. Horizons6: 27–30.

Shultz, P. W., L. Zelenzy, and N. J. Dalrymple.2000. A multinational perspective on the re-lation between Judeo-Christian religious be-liefs and attitudes of environmental concern.Environment and Behavior 32 (4): 576–91.

Stringer, L. A., and L. H. McAvoy. 1992. Theneed for something different: Spirituality andwilderness adventure. Journal of Experien-tial Education 15 (1): 13–20.

BARBARA McDONALD is a social scientistwith the USDA Forest Service, Washingtonoffice. Her address is 320 Green Street,Athens, GA 30602-2044, USA. E-mail:[email protected]. This research wasfunded by the Kellogg Foundation as a partof the Cyril O. Houle Scholars Program inAdult Education.

Most of those interviewed reported experiencing vitalforce through earthly forms and, most often, throughthe natural environment such as wilderness.


Celebrating a Decade of ServiceThe Arthur Carhart

National Wilderness Training Center

BY CONNIE G. MYERS

Aldo Leopold once said, “A conservationist is onewho is humbly aware that with each stroke he iswriting his signature on the face of his land.” As the

Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center cel-ebrates its 10th anniversary, the author reflects on whatsignature the center has left on the face of wilderness and onhow the organization will continue to support field effortsto ensure an enduring resource of wilderness.

RootsThe Arthur Carhart National Wilder-ness Training Center was establishedin August 1993 to preserve the valuesand benefits of wilderness for present andfuture generations by connecting agencyemployees and the public with their wil-derness heritage through training,information, and education. The visionfor establishment of the Carhart Cen-ter can be largely attributed to JimBradley, staff to Congressman BruceVento, Minnesota, 102nd Congress.Bradley spent several years experienc-

ing the benefits of wild country as a fire lookout and wildernessranger for the Forest Service (FS). He was passionate aboutwilderness, the agency, and historical figures and architecture.When a 1989 U. S. General Accounting Office report (requestedby Vento) revealed degradation of some FS wilderness areas,Bradley began work on legislation to address these and otherstewardship issues. The idea for a wilderness training centerwas articulated in 1992 in House Bill 4325. The bill statedthat the purpose of the training center was to (1) strengthenleadership in educating employees, other agencies, and othernations on quality wilderness management; and (2) to edu-

cate the American people on wilderness laws and policies,values of wilderness, wilderness ecological processes, and waysto minimize visitor impacts on the wilderness resource. Brad-ley established a close working relationship with John Twiss,then national wilderness coordinator for the FS. Together, andwith significant support from the Northern Region of the FS,Lolo National Forest, and others, they successfully built a sharedvision for establishment of a national wilderness training cen-ter among Congress and field-going regional and national levelwilderness managers.

In keeping with Bradley’s vision, the center was named incommemoration of Arthur Carhart and located at theNinemile Ranger Station and Remount Depot. Arthur Carhartwas an FS landscape architect who in late 1919 became thefirst official in a land management agency to advocate for thedesignation of wilderness (McCobb 2002). Ninemile RangerStation and Remount Depot is a historic FS facility wherestaff have provided leadership in fire fighting and wildlandstewardship training since 1932. Start-up funding for thecenter was provided by the FS and Bureau of Land Manage-ment (BLM), and staff was limited to a director, a part-timewilderness technician, and shared administrative support—all FS employees. Products and services were limited to onetraining course and a mix of varied, loosely related activities,including production of wilderness displays and support ma-terials. A highly passionate and dedicated group of volunteersfrom the field were instrumental in helping the organizationdevelop initial products and services. Interagency commu-nication was practically nonexistent.

AccomplishmentsThe Carhart Center has grown from its original staff of oneand one-half FS employees to an interagency staff of sevenand one-half with representatives from the BLM, Fish and

STEWARDSHIP

Article author Connie G. Myers.


Wildlife Service (FWS), FS, and NationalPark Service (NPS). Each of these agen-cies contributes funding in support ofthe organization. Using an interagencyteam approach, the staff works with ex-perts within and outside the agencies todevelop comprehensive interagency so-lutions to critical wilderness stewardshipissues. Achieving interagency staffing,funding, and product development hasbeen and continues to be one of the mostdemanding, challenging, and rewardingaccomplishments of the center. The in-teragency development of products andservices highlights what are sometimessignificant cultural, legal, and opera-tional differences among the wildernessstewardship agencies, and it takes longerto work through these differences thanit would if a single agency stepped outon its own. Despite these challenges, thecenter remains firmly committed to aninteragency approach, as the process andthe final products generate increasedconsistency and continuity in wildernessstewardship within and among the fouragencies and across the National Wil-derness Preservation System (NWPS).These interagency efforts move us evercloser to forging an integrated and col-laborative system of wilderness acrossthe four agencies, as recommended byBrown (2002).

The center is keenly aware that fundsin support of the organization are fundsthat do not make it directly to the field.Subsequently, the responsibility to pro-vide timely, cost-effective products andservices in support of field efforts is takenquite seriously. Training offered andmaterials produced are in direct re-sponse to existing and anticipatedwilderness and wildlands managementissues, training needs, and educationaloutreach needs identified by wildernessmanagers from each agency through pe-riodic needs assessments. Materialsdeveloped are distributed electronically,and training sessions are offered where

they are needed most. This approachhas virtually eliminated duplication ofeffort, staff, and funding. By leveraginglimited resources across agencies andoutsourcing where possible, the num-ber of employees trained has increasedwhile the cost of training has decreased.Specifically, when the center was estab-lished in 1993, only one course wasoffered for 60 FS employees at a cost of$1,100 per person. In fiscal year 2002,12 courses were offered for more than800 employees from all agencies andstate, nongovernmental, and interna-tional organizations at a cost of $415per person, reflecting significant costefficiency.

TrainingThe training goal of the Carhart Centeris to improve consistency and collaborationin on-the-ground wilderness decisionsamong managers, stewardship skills amongwilderness staff, and wilderness awarenessamong agency employees through training.Through a partnership with the Univer-sity of Montana, the WildernessManagement Distance Education Pro-gram has expanded. Graduate credit cannow be gained for nearly all the distanceeducation courses, and some of thesecourses can be taken interactively via theinternet. Additionally, the suite ofcourses offered by the Carhart Centerhas expanded significantly. Followingthe National Wilderness Stewardshipcourse offering in 1993, Regional Stew-ardship courses came online in 1994,Planning and Restoration in 1995, Wil-derness Interpretation and Education in1997, and Visitor Use in 1998. NaturalResources Monitoring in Wilderness wasoffered for the first time in 2002, and anEastern Restoration course is slated fordebut in 2003. The Unit WildernessWorkshops initiated in 2002 reflect a sig-nificant deviation from the typicalfive-to-seven-day course. Rather thanemployees from several units attending

a course, Unit Workshops are one-to-four-day sessions hosted at a unit andattended by nearly every employee onthat unit. While core information aboutThe Wilderness Act and wildernessstewardship is provided, the bulk of theworkshop is tailored to address specificwilderness stewardship issues identifiedby the unit. This custom approach hasmet with tremendously positive results,both in the numbers of people trainedand in outcomes. Wilderness awarenessand understanding among unit employ-ees is dramatically improved by bringingtogether fish, wildlife, and plant biolo-gists; fire, cultural resource, recreation,and wilderness managers; interpreters,law enforcement, and facilities managers;front desk personnel; and unit leadership.A critical mass of wilderness-informedemployees is generated who have thetools needed to work together to success-fully address their wilderness stewardshipissues. One park superintendent wroteof the workshop, “The direct benefit isthat we now have a large portion of thepermanent staff that has attended thistraining and has a better understandingof the role of wilderness in their day-to-day management activities.”

Figure 1—Arthur Carhart was a champion forwilderness. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service.


InformationThe information goal of the CarhartCenter is to enhance communication andconsultation among the natural resourceworkforce, scientists, educators, students,and the public through ready access to abroad base of current and timely wildernessinformation. Wilderness.net has playeda significant role toward accomplish-ment of this goal. Established in 1997,wilderness.net is a partnership amongthe Carhart Center, the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute, and theUniversity of Montana’s Wilderness In-stitute with the purpose of electronicallyproviding wilderness information toagency employees, scientists, educators,and the public. Content is developed bywilderness stewards and through re-search conducted by federal agencies,university professors, and others. Addi-tional information from various sourcesis compiled to provide a comprehensiveinformation base for wilderness steward-ship. A decision-making protocol forwilderness.net has been established toensure that information is reviewed andendorsed before it is put up on the site.Through searchable databases,wilderness.net provides information oneach of the more than 640 wildernessareas in the NWPS, wilderness legisla-tion, research, issues, photos, and more.Wilderness.net has become the primary

vehicle for providing a broad base ofcurrent wilderness information to anumber of audiences and has beennationally recognized as a success.Harvard University’s John F. KennedySchool of Government selectedwilderness.net as a case study for suc-cessful use of the internet to achieveagency goals, and Brown (2002) high-lighted the significant contributions thatwilderness.net has made to improvingcollaboration and communication inwilderness stewardship. The CarhartCenter remains committed to facilitat-ing the exchange of information anddiscussion of current stewardship issuesso that managers can learn from eachother’s successes and failures.Wilderness.net will continue to play asignificant role in this effort.

EducationThe education goal of the Carhart Cen-ter is to foster development of a personalstewardship ethic and support for the Na-tional Wilderness Preservation Systemamong the American public by increasingawareness, knowledge, and understandingof their wilderness heritage. In 1992, be-fore the Center formally existed, ithosted a Wilderness Education Work-shop to help managers developwilderness education plans. In 1994,the center supported the National Geo-graphic Society workshop onwilderness for 108 teachers from acrossthe country, the provinces of Canada,and Puerto Rico. The first WildernessInterpretation and Education coursewas hosted in 1997. The K–12 Wilder-ness & Land Ethics Curriculum wascompleted in 1999, and in that sameyear the center revised the NWPS mapthrough a partnership with The Wil-derness Society, Trails Illustrated, andthe Leopold Institute. The centeroutsourced completion of the NationalUnified Wilderness Education andOutreach Plan to the Student Conser-

vation Association in 2001. The CarhartCenter has been a leader in establish-ing partnerships with a number ofnongovernmental organizations, aca-demic institutions, user groups, andfunders to collaboratively develop andfund events and activities to advancenationwide wilderness outreach effortsduring the 40th anniversary year of TheWilderness Act. Under leadership fromthe Carhart Center, an interagency teamof wilderness managers and educatorsis revising the Wilderness and LandEthics Curriculum to increase wilder-ness awareness and understandingamong U.S. schoolchildren. A film,American Values: American Wilderness,is being produced for public broadcastto highlight the wilderness benefits val-ued by Americans of diverse socialbackgrounds. The National Atlas Pro-gram of the U.S. Geological Survey willproduce an updated version of theNWPS map with considerable leader-ship from the Leopold Institute. Whilethese and other national events and ac-tivities are noteworthy, it is thebroad-based, comprehensive educationand partnership network developedwith leadership from the Carhart Cen-ter that is most significant. For the firsttime in history, the federal agencies,nongovernmental wilderness organiza-tions, academia, and private fundingorganizations are working together andsharing resources to advance nation-wide wilderness outreach efforts.

Future ChallengesWhile much has been accomplishedwith limited resources, much work re-mains to address critical wildernessstewardship issues and to broaden pub-lic understanding and support ofwilderness heritage. In the trainingarena, nearly 1,000 unit managers haveattended a Regional or National Wilder-ness Stewardship Course. However, thisrepresents only 27% of BLM wilderness

Figure 2—Congressman Bruce Vento, staffer Jim Bradley, andWes Henry, NPS national wilderness program leader on August21, 1993, when the Carhart Center and the Leopold Institutewere dedicated. Photo courtesy of Connie G. Myers.


managers, 49% of FWS wilderness man-agers, 20% of FS wilderness managers,and 40% of NPS wilderness managers.Additionally, there are now more than640 wilderness areas administered byabout 455 units, and Unit WildernessWorkshops have been conducted ononly 4% of these units. How can thecenter accelerate a proactive wildernesstraining program to effectively fill theseconsiderable training gaps within exist-ing staff and funding levels?

Wilderness leadership from each ofthe agencies has agreed to implementrecommendations to “(1) utilize andstrengthen the role of wilderness.netto provide an open system of informa-tion about wilderness, and (2) facilitatethe exchange of information and dis-cussion of current stewardship issuesso that we learn from each other’s suc-cesses and failure.” (FWS/CNWR-NR/008430). What can the Carhart Cen-ter do to help implement theserecommendations while keeping cur-rent staff and funding focused onmeeting demands for training?

Fully 86% of NPS lands, 20% of FS,9% of BLM, and 20% of FWS lands arewilderness or wilderness study areas.Efforts are currently underway to in-crease awareness, appreciation,understanding, and support of wilder-ness among the American people. ANational Unified Wilderness Educationand Outreach Strategy has been devel-oped, and a concerned and committedgroup of representatives from multipleorganizations has come together to col-laborate on the development andfunding of nationwide wilderness out-reach efforts in celebration of the 40thanniversary of The Wilderness Act.What can the Carhart Center do to en-sure success of these efforts andcontinuation of national wildernesseducation efforts when current staff andfunding are focused on meeting de-mands for training?

While significant, these challengesare no more insurmountable than wasgetting the Carhart Center up and run-ning in the first place, as the CarhartCenter has far more talent to draw uponthan its current seven and one-halfemployees. The center is more than justthe handful of people who work at theorganization. The Carhart Center re-mains grounded in the belief that theorganization exists to serve and is ac-countable to field-going wildernessrangers and to those who toil away un-derstaffed and underfunded to ensurean enduring resource of wilderness. Byserving those who steward wilderness,it is the wilderness stewards themselveswho become the core workers of theCarhart Center. They organize andpresent courses, they develop informa-tion project ideas, and they revisecurriculum. It is the strength of con-viction, dedication, and passion ofwilderness stewards that has made theCarhart Center what it is today, and itis only with their continued permissionto let the Carhart Center lead that theorganization will develop the capacityto fully realize its mission to preservethe values and benefits of wilderness forpresent and future generations by connect-ing agency employees and the public withtheir wilderness heritage through training,information, and education.

ConclusionArthur Carhart was in his 80s whenrecognized for the influence he hadon advancing the wilderness concept.

Upon that recognition, he said, “I feelreal good about how it has all turnedout. The Forest Service has come along way. I am proud to have beenassociated with it in those early days.”Looking back, the wilderness com-munity can say the same about theArthur Carhart National WildernessTraining Center. It has indeed comea long way, and, like Arthur Carhart,this author is proud to have been as-sociated with it in those early days.While we take great pride in accom-plishments of the center, we cannotstand in the shadow of success. Col-lectively, we must boldly step out toembrace the challenges before us andseize this moment to ensure an en-during resource of wilderness.

REFERENCESBrown, P. J., 2002. A summary of the report:

Ensuring the stewardship of the NationalWilderness Preservation System. IJW 8 (1):10–12.

FWS/CNWR-NR/008430. 2002. Officialcorrespondence from Dan Ashe, Chair,Interagency Wilderness Policy Council to Dr.Perry L. Brown.

GAO/RCED-89-202. 1992. Wilderness pres-ervation: Problems in some national forestsshould be addressed.

HR 4325, 1992. 102nd Congress, 2nd Session.McCobb, James E. 2002. Trappers Lake and

Arthur Carhart: Rocking the cradle ofwilderness. IJW 8 (2): 9–13.

CONNIE G. MYERS is the director of theArthur Carhart National WildernessTraining Center, 32 Campus Drive,Missoula, MT 59812-3168, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

The Carhart Center remains grounded in the beliefthat the organization exists to serve and is accountableto field-going wilderness rangers and to those whotoil away understaffed and underfunded to ensure anenduring resource of wilderness.


Bill Worf Wins2003 Corrigall Wilderness

Stewardship Award

Bill Worf, founder and president of Wilderness Watchhas been selected as the 2003 Keith Corrigall Wil-derness Stewardship Award winner. This annual award,

established in 2002 with IJW at the request of the four federalagency wilderness coordinators, is given to a person or per-sons whose efforts to protect and manage wilderness are worthyof special recognition. The award honors the late KeithCorrigall, who was wilderness branch chief for the Bureau ofLand Management during that agency’s formative years of wil-derness programming from the mid-1980s to mid1990s.

The following includes excerpts from Bill’s nominationletter, submitted by George Nickas, executive director ofWilderness Watch, and captures Bill’s many contributionsto Wilderness:

Bill Worf hasbeen a leader inW i l d e r n e s sstewardship formore than 40years. Bill’s earlyleadership inpromoting Wil-derness protec-tion as theForest Supervi-sor in charge ofoverseeing thestewardship of

the Bridger Wilderness landed him on the Forest Ser-vice task force that wrote the agency’s policies and regu-lations for implementing the Wilderness Act of 1964.Most of those policies and regulations still stand to-day. After his task force work, Bill served four years inthe Forest Service’s Washington headquarters as theirnational leader for Wilderness and Wild and ScenicRivers programs.

Bill moved back to his native Montana in 1969to serve as the Director for Recreation, Wildernessand Lands for the Northern Region of the Forest Ser-vice. Over the next 12 years, Bill built a Wilderness

program that made mention of the Northern Regionsynonymous with Wilderness leadership.

After “retiring” from the Forest Service in 1981,Bill continued working for wilderness stewardship asa citizen advocate and a volunteer consultant for For-est Service programs. His commitment to Wildernesskept him in the thick of the fray of many stewardship“battles” … as it does today through WildernessWatch’s nationwide monitoring of intrusions thatthreaten the integrity of designated wilderness.

In 1993, Bill and his wife Eva Jean establishedthe Gary and Keith Worf Memorial Scholarship Fundat the University of Montana School of Forestry tobe used to help the next generation of Wildernessstewards.

Bill’s relentless advocacy and concern for Wilder-ness eventually led him to found Wilderness Watch,the only citizens’ organization dedicated solely to theprotection and proper stewardship of lands in theNational Wilderness Preservation System and Wildand Scenic Rivers System. Under Bill’s leadership andduring his tenure as president, Wilderness Watch hasgrown from a group of volunteers in Missoula, Mon-tana, to a national organization recognized for its Wil-derness advocacy by managers and citizen advocatesacross the land. Rarely does a day go by that Bill Worfdoesn’t work tirelessly as a citizen advocate and—ashe’ll be certain to remind anyone listening, a ForestService retiree—for the protection of the Wilderness.

Bill has served as an inspiration to generations ofWilderness rangers, managers, academics and citizenactivists.

We at IJW are pleased to grant this year’s Corrigall Awardfor Wilderness Stewardship to Bill Worf. We especially recog-nize his long service and continuing commitment to improvethe stewardship and protect the integrity of the U.S. NationalWilderness Preservation System. Not everyone agrees withBill Worf on every wilderness issue—but few would disagreethat his efforts have helped keep our Wilderness System wild.Congratulations, Bill! We salute you. IJW

STEWARDSHIP


STEWARDSHIP

I was recently introduced to a Maasai man from Kenya.Erick Kasana, a conservation officer, was in the UnitedStates to attend a conference at Harvard University

about creating solidarity at the community and grassrootslevel. My friend, Kate, a Harvard student who had helpedto organize the conference, brought Erick up to Vermont toexperience snow for the first time. Following an afternoonof sledding we settled into my house for dinner.

“Here’s Laura and Guy’s book I was telling you about,”Kate said, handing Erick Wilderness Ethics (Waterman andWaterman 1993).

During dinner Erick explained to me the complex situ-ation of land pressures the Maasai now feel as a result ofcolonialization. “Our economy,” Erick said, “that is ourcattle, needs a natural resource base.”

“You mean grass? The grasslands?” I asked.“Yes,” Erick said. “And grazing creates a pressure and

threat to wildlife and flora. But it’s more complicated thanthat. What appears as over-grazing is the result of complexpressures from people that have forced the Maasai ontomarginal land.”

When we said good night, Erick took Wilderness Ethicswith him, and I noticed his light was on for some time.But what can he be finding, I wondered? Our focus inthat book is the northeastern U.S. Our forested land, ourmountains are so unlike his grasslands. Then I began tothink about what had caused us to write the book in thefirst place.

Like Erick, Guy and I spent a lot of time on the ground.We took every opportunity to be in the mountains, andin fact quit our city jobs, bought land in the country andbegan to homestead so we could structure a life lived out-doors with plenty of time for hiking and climbing. Wemoved to Vermont in 1973 and for nearly the next thirtyyears the White Mountains of New Hampshire becamehome to us as well.

We needed to earn alittle money, and continu-ing as writers seemed likea good way to supplementwhat we could grow in ourvegetable garden. We con-nected with a Boston-basedmagazine called New En-gland Outdoors and theeditor, a fly-fishermannamed Mike Pogodzinski,offered us a monthly col-umn on camping andhiking. This continued forthe next five years.

In these columns wewrote about what we ob-served on our trips to themountains. Often, it seemedto us, that values were in conflict in the backcountry. Hereare three examples.

1. On a hike into a lean-to beside a mountain pond thatwe’d recalled as being an idyllic spot just a few yearsearlier, we now found a crowded and heavily used site.Wood railings were erected to discourage hikers fromcutting through the woods every which way, and aboard pathway had been laid down on the wet trailbedaround the pond. The managers were trying to “pro-tect the resource” here, but in the process had turnedthis beautiful place into a woodsy suburbia. It struckus that the same results could be achieved by block-ing off access to the trampled spots with boulders orrotten logs, and using rough-hewn planks not store-bought lumber, to create a treadway over the muddypath skirting the pond.

On Writing Wilderness EthicsSome Further Musings on the “Spirit Of Wildness”

BY LAURA WATERMAN

Laura Waterman climbing in New Hampshire in1989. Photo by Chuck and Barbara Kukla.


2. Once on a bushwhack up a streamvalley we came across a flattenedclearing with a net work oftrampled paths. We saw thecharred remains of numerouscampfires. The woods appeareddenuded of down trees, and thespruce and fir were stripped tohead height of all their lowerbranches. Along the stream wesaw evidence of heavy tramping,with some of the banks caved in.We later learned that this was thelocation for a wilderness coursefor a nearby school. Every No-vember for the past 24 years about100 students, in groups of 10 withtwo adult leaders, went out back-packing for two weeks along acraggy and forested ridgeline. Atthe end of the course, each stu-dent was sent off into the woods

to experience the solitude of athree-day solo. They were ex-pected to keep a journal and takea close inward look at themselves,while keeping outwardly warmwith a campfire. The twentyteacher/leaders were camped also,and also kept a campfire going.This was seen as a priceless expe-rience for young people. On ourhike we had stumbled across theresults of its impact on the forest.

3. With a few friends we had climbedto the summit of a remote NewHampshire four thousand-footpeak by a steep, trailless route. Thehike had proved harder and longerthan expected, and we arrived ontop late in the afternoon. The planwas to take the trail down, butwe’d have to move fast to avoid

being benighted. We all felt thethrill of climbing this isolated peakby a route that took all our skillwith map and compass, not an-other party in sight all day. Theview before us showed only moun-tains. So we were a bit taken abackwhen a member of the grouppulled out his cell phone. “Hihoney, just calling to let you knowI’m safe. We’re on the summit andare about to take the trail down.Guess I’ll be late for dinnerthough.” That’s not putting itstrong enough. We were aghast!That single call smashed throughthe fragile fabric of wildness. In factthat phone’s presence made a trav-esty of our climb where we had feltso committed, so on-our-own inthe wild.

From these, and many other simi-lar experiences, we began to see thathighly desirable goals like education,safety, and protecting areas from im-pact can have an adverse affect onother, equally important, and some-times fragile or vulnerable values. Webegan to realize what was most at riskwasn’t necessarily the physical, but aspiritual quality as well. We began tocall this elusive value the spirit ofwildness.

The Spirit of WildnessOur thoughts about the spirit of wild-ness grew when we began a tenure oftrail maintenance on the FranconiaRidge. This is a 1.8 mile section thattraverses several White Mountainsummits and lies entirely abovetreeline. Guy and I were privileged tohave this responsibility from 1980 tonearly 2000, the year of Guy’s death.Our main concern was to take care ofthis popular trail in such a way thatwould protect the precious alpineplants, yet not interfere with the hiker’s

Figure 1—Guy and Laura Waterman in the Presidential Range of the White Mountain National Forest. Photo courtesy ofLaura Waterman. Photo by Jean Cooley.


sense of freedom. We thought it es-sential that our trail work not stand asa barrier to hikers experiencing thewildness of this Ridge.

Reading Aldo Leopold’s (1966) ASand County Almanac influenced ourthinking also. Leopold’s cry is that onlywhen we stop looking at land as com-modity, will we see the land has valuein and of itself. Only then will we treatland with true respect. Leopold calledthis new way of seeing a “new landethic.” We sought to carry this a stepfurther in relation specifically to wildland. In Wilderness Ethics we proposedthat some roughhewn wilderness ethicwas needed that spoke for the spiri-tual side of wild. The intangibles, thesubjective elements, we saw as beingeven more fragile and threatened thanthe physical. We were pleading forrespect for the mystery of wildness.

Our question to readers was: oncethe land has been saved from devel-opment—the strip mining, logging,dam construction, second homes—then what? “Profound theorists,” wewrote, “we are not. We’re just twopeople who spend a lot of time in thewoods and on the mountains; whohave observed a few things and askedourselves a few questions about wild-ness, and who would like to invite youto share our thoughts and think aboutsome practical questions yourself:

• What are we trying to preserve?• What are the threats to the wild-

ness in wilderness?• What can we do about it?”We wanted to write a book that

alerted readers to the fragility of wild-ness and how easy it was to erode itaway by building a hut at some quietview spot, or locating a trail up a hith-erto pathless ridge, or constructing abridge where none has been deemedneeded before, or calling out the heli-copters, or traveling in large groups,or whipping out a cell phone. Wild-

ness can he easily overlooked by hik-ers and managers alike; wildness isexpendable, and once spent, we canrarely call it back.

It seemed to us a question of val-ues. We were asking hikers andmanagers to think about what wasimportant. What was at stake? Whatmattered? If wildness was an impor-tant value, we could view questionsfrom whether to construct a new trailto tramping through the woods inlarge groups through that lens.

Another way to approach thinkingabout what kind of backcountry wewanted was from a love of land. Wehoped hikers and managers would beguided by a concern for the land’s well-being and would approach the care ofland with a spirit of humility. That, too,was a way to keep the spirit of wild-ness alive.

It seemed to us that this meant areal change of thinking if we were toexercise this kind of restraint, respect,and responsibility. This was more thana question for the managers—the hik-ing clubs, the Forest Service and thePark Service—to grapple with. Wewere asking every hiker and back-packer and climber, fisherman andhunter—all outdoor people to thinkabout backcountry in terms of valueswhen we asked ourselves the question:what kind of backcountry do we want?

Musings on WildnessOne of our favorite quotations is of-ten attributed to conservationist Geza

Teleki: “Everything is less important.Career is less important. Science isless important. Fame is less impor-tant than doing the right thing whenyou’re dealing with the natural envi-ronment.”

Guy and I admired Teleki’s wordsfor their humility. As we learn to putthem into practice, we turn ourselvesinto stewards of the land in the senseLeopold had hoped for. Humilityseems key to how we relate to land. Ifwe were more humble, all of us,wouldn’t the spirit of wildness stand abetter chance?

Much has changed since Guy and Iwrote our early columns for New En-gland Outdoors, Land managers havecome a long way toward learning howto “protect the resource” in ways thatare in keeping with the quiet natureof the woods. Schools and clubs whooffer outdoor programs are learninghow to clean up their act. But manythreats remain such as cell phones,radios, and the persistent use of heli-copters. Managers still upgradebackcountry facilities in ways thatseem out of step with a wildernessexperience. And more people keepcoming. With Wilderness Ethics wehoped to begin the conversation. Nowit depends on the hikers and manag-ers to keep the dialogue alive as wemake decisions for the future.

It seems to me that Erick Kasanafaces many of the same issues we dohere in the northeast. For us, the landfaces the pressures of people—we

We need mountains and wild country more now thanever, and more pressures are being put upon the landas people come in droves, looking for solace andsolitude, spiritual renewal and strength, exercise andjust plain fun.


hikers and climbers. For the Maasai,pressures came from their coloniallegacy, present-day tourists, as wellas their own growing population withthe result that the Maasai’s cattle areincreasingly crowded, leading toovergrazing.

Erick and Guy and I look for a re-sponse—as well as solutions—to landissues from those to whom the landmatters most. Our hope is that ourgrassroots efforts will have that rippleeffect of a large stone dropped into thecenter of the pond: we want to see therings widening out and out, far beyondthe point of impact, far beyond thelimits of our vision.

Guy and I desired to make roomfor the spirit of wildness. This was ourmessage we tied around the stone wedropped in the pond. Giving room towhat nurtures our spirits when we goto the mountains is, it seems to me,

the ultimate challenge as we stride intothe twenty-first century.

We need mountains and wild coun-try more now than ever, and morepressures are being put upon the landas people come in droves, looking forsolace and solitude, spiritual renewaland strength, exercise and just plain fun.We wrote Wilderness Ethics because itseemed to us that it was terribly impor-tant to save this elusive thing we cannotsee, this spirit of wildness that is so es-sential to our human souls, theunderlying reason, whether we are awareof it or not, why we seek the wild places.

I would venture to say that Erickand Guy and I are all concerned withthe same values here: the physical andspiritual aspects of the land ethic. TheMaasai have an immediate need to ad-dress the physical, but I would guessthat a spiritual ethic is critical to themas well, and that their own culture is

grounded in a spiritual connection tothe land. Whether Maasai or Ameri-can we all need a land ethic that isphysical and spiritual, and as a com-munity of people on the earth we needto think about what this means, de-fine it for ourselves (there is noformula, no easily applied blueprint)whether we live in the northeast, thewest, or in Africa.

REFERENCESLeopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County almanac.

With other essays on conservation fromRound River. New York, Oxford UniversityPress.

Waterman, Laura and Guy Waterman. 1993.Wilderness ethics: preserving the spirit ofwildness. Woodstock, Vt. Countryman Press.

LAURA WATERMAN is an author onwilderness issues such as Backwoods Ethics(Stone Wall Press, Washington, DC, 1979)and maybe contacted by mail at P.O. Box1064, East Corinth, VT 05040.

Advertising in IJWThe International Journal of Wilderness accepts display ads that are appropriate to the wilderness topicsand issues typically reported in the journal and that would be of interest to its readership. The printedcopy in an article must be submitted electronically as a Microsoft Word file, and any artwork or illustrationsmust be submitted in hard copy as a black-and-white image. Advertising rates per issue for black-and-white ads are:

Space Size RateFull Page 7 x 95/8 $8002/3 Page 41/2 x 95/8 $600

Horiz. 1/2 Page 7 x 43/4 $450

Island 1/2 Page 41/2 x 7 $450

Vertical 1/3 Page 21/4 x 95/8 $3751/4 Page 31/2 x 43/4 $3001/6 Page 21/4 x 45/8 $200

Contact the IJW managing editor,Chad Dawson at

Phone: 315-470-6567 • Fax: 315-470-6535E-mail: [email protected].

about an advertising submission or to ask aboutavailability of space. Make check payable to

International Journal of Wilderness.


IntroductionThis paper explores evidence of recent shifts in how Ameri-cans view the National Wilderness Preservation System(NWPS). Recent political and societal changes suggest thattracking such shifts, if in fact they exist, is highly impor-tant. One aspect of growing social change is the rise ofinterest in nonuse values for making decisions about allo-cating and managing public lands, such as those designatedas part of the NWPS (Rolfe, Bennett, and Louviere 2000).Historically, use values have been the dominant focus ofattention because uses of wilderness for personal benefits,such as for recreation, for profit-making involving on-siteservices (e.g., outfitters) or for extraction of raw materials,such as mining minerals for use in manufacturing(Mountford and Keppler 1999) are direct, observable, andsometimes tangible and marketed. In contrast, nonuse val-ues are indirect, for the most part not observable, and arenot marketable. Nonuse values, for example, may focus onpreserving natural lands for future generations, includingboth human and nonhuman species. Although they are forthe most part “intangible,” it has been argued that nonusevalues of wilderness are likely to be as, or more, importantthan use values (Loomis, Bonetti, and Echohawk 1995).

There is evidence in the literature that indeed wildlandvalues as perceived by the public have been undergoing a

fundamental shift. A number of recent studies have pointedto an apparent increase in nonuse values, especially lifesupport values (e.g., Bliss, Nepal, Brooks, and Larsen 1994;Steel and Lovrich 1997; Tarrant and Cordell 1997; Xu andBengston 1997). In an early study of wilderness values,Walsh, Loomis, and Gillman (1984) reported thatColoradoans’ willingness to pay for wilderness designationwas proportioned as follows: recreation (43%), bequest(21%), existence (20%), and option (16%). In a more

Is the Public Viewpoint ofWilderness Shifting?

BY H. KEN CORDELL, MICHAEL A. TARRANT, and GARY T. GREEN

Abstract: This study explores shifts since the mid-1990s in the values the public places on wilderness. Publicviews of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) were compared from national surveysconducted in 1994 and 2000. Results show that while more people in 2000 were aware of the NWPS, thisincrease in awareness has not created greater support for additional wilderness acreage. Levels ofimportance people place on ecosystem services, existence of wilderness, recreation, and future use optionsfor existing protected wilderness, however, have increased sharply since 1994. Overall, these shifts seem toindicate a need for greater emphasis on nonuse values in setting policy and managing wilderness. Awarenessand support for wilderness vary significantly among ethnic, age, and regional groups.

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Figure 1—Viewing wildlife in wilderness is an important experience. Photo courtesy of AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute.

(PEER REVIEWED)


recent study, Gilbert, Glass, and More(1992) found that Vermont residentsassigned a smaller proportion of theirwillingness to pay for wildernessprotection to recreation use value(16%) and a greater proportion tononrecreation values. Most recently,Cordell, et al. (1998) found direct usevalues generally to be of lesser impor-tance than ecological, environmentalquality, and off-site values.

The purpose of this study was totest whether there have been recentshifts in how Americans value theNWPS. Three objectives were pursuedcomparing data collected in identicalfashion in 1994-1995 and in 2000: (1)examine the percentages of respon-dents aware of the NWPS and whosupport expanding its size, by placeof residence, region of residence, age,and race; (2) examine the percentageof respondents rating each of 13 wil-derness values as very to extremelyimportant; and (3) examine the struc-ture of orthogonal factors in the13-item wilderness values scale, wheredifferences would suggest a trend onhow value items are perceived.

MethodsSampling, selection, measurement ofvariables, and analysis in the 2000survey followed the same methods asused for the 1994-1995 NationalSurvey on Recreation and the Envi-

ronment (NSRE) (Cordell et al. 1998).In both applications of the NSRE,noninstitutionalized individuals inhouseholds (in all 50 states) withtelephones were randomly sampled(using a random digit dialing methodwith up to 10 repeated redials of un-answered numbers). The targetindividual for the interview was thehousehold member with the mostrecent birthday among those 16 orolder. Interviews for both the 1994-1995 and the 2000 surveys wereconducted by the Human DimensionsResearch Laboratory at the Universityof Tennessee. A total of 1,900 NSREinterviews contained wilderness valuequestions in 1994-1995, while, witha larger budget for the 2000 survey, atotal of 5,002 interviews with wilder-ness value questions were completed.The greater number of interviews in2000 facilitated more resolute geo-graphic disaggregation of estimates atthe nine Census Division level. Withthe smaller sample in 1994-1995,comparisons were limited to the fourCensus Region level. However, whencompared with the demographic pro-file of Americans 16 or older obtainedfrom Census estimates, both samplesrepresented well the demographic di-versity of the American public at thegeographic levels reported in this pa-per (east vs. west). To correct fordisproportionate sampling withinpopulation strata, both NSRE data setswere weighted using census estimatesof proportions among rural/urban,east/west, age, and race strata.

In both applications of the NSRE,the introduction and wording of thewilderness values questions were thesame. An introductory statement wasread: “The Wilderness Act of 1964 al-lows Congress to preserve certainfederal lands in their wild condition.Since that 1964 act, the Congress hasadded 629 wilderness areas to the

National Wilderness Preservation Sys-tem to protect wildlife, scenery, water,and recreation opportunities, and tokeep these areas wild and natural.”Following this statement, a variety ofquestions were asked regarding thecurrent size and status of the NWPS,including whether or not the respon-dent felt the system was large enough.Another statement was read: “Wilder-ness areas provide a variety of benefitsfor different people. For each benefit Iwill read, please tell me whether it isextremely important, very important,moderately important, slightly impor-tant, or not important at all to you.”Following this statement, each of 13value items (WVS) was read to eachrespondent using the same organiza-tion and wording in both surveyapplications. The WVS includes ques-tions on (a) direct use values (i.e.,valuing access to use wilderness forrecreation, personal growth, commer-cial activities, or other on-siteactivities); (b) option use values (i.e.,valuing having the option to use wil-derness in the future); (c) non-useexistence values (i.e., attaching valueto knowing that wilderness exists orto knowing it protects wildlife or someother natural features, even thoughone may never visit nor expect to visitan area); and (d) bequest values (i.e.,valuing having wilderness for futuregenerations) (Loomis, Bonetti, andEchohawk 1995; Mountford andKeppler 1999; Oglethorpe andMiliadou 2000). The 13 items in theWVS were each measured on a 5-pointsingle-polar scale with end points of1 = “extremely important” to 5 = “notat all important.”

Objective one was tested with chi-square analysis. Mean scores,percentages, and associated changescores were computed for objectivetwo. A principal components analysis(with varimax rotation and pairwise

Figure 2—Habitat for wildlife is highly valued by the American public.Photo courtesy of Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute.


deletion of missing cases) was used toidentify orthogonal factors (witheigenvalues greater than 1.0) in theWVS for objective 3. All tests wereconducted with a significance level ofp = .05.

ResultsLarger percentages of Americans over15 years of age reported they wereaware of the NWPS in 2000 (57.6%vs. 44.4%). Percentages reportingawareness increased for all demo-graphic strata (see Table 1), but smallerpercentages in 2000 (51.6% vs.55.7%) reported they felt there is cur-rently not enough wilderness underprotection. Significantly more westernthan eastern residents (chi-square, �2= 10.96), older than younger (�2 =270.78), and whites than nonwhites(�2 = 113.52) were aware of theNWPS. In addition, significantly moremetro than rural residents (�2 =41.26), eastern than western residents(�2 = 34.18), younger than older (�2= 131.67), and whites than nonwhites(�2 = 32.72) felt that there was notenough land in the NWPS. The num-ber of significant differences inawareness and preference for size ofthe wilderness system in the 2000sample is considerably more than in1994. In that earlier sample, the onlysignificant differences were older (vs.younger) respondents being signifi-cantly (a) more aware of the NWPSand (b) less likely to feel that theamount of wilderness in the NWPSwas not enough.

With the exception of tourism in-come and providing spiritualinspiration, very few respondents in2000 (less than 5%) rated any of the13 wilderness values as “not impor-tant” (see Table 2). The percent ofpeople rating the 13 wilderness val-ues as “very” or “extremely important”increased sharply. The greatest in-

Aware of Size of NWPSDemographic NWPS (%) Is not enough (%)Strata 1994 2000 1994 2000

Metro/urbanMetro resident 44.2 57.5 56.9 54.2Rural resident 45.2 57.7 52.0 44.2

East/west residentEastern resident 42.7 56.0 56.3 53.4Western resident 49.9 60.6 53.7 48.0

AgeAge 16–30 31.8 39.4 63.6 56.7Age 31–55 48.3 61.4 57.2 54.8Age over 55 57.1 69.9 38.3 38.5

RaceRace is white 45.5 61.3 56.4 52.4Race is nonwhite 37.6 37.9 51.3 48.3

All Americans 16 or over 44.4 57.6 55.7 51.6

Table 1. Response of Americans 16 or Older, byDemographic Characteristic, Regarding the National Wilderness

Preservation System, 1994 and 2000.

Very or extremely NotImportant (%) important (%) Mean score1

Wilderness value 1994 2000 ∆ 1994 2000 ∆ 1994 2000 ∆

Protecting water quality 78.9 93.1 14.2 1.7 0.6 -1.1 1.77 1.53 -.24

Protection of wildlife habitat 78.6 87.8 9.2 2.6 0.6 -2.0 1.81 1.62 -.19

Protecting air quality 78.0 92.3 14.3 2.6 0.6 -2.0 1.79 1.52 -.27

For future generations 76.9 87.0 10.1 2.0 1.1 -0.9 1.84 1.68 -.16

Protection for endangered 73.7 82.7 9.0 4.9 1.8 -3.1 1.92 1.74 -.18species

Preserving ecosystems 66.5 80.0 13.5 7.0 1.6 -5.4 2.14 1.82 -.32

Scenic beauty 59.7 74.0 14.3 5.4 1.8 -3.6 2.18 1.98 -.20

Future option to visit 59.4 75.1 15.7 7.7 3.1 -4.6 2.24 1.98 -.26

Just knowing it exists 56.1 74.6 18.5 6.4 2.2 -4.2 2.23 1.98 -.25

For scientific study 46.3 57.5 11.2 14.1 4.4 -9.7 2.55 2.33 -.22

Recreation opportunities 48.9 64.9 16.0 10.1 2.5 -7.6 2.46 2.17 -.29

Providing spiritual 43.2 56.5 13.3 18.3 8.9 -9.4 2.62 2.43 -.19inspiration

Income for tourism industry 22.8 29.7 6.9 41.1 17.6 -23.5 3.33 3.12 -.21

Table 2. Changes in Americans 16 or Older Indicating“Very or Extremely Important” and “Not Important” and Change in

Mean Score for Each of 13 Wilderness Values, 1994 (n = 1,900)and 2,000 (n = 5,002).

1Value scores ranged from “extremely important” = 1 to “not important” = 5.


creases occurred for items related toecosystem services (e.g., protecting airand water quality); existence (e.g.,preserving wildlife habitat and protect-ing endangered species); recreation;and future option values. Similarly, themean scores for each item have allshifted toward greater importancefrom 1994 to 2000. The rank order ofthe value items in 2000 was approxi-mately the same as in 1994, exceptthat protecting air quality moved tothe second highest position, replacingprotection of wildlife habitat. The re-liability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha)for the WVS was .86, which is similarto the alpha of .90 obtained from the1994 data.

An exploratory factor analysis withvarimax rotation produced the sametwo wilderness value factors as in 1994(see Table 3). Consistency in structureof these factors over time indicatespersistence of the dichotomy betweennonuse and use values. The nonuse

wildland protection factor accountedfor over 31% of the variance, and thewildland use value factor accountedfor 19% of the variance (over 50% oftotal variance was taken into accountbetween these two factors). Significantloading scores value by value in theWVS for each of the two surveys areunderscored in Table 3. The only in-consistent trend in the factor loadingsacross the 13 items was that the value“scientific study” did not load on ei-ther factor for the 1994 data, while in2000 this value loaded onto the“wildland utilization” factor. It shouldbe acknowledged that the wildlandutilization factor comprised feweritems than the factor labeled “wild-land protection.” While this does notinvalidate the factors our analysis ex-posed, it may indicate the existenceof other wildland use issues (such ascommunity and individual uses) thatshould be included in future appli-cations of the WVS.

ConclusionsA shift in public perceptions of wil-derness may indicate a growingconcern for the stewardship of landsalready in the NWPS (Hendee andDawson 2002; Watson et al. 1995)relative to desire for designating morefederal lands. A shift toward greaterconcern for stewardship is consistentwith the public’s growing interest inthe nonuse values of wilderness andin the improvement of the natural con-dition of extant wilderness areas. Ourresults showed higher proportions ofrespondents in 2000 (80% to 90%)relative to 1994 (around 75%) indi-cating nonuse values to be “very” to“extremely important.” These nonusevalues include protecting water qual-ity, providing habitat for wildlife,protecting air quality, and supportingendangered species.

Whites, older people, and westernresidents were significantly moreaware of the NWPS, but significantlyless likely to agree that we need moreacreage than their nonwhite, younger,and eastern counterparts. The recentrapid growth of numbers of oldermidwestern and western residentsmay in large part explain the recentseeming decline of support for morewilderness. Projected rapid growth ofthe younger, eastern, and nonwhitepopulation, however, is likely to be amoderating influence on this trend.

Further supporting the notion thatthere may be a trend toward greaterstewardship of the NWPS is that off-site, nonuse values of wildernessmoved even more firmly to the top ofthe list of 13 values. Combined, thosenonuse values at the top of the list inTable 2 form the factor we have labeled“wildland protection.” Findings fromother studies of environmental valuesare consistent with these results. Therehas been speculation that a fundamen-tal shift has occurred in what people

Factor 1 Factor 2Wildland protection Wildland utilization1994 2000 1994 2000

Wilderness value Beta Beta Beta Beta

Protection of wildlife habitat .81 .75 .17 .18

Protection for endangered species .79 .76 .20 .17

Preserving ecosystems .79 .74 .10 .23

For future generations .77 .68 .21 .22

Protecting air quality .73 .73 .25 .15

Protecting water quality .71 .68 .19 .01

Future option to visit .58 .54 .46 .43

Just knowing it exists .57 .54 .46 .42

For scientific study .47 .31 .37 .50

Scenic beauty .52 .42 .53 .54

Providing spiritual inspiration .33 .22 .56 .65

Recreation opportunities .27 .20 .71 .66

Income for tourism industry .01 .01 .82 .75

Table 3. Loadings on Two Orthogonal Factors from the 13 WildernessValues Items Using Principal Components Analysis with Varimax

Rotation, 1994 and 2000 (Underlining Indicatesthe Associated Factor for That Variable).


value in forests and other natural en-vironments. This suspected shift isaway from the dominant social para-digm (that emphasizes economicgrowth and human dominance anduse of nature) toward a new environ-mental paradigm (emphasizingsustainable development, harmonywith nature, and a balance of humanand nonhuman uses and nonuses)(e.g., Bliss, 2000; Steel and Lovrich1997; Xu and Bengston 1997).

DiscussionCongressional testimony and otherrecords suggest that much of the origi-nal justification for establishing theNWPS focused on use values. In the1950s and early 1960s, as debatesgrew more intense about legally cre-ating a wilderness system, thereseemed to be an almost endless wild-land base. Thus, wilderness, as anaesthetic resource, was not viewed bymost people then as being a scarce re-source. There were, however, some atthat time, such as Howard Zahniser(Scott 2001), who did see clearly thegrowing scarcity of protected wild-lands. But to most Americans, it seems,federal lands represented economicopportunities and raw materialsneeded to boost the nation’s industries.Naturally, selling the concept of a na-tional system of protected lands at thattime in our history needed to empha-size use values.

Over the years, as our economy hasgrown and as we who are fortunateenough to live in this country haveprospered, we have looked more andmore at natural lands for their beauty,naturalness, and wildness. Much less,it seems, is wilderness valued for itspersonal or business utility, or even forits use in science. It seems more andmore that ecological and existencevalues are central to Americans’ view-point on wilderness. It is increasingly

It seems more and more that ecological and existencevalues are central to Americans’ viewpoint on wilderness.It is increasingly clear that protection of the lands withinthe NWPS from development and exploitation is whatmost Americans want.

clear that protection of the landswithin the NWPS from developmentand exploitation is what most Ameri-cans want (Cordell and Overdevest2001). Failure to include nonuse val-ues in cost/benefit analyses can clearlyunderestimate what society sees asmost important about the NWPS andlead to biased allocation decisions fa-voring use of wilderness areas forpersonal benefits and profits (Loomis,et al. 1995; Oglethorpe and Miliadou2000; Rolfe et al. 2000).

As our American society works itsway into and ultimately through the21st century, there is a need to paycloser attention to what our societyvalues most about wilderness. It is in-cumbent upon us as social scientiststo continue to ask the public wheretheir values lie. Public Law 88-577(The Wilderness Act) established theNWPS as a system of wild areas to beprotected in perpetuity. A philosophyof wilderness protection, permissibleuses, and a range of values are pre-sented in that act. But it is clear inreading the language that a great dealof leeway is given the secretaries of ag-riculture and interior, and, thus, isgiven the four agencies charged withmanaging the NWPS. Therefore, therange of interpretations of what wasintended then and what is most ap-propriate now is quite broad.

Local communities see wildernessas a source of clean water for domes-tic and agricultural uses. Outfitters,guides, and other commercial service

providers see the scenery and chal-lenge of wilderness areas as theattractions that make their enterprisespossible. Mineral extraction andranching industries see wilderness aslands offering mining and grazing re-turns, usually at very reasonable coststo the businesses involved. Outdoorequipment manufacturers see wilder-ness as prime recreation opportunitiesattracting greater purchases of outdoorsport equipment. Usually, these useinterests and the management andpolicy perspectives so much a part ofthe culture of federal agencies, are “atthe table” when management and al-location issues are being considered.Usually, nonuse interests-that is, theinterests of the majority of Americans-are not “at the table.” Researchportraying this majority interest allowsus to bring that broader American

Figure 3-The public has expressed value in protecting endangeredspecies and other wildlife in wilderness. Photo courtesy of AldoLeopold Wilderness Research Institute.


voice to the table, a voice that is abroader representation of Americanculture and a greater magnitude ofvalue.

REFERENCESBliss, J. C. 2000. Public perceptions of

clearcutting. Journal of Forestry 98: 4–9.Bliss, J. C., S. K. Nepal, R. T. Brooks, and M. D.

Larsen. 1994. Forestry community orgranfalloon? Do forest owners share thepublic’s view? Journal of Forestry 92: 6–10.

Cordell, H. Ken, and Christine Overdevest.2001. Footprints on the Land: An Assess-ment of Demographic Trends and the Futureof Natural Resources in the United States.Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Publishing.

Cordell, H. K., M. A. Tarrant, B. L. McDonald,and J. C. Bergstrom. 1998. How the publicviews wilderness. IJW 4 (3): 28-31.

Gilbert, A., R. Glass, and T. More. 1992. Valu-ation of eastern wilderness: Extramarketmeasures of public support. In C. Payne, J.Bowker, and P. Reed, eds., The EconomicValue of Wilderness, GTR SE-78. Asheville,N. C.: USDA Forest Service, SoutheasternForest Experiment Station, 57-70.

Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wil-derness Management, 3rd ed. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Loomis, J., K. Bonetti, and C. Echohawk. 1995.Demand for and supply of wilderness. In

H. K. Cordell ed., Outdoor Recreation inAmerican Life. Champaign, Ill.: SagamorePublishing, 351–376.

Mountford, H., and J. H. Keppler. 1999. Financingincentives for the protection of biodiversity.The Science of the Total Environment 240:133–144.

Oglethorpe, D. R., and D. Miliadou. 2000. Eco-nomic valuation of the non-use attributes ofa wetland: A case study for Lake Kerkini.Journal of Environmental Planning andManagement 43 (6): 755–767.

Rolfe, J., J. Bennett, and J. Louviere. 2000.Choice modeling and its potential applicationto tropical rainforest preservation. Ecologi-cal Economics 35: 289–302.

Scott, D. 2001. A Wilderness-Forever Future:A Short History of the National WildernessPreservation System. Research Report.Washington, D.C.: Pew Wilderness Center.

Steel, B. S., and N. P. Lovrich. 1997. An intro-duction to natural resource policy and theenvironment: Changing paradigms andvalues. In B. S. Steel, ed., Public LandsManagement in the West. Westport, Conn.:Greenwood Publishing, 104–117.

Tarrant, M. A., and H. K Cordell. 1997. Theeffect of respondent characteristics on gen-eral environmental attitude-behavior corre-spondence. Environment and Behavior 29:618–637.

Walsh, R., J. Loomis, and R. Gillman. 1984. Valu-ing option, existence, and bequest demandfor wilderness. Land Economics 60: 14–29.

Watson, A., D. Cole, G. T. Friese, M. L. Linziger,J. C. Hendee, P. Landres, T. F. Geary, G. L.Stokes, J. Jarvis, and W. Henry. 1995. Wil-derness uses, users, values, and manage-ment. In H. K. Cordell, ed., OutdoorRecreation in American Life. Champaign, Ill.:Sagamore Publishing, 377–402.

Xu, Z., and D. N. Bengston. 1997. Trends innational forest values among forestry pro-fessionals, environmentalists, and the newsmedia. Society and Natural Resources 10:43–59.

H. KEN CORDELL is the project leader ofthe Recreation, Wilderness, Urban Forestry,and Demographic Trends Work Group ofthe USDA Forest Service in Athens,Georgia. E-mail: [email protected].

MICHAEL A. TARRANT is an associateprofessor with the Warnell School ofForestry at the University of Georgia inAthens. E-mail:[email protected].

GARY T. GREEN is an assistant researchscientist with the Warnell School of Forestryat the University of Georgia in Athens. E-mail: [email protected].

Natural Resource Professionals Sharing a Land EthicOur MissionThe Forest Stewards Guild’s mission is to promote ecologically and economically responsible resource management that sustains theentire forest across the landscape. The Guild provides a forum and support system for practicing foresters and other resource managementprofessionals working to advance this vision.

Who We AreThe Guild is comprised of forest resource professionals,students, and ecologically-minded individuals whoshare a concern for forests and forestry. Collectively,our members manage 6.5 million acres of forest landacross the U.S. and Canada.

What We DoThe Guild provides a mechanism for members toshare their experience with each other and the public.Through conferences, working groups, publications,tours and workshops, the Guild works to bring aboutchange and reform in forestry practice, policy andeducation.

MembershipThe Guild offers general, affiliate and student memberships. To join or for more information, please visit our website at www.foreststewardsguild.orgor contact us at Forest Stewards Guild; PO Box 8309; Santa Fe, NM 87504; 1-887-699-0037 or 1-800-MY-WOODS).

Join us in shaping the future of our forests!


All four federal wilderness management agencies (Na-tional Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, Fish andWildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management) for-

mally recognize the importance of fire as a natural ecologicalprocess and the desirability of restoring the historical roleof fire to wilderness ecosystems (Parsons and Landres 1998).Since the 1970s, well over 1 million acres (405,000 ha)have been allowed to burn on federal lands—the vast ma-jority within designated wilderness or similarly managednational parks.

However, fire suppression has been and continues to bethe dominant fire management strategy, even within wil-derness. Suppression of lightning ignitions is clearly“trammeling” and therefore runs counter to the intent ofThe Wilderness Act. Indeed, in many areas suppression hasresulted in conditions where the “imprint of man’s work” isquite noticeable in large-scale changes to vegetation andhistorically unprecedented accumulations of dead fuel (e.g.,Arno et al. 1997; Covington and Moore 1994). Fire regimesand vegetation have been significantly altered from theirhistorical ranges on approximately 20% of wilderness acre-age outside of Alaska and Hawaii (Schmidt et al. 2002).These conditions could very well lead to fire behavior andfire effects that are arguably “unnatural.”

Wilderness fire managers face unique challenges andopportunities for addressing the effects of fire suppressionand the conditions that have resulted from decades of fireexclusion. Manipulative methods that could help reversethe effects of fire suppression (e.g., prescribed fire, thin-ning, and other mechanical techniques) in designatedwilderness are limited by legal and policy constraints, aswell as public acceptance. Further, reduced access to theinteriors of these areas would severely limit the ability toapply such labor-intensive treatments. On the other hand,

wilderness also provides unique opportunities for fire man-agers. Wilderness and other unroaded areas hold the greatestpotential for using lightning-ignited fires as a strategy forthinning forests and reducing accumulated dead wood andlitter. At the same time, allowing lightning ignitions to burncan help satisfy legal and policy mandates to restore natu-ral or historical fire regimes and ecosystem conditions.

Underlying the current fire policies that emphasize theuse of natural ignitions is the assumption that lightning-caused fires can indeed restore or maintain fire regimes. Todate, this assumption has not been tested. In some wilder-ness areas, the current condition of vegetation andaccumulation of dead fuels may preclude allowing fires toburn because the fire would pose an excessive threat tonatural resource values within the wilderness and/or to so-cial values in the adjacent wildland urban interface (WUI).In some areas, particularly small wilderness areas with ex-tensive WUI areas, these approaches may never be feasible.Even in larger wilderness areas, there will always be an ar-gument to suppress some natural ignitions under certainconditions because of these risks. In addition, wildernessdoes not exist in isolation from surrounding lands. Fires

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

Natural Fire Regimesin Wilderness

BY CAROL MILLER

Continued on page 48


EDUCATION and COMMUNICATION

IntroductionAs the number of visitors to parks and wilderness contin-ues to rise, there is increasing concern over impacts to the

resource and social conditions(see Figure 1). Research suggeststhat recreation visitors can sig-nificantly impact resourcesthrough compaction and ero-sion of soils, trampling ofvegetation, disturbance of wild-life, and pollution of streamsand lakes (Hammitt and Cole1998). Moreover, increasing usecan also degrade the quality ofrecreation experiences throughcrowding and conflict andthrough aesthetic consequencesof the resource impacts notedabove (Manning 1999). Visitor

information and education programs about minimum im-pact skills and practices are an attractive and potentiallyeffective management alternative for minimizing the im-

pacts of outdoor recreation. Information and educationprograms are generally considered light handed becausethese indirect management practices do not impinge onthe freedom of wilderness users, are generally favored bywilderness visitors, and can provide a cognitive basis forappropriate recreation-related behavior in parks and wil-derness (Gilbert, et al. 1972; Peterson and Lime 1979;Hendee and Dawson 2002). This article reports on a sur-vey of Appalachian Trail (AT) hikers, including a quiz onminimum impact knowledge, and explores the manage-ment and research implications of study findings.

A number of studies have explored the potential effec-tiveness of information and education efforts in a variety ofpark, wilderness and related areas (Manning 2003). Al-though there is a growing body of literature concerningminimum impact education and techniques (see Figure 2),only a few studies have assessed minimum impact knowl-edge of park and wilderness visitors. For example, a surveyof visitors to the Allegheny National Forest found that re-spondents scored an average of 48% correct on a 12-itemtrue-or-false minimum impact quiz (Confer et al. 1998).Visitors to the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness scored an

An Evaluation of Appalachian TrailHikers’ Knowledge of Minimum

Impact Skills and PracticesBY PETER NEWMAN, ROBERT MANNING, JIM BACON,

ALAN GRAEFE, and GERARD KYLE

Abstract: Visitor information and education about minimum impact skills and practices is an attractive andpotentially effective management alternative for minimizing the ecological and social impacts of outdoor recre-ation. This article examines minimum impact knowledge of Appalachian Trail (AT) hikers. Study findings suggestthat AT hikers are relatively knowledgeable about minimum impact skills and practices, but several strategiesmight be useful in enhancing the effectiveness of information and education programs. Recommendations aremade concerning future techniques of assessing visitor knowledge about minimum impact practices and behavior.Study data are drawn from a survey of nearly 2,000 AT hikers in the summer and fall of 1999.

(PEER REVIEWED)

Article co-author Peter Newman.


average of 33% correct on a similarquiz (Cole et al. 1997). This paperbuilds on this growing body of re-search and explores future directionsresearch might take.

Study MethodsThe AT is a unit of the national parksystem. Established as the first Na-tional Scenic Trail by Congress withpassage of the National Trails SystemAct in 1968, the AT is a continuous,marked footpath extending approxi-mately 2,160 miles along theAppalachian Mountains from the sum-mit of Springer Mountain in Georgiato the summit of Mount Katahdin inMaine. The AT forms a greenway thatconnects public land areas in 14 states.These public lands include eight na-tional forests, six units of the nationalpark system, and more than 60 stateparks, forests, and wildlife areas. In-cluded in the public lands throughwhich the AT passes are 21 units offederally designated wilderness.

A survey of a representative sampleof AT hikers addressed a wide rangeof issues, including visitor knowledgeof minimum impact skills and prac-tices. Several questions were on thistopic. First, a 10-item true-or-falsequiz was designed to test visitorknowledge of minimum impact skillsand practices. Items included in thisquiz were based on the Leave No Traceprogram, a formal organization andeffort designed to educate outdoor rec-reation visitors in minimum impactskills and practices (Monz et al. 1994;Marion and Reid 2001). These itemswere similar to those used in Conferet al. (2000) noted earlier. Althoughcertain questions were related specifi-cally to the AT, they reflected the spiritof recreation use in designated wilder-ness more generally. Second, respon-dents were asked about two otherminimum impact principles, the mini-

mum distance that (1)human waste should bedisposed of from a streamor water source, and (2)campsites should be lo-cated from an establishedtrail. The survey also col-lected information on avariety of hiker character-istics, including type ofhiker (day, overnight, ATsection, AT thru), geo-graphic region of the trail,demographic characteris-tics (e.g., gender, education, occupa-tion), and residence (urban, rural).

Sampling occurred in the summerand fall of 1999, along the entirelength of the trail. A stratified, sys-tematic sampling procedure was usedto obtain a representative sample ofall AT hikers, stratified (by time andday of week) in accordance with useestimates provided by the NationalPark Service and the AppalachianTrail Conference. Every third hikerover the age of 18 was intercepted byvolunteers or paid staff and asked toprovide his/her name and address tobe sent a survey questionnaire. Sec-ond, “thru- hikers” (people who hikethe entire AT in a single year) werepurposively sampled at the northernend of the AT to ensure a sufficientnumber of cases for this type of hiker.Staff and volunteers at Baxter StatePark in Maine asked thru-hikers tocomplete the survey questionnaireon-site before they finished their hikeat Mt. Katahdin.

A total of 2,847 AT hikers agreedto participate in the study (approxi-

mately 90% of those asked) and weremailed a questionnaire within twoweeks of their visit. Two weeks afterthe initial mailing, visitors weremailed a reminder/thank you post-card. Visitors who did not return acompleted questionnaire within fourweeks of the initial mailing weremailed a second copy of the question-naire. Finally, all nonrespondentswere mailed a third copy of the ques-tionnaire at the end of the samplingperiod.

. . . this study indicates that most hikers on the AT arerelatively well informed about a variety of minimumimpact skills and practices.

Figure 1—New products, such as this backpacking hammock, allow visitors morecamping options while reducing associated resource impacts. Photo by Jeff Marion.

Figure 2—Sumping, a lightweight piece of fiberglass screen isused to filter food particles from dishwater; the food particlesare packed out and the dishwater is sumped into a cathole orbroadcast away from camp. Photo by Jeff Marion.


Table 1. Percentage of Visitors WhoAnswered Questions Correctly and Quiz Score Means.

Minimum impact quiz questions and answers Day Overnight Section Thru- All(Correct answers in bold) hikers hikers hikers hikers hikers

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

True False

When selecting a campsite in obviously impacted areas you should spread activities toplaces that have not been disturbed.

The same rules and regulations apply to the entire Appalachian Trail.

When hiking and encountering a horse party you should wait until the horses havecome to a stop and then move quickly past them.

I cannot ride my mountain bike on the Appalachian Trail, because it is not allowed.

While backpacking, you should never camp next to a stream.

If I wanted to ride my all-terrain vehicle on the AT, I could do so as long as I stay on thetrail.

When hiking in remote, lightly used locations it is best to camp on a site with no evidenceof previous use to minimize your impact on the wilderness environment.

Building temporary fire rings by moving rocks and logs at your campsite is an acceptedlow-impact behavior.

When traveling on existing trails it is best to walk single file and stay on the main pathto minimize impact.

Hikers should not collect plants and rocks along the Appalachian Trail.

91 90 87 90 90

67 71 75 87 73

69 76 73 74 73

86 87 95 97 90

64 73 64 60 66

100 99 100 99 99

37 47 49 73 48

73 87 90 92 83

99 99 99 99 99

97 98 99 97 97

Mean Quiz Scores 78 83 83 86 82

76 91 92 97 87

49 69 71 74 63

Table 2. Overall Percentage of VisitorsWho Answered Distance Questions Correctly (Less Than 100 Feet).

According to accepted minimumimpact practices for the AT:

% Reported > 100 feetDay Overnight Section Thru- All

hikers hikers hikers hikers hikers

a. How far from a stream or water source(in feet) should you dispose of humanwastes?

b. How far from an established trail (in feet)should you camp?

Study FindingsThe sampling and survey procedureyielded 1,879 completed question-naires representing a 66% responserate. Of the sample, 679 were day us-ers, 597 were overnight users (campingonly a few nights), 285 were sectionhikers (camping several nights to com-plete a geographic section of the trail),and 318 were thru-hikers.

Study findings for the 10-item quizof minimum impact skills and practices

are shown in Table 1. Correct answerswere coded as a 10 and incorrectanswers were coded as a 0, and over-all mean scores were reported on apercentage basis that ranges from apossible high of 100% to a possiblelow of 0%. The overall mean score ofall AT hikers was 82%.

Scores varied substantially on in-dividual items, and this might providesome guidance concerning the sub-stantive emphasis on futureinformation and education efforts.

Over 90% of respondents knew that(1) use should be concentrated in ob-viously impacted areas, (2) all-terrainvehicles are not allowed on the AT, (3)mountain bikes are not allowed on theAT, (4) it is best to travel on existingtrails and walk singe file, and (5) hik-ers should not collect plants and rocksalong the AT. On only two items didless than 70% of respondents choosethe correct answer. Approximately66% of respondents knew that oneshould not camp next to a stream, andonly 48% of respondents knew thatwhen hiking in a lightly used location,it is best to camp on a site with noevidence of previous use.

Respondent scores on the mini-mum distance questions were alsogenerally high, but varied substantially(see Table 2). Correct answers wereconsidered as any response of 100 feetor more. Knowledge was quite high(mean score of 87%) about the mini-mum distance that human waste


should be disposed of from streamsand water sources. However, knowl-edge was considerably lower (meanscore of 63%) on the minimum dis-tance campsites should be locatedfrom established trails.

Statistical analyses were conductedto test for differences in knowledge ofminimum impact skills and practicesby hiker characteristics. Few statisti-cally significant differences werefound, with most differences relatedto hiker type and region of the trail.For example, 73% of thru-hikers knewto camp on a site with no evidence ofprevious use when hiking in a remote,lightly used setting as compared to justunder half of overnight and sectionhikers (see Table 1). Respondents fromthe southern regions scored lower(72%) than respondents from thenorthern regions (87%) on the ques-tion concerning construction oftemporary fire rings.

Management ImplicationsInformation and education programsrepresent an attractive management al-ternative that can potentially reduce theecological and social impacts of recre-ation while maintaining visitor freedomof choice. However, effective dissemi-nation of information and educationcan be challenging, especially at areassuch as the AT where visitors are widelydistributed geographically and amongmultiple management agencies andorganizations. However, this study in-dicates that most hikers on the AT arerelatively well-informed about a vari-ety of minimum impact skills andpractices. The average score on the 10-item quiz administered to arepresentative sample of hikers alongthe trail was 82%. This providesbaseline information about minimumimpact knowledge of AT hikers that willbe important to monitor in order toassess longitudinal changes and trends.

In addition to assessing the successof information and education pro-grams, studies such as this one can behelpful in enhancing their potentialeffectiveness. For example, park andwilderness management agencies andorganizations associated with the ATmay wish to emphasize topics that areless well understood by visitors (e.g.,dispersed camping in low use areas,camping at least 100 feet from estab-lished trails) and should target typesof hikers who are the least knowledge-able (e.g., day hikers, hikers in thesouthern regions of the trail). Al-though it may not be reasonable toexpect all day-hikers to be knowledge-able about minimum impact campingpractices, day hikers may camp onother trips or evolve to camping at alater time. Even though other studieshave addressed the minimum impactknowledge of visitors to several parks,wilderness, and related areas, directcomparisons of scores are not easilymade because of differences in studyinstruments and implementation.However, assessing minimum impactknowledge across areas, regions, agen-cies, and time may be important, andstandardized measures may be war-ranted. Basic principles of minimumimpact knowledge and behavior arenow emerging as manifested in LeaveNo Trace and related programs. Insome cases, these principles have beenadapted for unique ecosystems (e.g.,arctic/alpine areas, deserts, riparianareas). Standardized measures of mini-mum impact knowledge and skillsbased on these principles should bedeveloped and periodically incorpo-rated into surveys of visitors to parks,wilderness, and related areas. Thispractice would allow managementagencies to tailor information and edu-cation programs to specific topics andtypes of visitors that warrant the mostattention (as suggested in this study).

It would also allow for monitoring ofvisitor knowledge over time and acrossgeographic and agency boundaries.

Future ResearchThe list of questions developed andused in this and related studies mayrepresent an appropriate starting pointfor the development of more standard-ized and universal measures ofminimum impact knowledge andskills. However, future research on avariety of conceptual and method-ological issues can help inform thedevelopment of such measures. Follow-ing are some research recommendations:

• Research should focus on determin-ing which behavioral principles aremost important and effective inminimizing the ecological and so-cial impacts of outdoor recreation(see Figure 3), and which of prin-ciples the public are most and leastaware.

• Research should make strongerlinkages between visitor knowl-edge and visitor behavior. Dovisitors who are knowledgeableabout minimum impact principlesbehave accordingly? What are thebarriers that keep visitors fromadopting minimum impact prac-

Figure 3—Tarp. This tarp was erected on dry grassygroundcover, shown by research to be more resistant thanbroad-leafed herbaceous plants found under the denser forestcanopies in the background. Photo by Jeff Marion.


tices when they are knowledgeableabout them?

• Research should examine the va-lidity of measures of minimumimpact knowledge. Do surveys ofvisitors, such as those described inthis study, accurately assess themost important elements of visi-tors’ knowledge of minimumimpact skills and practices? Howeasy or difficult should such sur-vey-based quizzes be?

• Once appropriate indicators ofminimum impact knowledge aredeveloped, research should focuson the development of appropri-ate standards of such knowledge.What is the minimum level ofknowledge below which manage-ment action should be taken?

• How is minimum impact informationdisseminated and communicatedmost effectively? Where and how dovisitors receive information on parkand wilderness use, and what types ofmessages are most effective in influ-encing visitor behavior?

As noted earlier, visitor informationand education about minimum impactskills and practices are an attractive andpotentially effective management alter-native for minimizing the ecologicaland social impacts of outdoor recre-

ation. However, better understandingof visitors’ knowledge and associatedbehavior will allow managers to shapeand implement information dissemina-tion programs that are more likely tobe effective in protecting park and wil-derness resources and the quality ofvisitor experiences.

REFERENCESCole, D. N., T. Hammond, and S. F. McCool.

1997. Information quantity and communi-cation effectiveness: Low-impact messageson wilderness trailside bulletin boards.Leisure Sciences 19: 59–72

Cole, D. 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. (Spring): 65–79.

Confer, J. J., J. D. Absher, A. Graefe, and A.Hille. 1998. Relationships between visitorknowledge of “Leave No Trace” minimumimpact practices and attitudes toward se-lected management actions. Proceedings—1998 Northeastern Recreation ResearchSymposium. 1998 April 5–7; Bottom Land-ing, NY; USDA Forest Service General Tech-nical Report NE 255, 142–146. Radnor, Pa.

Confer, J. J., A. J. Mowen, A. R. Graefe, and J.D. Absher. 2000. Magazines as wildernessinformation sources: Assessing users’ gen-eral wilderness knowledge and specificLeave No Trace knowledge. In D. Cole, S.McCool, W. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin eds.Proceedings—National Wilderness ScienceConference: A Time of Change. U. S. De-partment of Agriculture, Forest Service,Rocky Mountain Research Station Proceed-ings RMRS-P-14-VOL4. Fort Collins, Colo.193–197.

Gilbert, C. G., G. L. Peterson, and D. W. Lime.1972. Toward a model of travel behavior:Behavior in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.Environment and Behavior (4): 131–157.

Hammitt, W., and D. N. Cole. 1998. WildlandRecreation: Ecology and Management. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Hendee, J., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. WildernessManagement: Stewardship and Protectionof Resources and Values, 3rd ed. Golden,Colo.: Fulcrum Publishing.

Manning, R. E. 2003. Emerging principles forusing information/education in wildernessmanagement. IJW (9): 20–27.

Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Rec-reation: Search and Research for Satis-faction, 2nd ed. Corvallis: Oregon StateUniversity Press.

Marion, J. L., and S. Reid. 2001. Developmentof the United States Leave No Traceprogramme: A historical perspective. In M.B. Usher, ed., Enjoyment and Understand-ing of the Natural Heritage. Edinburgh, Scot-land: The Stationery Office Ltd., 81–92.

Monz, C. A., C. Henderson, and R. Brame.1994. Perspectives on the integration of wil-derness research, education and manage-ment. In C. Sydoriak, comp. 6th NationalWilderness Conference Proceedings: TheSpirit Lives. Santa Fe, N. M.: U. S. Bureauof Land Management, Los Alamos, N. M.,204–207.

Peterson, G., and D. Lime. 1979. People and theirbehavior: A challenge for recreation manage-ment. Journal of Forestry 77: 343–346.

PETER NEWMAN is in the Department ofNatural Resource Recreation and Tourism,Colorado State University, 231 Forestry,Fort Collins, CO 80523-1480, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

ROBERT MANNING and JIM BACON arein the School of Natural Resources,University of Vermont, Recreation ManagementProgram.

ALAN GRAEFE is with the Leisure StudiesProgram, The Pennsylvania State University.

GERARD KYLE is in the Department ofParks, Recreation and Tourism Management,Clemson University.

Information and education programs represent anattractive management alternative that can potentiallyreduce the ecological and social impacts of recreationwhile maintaining visitor freedom of choice.


Bill Bainbridge of South AfricaReceives Honorary Doctorate

for Wilderness WorkBY DRUMMOND DENSHAM

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Bill Bainbridge, noted wilderness expert (and frequentIJW contributor) from KwaZulu Natal in South Africa(SA), received an honorary doctorate of law from

the University of Natal on April 12, 2003. Bill is recognizedfor his distinguished career in conservation, during whichhe held several senior government posts at both nationaland provincial levels, always supporting and promoting wil-derness conservation. Since retirement from publicemployment he has worked as an environmental consult-ant and as a director of the Wilderness Action Group (WAG),an NGO he helped form following the 1983 3rd WorldWilderness Congress (WWC) in Scotland.

Bill’s appreciation of wilderness stems from his experi-ence in Zambia (1951–1971), where he was responsiblefor the management of the national parks of Luangwa andKafue and explored, mostly on foot, the near-pristine big-game (de-facto) wilderness of that beautiful country. Uponreturning to SA’s Natal, his home province, he began pro-moting wilderness conservation there in his belovedDrakensberg Mountains. Subsequently, after an amendmentto the Forest Act, which enables wilderness designation onstate forestland, and encouraged by Bill’s active promotion,nomination proposals for four Drakensberg wilderness ar-eas were eventually formalized. The support of NGOs, suchas the Mountain Club of SA and the Wildlife and Environ-ment Society of SA, was instrumental to these actions, alongwith Bill’s advocacy personally and through WAG, of whichhe has been chairman for eight years and vice chairman forfive years during its 20-year existence.

Bill has been a delegateand presenter at six WWCs,several times serving on itsresolution committee andchairing that committee atthe 7th WWC in 2001. Hehas been a long-standingteam member for the Wilder-ness Concept and PracticeCourses jointly presented bythe Centre for Environmentand Development, Universityof Natal, and WAG. Recently,Bill helped establish accred-ited courses on wildernessmanagement and researchwithin the Centre for Envi-ronment and Development (University of Natal), the onlycourses of their kind in Africa and which led to interna-tional partnership agreements and eventually to the master’sdegree program in Protected Area Management Masters firstoffered July 2002.

Dr. Bainbridge, on behalf of your many wilderness col-leagues around the world, the International Journal ofWilderness congratulates you on this well-deserved honor.

DRUMMOND DENSHAM is chairman of the Wilderness ActionGroup in South Africa and is retired from the KwaZulu NatalWildlife Services. E-mail: [email protected].

Bill Bainbridge.


South Africa WildernessSeeks VolunteersExciting opportunities exist for expe-rienced wilderness rangers andprofessionals to become active inSouth Africa. Host to the smallest ofthe six plant kingdoms—the CapeFloral Kingdom—the conservationauthority, Western Cape Nature Con-servation Board (WCNCB), invitesvolunteers to become involved in theidentification, management, and edu-cational aspects of their wilderness.Support is needed to start identify-ing potential wilderness from the fastdisappearing pieces of “unspoiled”land with its abundant diversity. Skillsrequired include path maintenance,rehabilitation, eradication of nonna-tive species, zonation, staff training,public education, and fund-raising.This initiative started under the um-brella of The WILD Foundation andthe Wilderness Foundation (SouthAfrica), after an approach by Pierrevan den Berg of the WCNCB. Theprogram promotes internationalexchanges between wilderness pro-fessionals and is viewed as aninnovative approach to the challengesfacing these reserves. It is also an idealmarketing opportunity for individu-als and organizations to take

Environmental groups said the sus-pension of wilderness reviews wouldleave millions of undeveloped acresvulnerable to oil and gas developmentand off-road vehicle use.

The policy changes come as partof a settlement filed in federal courtin Salt Lake City. Utah had sued theInterior Department in 1996 over areinventory of 3 million acres con-ducted by the interior secretary at thetime, Bruce Babbitt. Norton’s an-nouncement means that thedepartment will disregard the resultsof Mr. Babbitt’s 1996 reinventory.That inventory identified 5.9 millionacres of Utah land that qualified forwilderness protection, 3 million acresmore than were found in the originalinventory in the Reagan administra-tion. Sizable parts of the additional 3million protected acres are red rockcanyons and rock formations insoutheastern Utah. The settlement issubject to approval by a federal judgein Utah, who also has yet to rule onefforts by environmentalists to inter-vene in the case.

“It looks like Interior agrees withme and my Western colleagues thatthe BLM does not have the authorityto designate new wilderness study ar-eas,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, aUtah Republican. “Secretary Norton’s

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

Announcementsand Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

advantage of the generous gesture ofthe U.S. volunteers. For more infor-mation, please contact Pierre [email protected].

U.S. Plans to LimitAdditional Wildernessto 23 Million AcresThe Interior Department wants to limitBureau of Land Management (BLM)lands eligible for wilderness protectionto 23 million acres nationwide, a fig-ure that leaves out millions of acres ofroadless area.

In April the department told Con-gress that it intended to halt all reviewsof its western land holdings for newwilderness protection and to withdrawthat protected status from about 3million acres in Utah.

Suspending wilderness reviewswould limit the amount of land heldby the bureau eligible for wildernessprotection at 22.8 million acres. Con-gress could order additional areasprotected.

Interior Secretary Gale A. Nortonsaid that, in 1976, Congress hadgiven the Interior Department 15years to inventory wilderness areas,and only those areas identified by1991 as having wilderness character-istics qualified for protection.

WILDERNESS DIGEST


actions will bring resolution to the ille-gal activities of the past administration.”Source: The Wilderness Society: http://www.wilderness.org/.

IUCN World Commissionon Protected AreasCreates WildernessTask ForceThe WILD Foundation is pleased toannounce that the IUCN’s WorldCommission on Protected Areas(WCPA) recently approved the cre-ation of a new Wilderness Task Force(WTF). WILD played a central rolein pushing for the creation of this newtask force, which will be cochairedby Vance Martin, president of TheWILD Foundation, and KhulaniMkhize, CEO of KwaZulu NatalWildlife. The WTF’s immediate ob-jective will be to integrate wilder-ness-related issues into discussionsat the World Parks Congress inDurban, South Africa, September2003, and to report on wildernessproceedings after the congress. TheWTF will also serve as an importantliaison to the 8th World WildernessCongress, which will likely be heldin 2005. The WTF is open to allIUCN members.

The WTF will meet an importantand long-standing need. Althoughwilderness has been a protected ar-eas category (IUCN Category Ib)since 1992, until now there has beenno official IUCN forum specificallydedicated to wilderness issues.WILD therefore submitted a pro-posal for a Wilderness Task Force atthe WCPA’s meetings in Amman, Jor-dan, in 2000, and further discussedthe proposal with the IUCN at theWorld Summit on Sustainable Devel-opment in Johannesburg inSeptember 2002. WILD is verypleased that the IUCN was able to

establish this task force in time forthe meetings in Durban—we believethe new task force will perform animportant function, serving as a cata-lyst both for policy discussions andfor conservation results on theground. For more information, go towww.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ orwww.wild.org. If you are an IUCNmember and wish to participate onthe WTF, please contact [email protected],with a copy to [email protected].

New Forest/NaturalResources Faculty Chairat SUNY-ESFDr. Chad P. Dawson was appointedMarch 1, 2003, as the new chair ofthe Faculty of Forest and Natural Re-sources Management at the StateUniversity of New York, College ofEnvironmental Science and Forestryat Syracuse. Chad is also professorof recreation resources managementat ESF, where he teaches outdoor rec-reation and wilderness managementcourses and serves as managing edi-tor of the International Journal ofWilderness. Among his accomplish-ments at ESF are earning the SUNYChancellor’s Excellence in TeachingAward in 1995. Chad has authoredmany articles on recreation andwilderness topics and recently coau-thored the textbook WildernessManagement: Stewardship and Protec-tion of Resources and Values, 3rdedition (Fulcrum Publishing) withJohn Hendee in 2002. Chad joinedSUNY-ESF in 1989 after working onresearch and public service projectswith Cornell Cooperative Extension,and Minnesota Cooperative Exten-sion Service about tourism andrecreation issues. Previously, he wason the research faculty at CornellUniversity studying the human di-mensions of natural resources

management. IJW congratulatesChad on his appointment to thisimportant natural resource leader-ship position.

Wilderness Rights-of-WayRestrictions EasedA controversial plan to ease restrictionson granting rights of way across U.S.public lands is now in effect. The ruleallows roads and highways to be builtalong any route presently traced by aroad or trail, even if the trail is 150years old and has never been traveledby a motor vehicle. Criticized as a give-away of lands owned by the public,the rule will hit especially hard inAlaska and the West.

The 130-year-old rule (RS 2477 ofthe 1866 Mining Act), designed to en-courage road-building in the CivilWar era and repealed by Congress in1976, has been resuscitated by theDepartment of the Interior. BeginningJanuary 2003, local and state govern-ments were able to expedite filingclaims for rights-of-way under theCivil War–era statute. It enabled thesecretary of the interior to transferrights-of-way to state or local juris-dictions. As a result, state and localgovernments can make claims on dirtroads, historic wagon trails, hikingtrails, and even well-used animalpaths to build roads or highways onfederally owned lands, including na-tional parks.

According to a 1993 Park Servicememo, claims under the road statutecould affect up to 17 million acres ofnational park lands in the lower 48states, and the state of Alaska hasidentified 164 routes totaling 2,741miles in 14 national parks. Source:Environmental News Service. Formore information regarding the rule,visit: http://ens-news.com/ens/jan2003/2003-01-07-06.asp.


WILD FoundationAnnouncesNew Vice PresidentCyril Kormos has just joined the teamat The WILD Foundation (one of IJW’sfounding sponsors). Cyril comes toWILD from Conservation International(CI) where he worked for the last sixyears, most recently as senior directorfor program management in thePresident’s Office. A native of Califor-nia, Cyril returns to his home state withhis wife, Rebecca, to take on the posi-tion of vice president for policy atWILD. Rebecca is a primatologist bytraining, and an expert on chimpan-zees. She is a pesearch fellow for CI’sCenter for Applied Biodiversity Science.

Prior to his position in thePresident’s Office, Cyril directed CI’sPolicy Program, during which time hedeveloped considerable experience ona broad range of issues, from multilat-eral development-bank operationalpolicies, to national parks legislation,to U.S. involvement in internationalenvironmental affairs. Cyril has trav-eled widely, both in southern Africaand Latin America, and has consider-able field experience. Projects inBotswana, and in the remote forestsof the Guaianas Shield, helped develophis wilderness conservation skills. Hehas also published extensively, includ-ing several important pieces onwilderness protection. Cyril has abachelor’s degree in English literaturefrom the University of California atBerkeley, a master’s degree in politicaleconomy from the London School ofEconomics, and a law degree from TheGeorge Washington University.

Most importantly, Cyril has astrong commitment to wildernessconservation: “We’re at a crossroads.Wilderness is disappearing extremelyfast, but if we act now, we can stillsave the planet’s last wild places. We

can and must rise to the challenge—a world without wilderness is animpoverished place, in every sense ofthe word.”

A Mandate to ProtectAmerica’s WildernessThe Campaign for America’s Wilder-ness recently completed a Comp-rehensive Review of Public OpinionResearch conducted by commercialpolling firms, the media, and the fed-eral government from 1999 through2002. The review reveals that pollsconsistently, and by wide margins,find that the American people trea-sure the heritage of wilderness ontheir public lands and want to seemore of it preserved as wilderness.The very high level of support for pro-tecting more wilderness is broadlyshared across the political spectrum,all ages and ethnicities, and across de-mographic groups, including bothurban and rural residents.

Strongly held values drive this ma-jority support for protecting morewilderness. These public values go farbeyond on-site recreational use ofwilderness areas and reflect a strongand fundamental sense of duty to pre-serve a legacy of wildness for futuregenerations. Appreciation for the“ecological services” of wilderness—clean water, clean air, habitat forwildlife—were reported and a com-mitment to protecting wild sceniclandscapes to enjoy from the road-side as well as the trail. The publicexpressed the belief that decisionsabout the fate of their federal lands—that could be, but are not yetprotected as wilderness—should bemade in the national interest. Thefindings of the polls by commercialfirms and the media were confirmedby academic surveys and, most nota-bly, in intensive polling done by the

U.S. government. The values report-edly held by survey respondentsinclude (1) a strong and fundamen-tal sense of duty to preserve a legacyof wilderness for future generations,(2) very high appreciation for the eco-logical services of wilderness, and (3)a commitment to protecting wild sce-nic landscapes from the roadside aswell as the trail. The 44-page reportwas written by Douglas W. Scott,policy director, and was published inJanuary 2003. This report and oth-ers on wilderness preservation areavailable on the Campaign forAmerica’s Wilderness website atwww.leaveitwild.org.

More Support forProtected Areas inCentral AmericaThe protected area systems of all thecountries in Central America and theCentral American System of ProtectedAreas will be strengthened with sup-port from their governments. This wasagreed upon by the Ministers of theEnvironment of Central America onthe last day of the First Central Ameri-can Congress on Protected Areas,which was held from March 10–14,2003, in Nicaragua. In the “Declara-tion of Managua,” the ministerscommitted to push for a CentralAmerican participative policy andstrategy for protected areas, and theninsisted on the importance of terres-trial and marine protected areas as oneof the principal forms of ecosystemand biodiversity conservation in theregion. In general, the Ministers of theEnvironment endorsed the recom-mendations and conclusions given bythe participants of the Congress, whichhad over 700 representatives fromCentral America and Mexico, includ-ing scientists, government officials,indigenous and rural people, NGOs,


and international organizations, whichwork with protected areas and natu-ral resources. This event was part ofthe preparatory process for the 5thIUCN World Parks Congress, whichwill be held in Durban, South Africa,in September 2003. For more infor-mation, visit http://iucn.org/themes/wcpa/newsbulletins/new.html.

Vance Martin ReceivesNRPS President’s AwardPresident of The WILD Foundationand executive editor of the Interna-tional Journal of Wilderness, VanceMartin has been selected to receive the2003 President’s Award from the Ne-vada Recreation and Parks Society(NRPS). Vance is being honored for“Outstanding Leadership in World-wide Conservation.” In announcingthe award, Bud Solmonsson, presidentof the NRPS, praised Vance’s “leader-ship for 20 years as president of theWILD Foundation, sponsors of theWorld Wilderness Congresses, whichhave convened under his tenure inScotland, the U.S., Norway, India, andmost recently in South Africa in 2001.And beyond those events, WILD, withVance’s personal involvement, has pro-vided leadership to assist several otherconservation organizations, includingthe Cheetah Conservation Fund inNamibia; The International Center forEarth Concerns in Ojai, California;and The Wilderness Foundations ofSouth Africa and Great Britain.” A fore-most authority on internationalwilderness, Martin has edited,authored, and coauthored severalbooks and articles on the subject, andhas traveled to over 50 countries tostudy and help establish wilderness,wildlife, and wildland conservationprograms. The NRPS, now 50 yearsold, is the professional state affiliate/chapter of the National Recreation and

Parks Association. Source: BudSolmonsson, president, Nevada Rec-reation and Parks Society.

Nominations Sought ForKeith Corrigall WildernessStewardship AwardThe International Journal of Wildernesssolicits nominations for the “KeithCorrigall Excellence in WildernessStewardship” award to honor personswhose efforts to protect and managewilderness are worthy of special rec-ognition. The award honors the lateKeith Corrigall, who was wildernessbranch chief for the Bureau of LandManagement during that agency’s for-mative years of their wildernessprogram from the mid 1980s to mid1990s.

Keith was a strong leader and ad-vocate for wilderness education,protection of wilderness and wilder-ness study areas, low impact use ofall public lands and wilderness skillstraining. His influence extended be-yond BLM to all the wildernessagencies, universities, and environ-mental organizations. Keith’s quietdetermination, passion and high stan-dards for wilderness and all resourcemanagement provided leadership andmentoring to all his colleagues andcooperators. Rarely outspoken, he setan outstanding example of depend-ability, vision and professionalismthat charted direction and fosteredcooperation.

The “IJW-Keith Corrigall Award forExcellence in Wilderness Steward-ship” is given annually to anindividual or team of persons whoseefforts to protect and/or steward wil-derness is worthy of specialrecognition. Nominees may be pro-fessionals or citizens involved inwilderness work. Nominations aresolicited until August 30 each year for

the annual award. Submit a 500 wordstatement and seconding letter to: SteveHollenhorst, IJW editor, “IJW CorrigallAward” ([email protected]) describ-ing why the award is deserved, withcomplete snail mail, e-mail and tele-phone contact information for thenominee(s) and the person(s) mak-ing the nomination.

Minnesota DesignatesSome State Wildernessin BWCAWIn the spring of 2003, the MinnesotaLegislature debated the fate of morethan 100,000 acres of state-ownedland within the 1.1 million-acreBoundary Waters Canoe Area Wil-derness (BWCAW) of northeasternMinnesota. Some northern Demo-cratic state legislators want to force theU. S. Forest Service to exchange the93,000 acres of state school trust fundland within the BWCAW for most ofthe federally-owned lands of SuperiorNational Forest outside the wilderness.One such lawmaker also pushed leg-islation to auction off some of thisschool trust land within the BWCAWto the highest bidder. These propos-als did not ultimately succeed, but anamendment proposed by a Republi-can state legislator from the Twin Citiesregion during the debate did remainin the final law signed by the gover-nor. This amendment designates stateacquired lands within the BWCAW asstate wilderness, the first time thatMinnesota has ever designated statewilderness under the statute adoptedin 1975 (also see Dawson andThorndike, 2002, State-DesignatedWilderness Programs in the Unitedstates, IJW 8 [3]: 21–26). The newstate wilderness lands within theBWCAW include about 18,000 acresof land from the Burntside State For-est in the Little Sioux Unit of the


BWCAW. The fate of the 93,000 acresof school trust land in the BoundaryWaters, however, remains undecided.Source: Kevin Proescholdt (e-mail:[email protected])

Steven Foster,Wilderness Rites OfPassage Teacher, Dies

rites of passage and modern day vi-sion questing, passed away on May 6,2003, at age 64 from a genetic lungdisorder. A former English and Hu-manities Professor, Dr. Foster leftacademia in the early 1970s to seek amore meaningful life. Ultimately, in1977 he and his wife, Meredith Little,founded a non-profit organization inthe San Francisco Bay Area called“Rites of Passage”, to take “at risk”youth on modern-day wilderness vi-sion quests to celebrate their passagefrom childhood to adulthood.

In 1983, Steven and Meredithmoved to Big Pine, California andfounded The School of Lost Borders tofocus on training rites of passage andwilderness vision quest guides, andLost Borders Press to publish theirwork. Since then they trained morethan 1,000 individuals from all over theworld in diverse skills related to wil-derness vision questing and rites ofpassage in nature, and impacted thou-sands more thru the subsequent effortsof their trainees. They also publishedimportant works on the subject includ-

ing the popular: Book of the Vision Quest;the widely used handbook, The Trail tothe Sacred Mountain; The Roaring of theSacred River; The Four Shields: TheInitiatory Seasons of Human Nature, re-viewed in IJW 6 (1); and other works.Dr. Foster contributed an invited articlein the inaugural issue of IJW in 1995,“The Vision Fast: Therapeutic Use ofWilderness for Self Discovery” IJW 1(1), 27-29.

Lost Border’s courses increasinglydrew international participants, andSteven and Meredith were invited toteach in many other countries—theirlast presentation was at The Jung In-stitute in Zurich, Switzerland.

On June 14–15, 2003, a celebrationof Steven Foster’s life was held in BigPine, California, attended by 130people from the U. S. and abroad, withconcurrent gatherings in 21 other loca-tions in the U. S. and 6 other countries.IJW deeply regrets the loss of StevenFoster, an important pioneer in the useof wilderness for personal growth.Source: John C. Hendee, IJW Editorin Chief.

Steven Foster, the most prominentteacher, scholar and author on usingwilderness for personal growth thru

Water lily in the Okefenokee Wilderness Area and National Wildlife Refuge. Photo by Pam Sikes.


Dear IJW Editor:Even though it’s been a while, I’d liketo respond to Naomi and RebeccaOreskes’s well-written response(“Don’t Blame Science,” IJW 7 [1]: 35–38) to my article on controlling nature(IJW 6 [1]: 4–8).

First, I’m flattered that anyone re-sponded at all. My commonexperience is that you grind and sweatand strain to write an article, and ifyou’re lucky it eventually gets pub-lished. There follows a short period ofprofound silence, and by the nextmonth it is forgotten.

So this is an ego-inflating processfor me. Anyway, the problem with re-sponses and re-responses is that theyget bogged down in accusations ofmisinterpretation. You get stuff like,“Cronon says that I said that he saidthat wilderness is a worthless con-struct, but I said that what he said wasworthless as a construct …”—thatkind of thing.

So I’ll try to avoid that (eventhough, of course, Oreskes andOreskes somehow did indeed misin-terpret every single word of all myperfectly clear points, and they must

have read my article during the 34thstraight hour of riding a Greyhoundbus from New Hampshire to MexicoCity to have misunderstood it sowildly).

Seriously, the big point we mayagree on is that the process of sciencehas been co-opted, or maybe cor-rupted, by corporate interests. I’m notsure how badly they feel it has beencorrupted. I feel it has been very badlycorrupted.

Second, I feel that science, as a cor-rupted institution, is way overtrustedby almost everyone. I don’t really dis-agree with the idea of science and thebeauty of discovery and the true joythat some scientists find in that. Butmost of the science I see here at myuniversity is driven by whatever grantmoney is available. We’ve got scien-tists trying to figure out ways to grow50 more kernels of corn on a 100-acreplot, or make a brake pad with 2%more friction than the old one, or findways to get the 20 to 25 year old mar-ket to buy more Gore-tex clothes.

Regarding ecological restoration,I’m merely mistrustful of how easilyit, too, can be corrupted. I feel the

example I gave is about perfect. A cer-tain agency devoted to scientificresource management came up withan identical plan for some heavy tree-cutting three or four different times,each time with merely a new name.The last time, it was called “ecologicalrestoration.”

I’m in favor of trying ecological res-toration (who isn’t?), especially whenthat’s the true goal and not a pretext. Ido think there’s a bit of hubris in-volved, though, if we think we knowenough to reconstruct systems thatevolved over eons. And I think weshould be more honest about that.

Lastly, I’m simply a big fan of leav-ing more places alone. By doing so, Ido not see how things could go any-more wrong.

And I only advocate a wee bit ofEastern philosophy, a tiny bit of non-action, here and there—a few placeswe can still visit, look around, and say,“out here, nothing is possible.”

JAMES GLOVER, professor in the Depart-ment of Health, Education and Recreationat Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.E-mail: [email protected].

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Letters to the Editor


Natural Area Tourism:Ecology, Impacts andManagement

By David Newsome, Susan A. Moore,and Ross K. Dowling. 2002. ChannelView Publications, Clevdon, U.K. 400pp., $29.95 (paper).

The main objective of Natural AreasTourism is to overcome the existingperception that tourism developmentsin environmentally sensitive areas areinherently adverse. The authors offerthe view that with adequate foresight,planning, and management, tourismdevelopment creates increased aware-ness and conservation of natural areas.

The book is divided into eight chap-ters. Following an Introduction,Chapter 2 provides a synthesis of basicecosystem functions and processes andis primarily intended for nonspecialistson ecological issues. Chapter 3 providesan account of the environmental im-pacts of tourism in natural areas, witha focus on sources of impacts causedby the development and operation oftransport and travel, accommodationand shelter, and recreational activities.Chapter 4 discusses visitor planningand management frameworks. The util-ity and applications of concepts suchas carrying capacity, Limits of Accept-able Change, the RecreationOpportunity Spectrum, Visitor ImpactManagement, and Tourism Optimiza-tion Management models are discussed.Chapter 5 describes management strat-egies and actions applied in nationalparks and other protected areas. Chap-ter 6 considers the principles andapplication of interpretation in relation

to providing minimal impact messagesand fostering sustainable tourism.Chapter 7 discusses visitor impactmonitoring techniques, with specialemphasis on backcountry recreationareas. The final chapter assesses thefuture links between natural area tour-ism and ecology; the types, scale, andrange of impacts; and trends and issuesin management of natural area tourism.

This book is a welcome addition tothe growing body of literature on bio-physical impacts of tourism, as thereis a lack of good textbooks on ecologi-cal impacts of tourism, especially forstudents without an ecology back-ground. From this perspective, thiswell-written book will suit tourismstudents and instructors. Particularlyuseful are the suggestions for furtherreadings listed at the end of each chap-ter. While the book does not break anynew ground, it is successful in gather-ing the relevant literature andpresenting it in a systematic and co-herent manner. It also demonstratesthe usefulness of and link betweenoutdoor recreation research and na-ture-based tourism issues.

Although the book claims to beabout ecological impacts and manage-ment of tourism in natural areas, thebook is essentially about outdoor rec-reation impacts in wilderness andbackcountry areas; Chapters 4 through7 are heavily dependent on existing lit-erature on outdoor recreation research.Also, the focus on North American andAustralian case studies could make thebook less appealing to a wider interna-tional audience. The concludingchapter could have been strengthened

by tying together various findings dis-cussed in the previous chapters,identifying key issues and concepts,and discussing emerging research ap-proaches and applications in thebroader aspects of nature tourism.

Despite these shortcomings, Ifound the book very useful in dem-onstrating how studies in outdoorrecreation have contributed to theunderstanding of ecological processesin natural settings modified by recre-ation and tourism activities. I wouldcertainly recommend it as a textbookfor visitor impact management.

Review by SANJAY K. NEPAL, Geography/Resource Recreation and Tourism Program,University of Northern British Columbia.E-mail: [email protected].

Sustainable Tourism inProtected Areas: Guidelinesfor Planning and Management

By Paul Eagles, Stephen McCool, andChristopher Haynes. 2002. IUCN—TheWorld Conservation Union, Cambridge,U. K. 183 pp., $26.25 (paper).

As tourism grows in economic impor-tance around the world, protecting thenatural and cultural areas that are thefoundation of sustainable tourism be-comes essential. If these areas are notprotected, the quality of visitor experi-ences declines, and, eventually, levels ofvisitation decrease as well. This messagecomes through clearly in SustainableTourism in Protected Areas. With sup-port from the World ConservationUnion (IUCN), Cardiff University,

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Book Reviews


Environment Australia, the United Na-tions Environment Programme, and theWorld Tourism Organization, the au-thors of this text have undertaken thedifficult task of developing guidelinesfor tourism in protected areas. The au-thors not only discuss why protectionis needed, but how we—as tourismeducators, planners, and managers—can effectively establish tourismprograms and experiences that mini-mize impacts and protect the resourceson which tourism thrives. The outcomeof their efforts is a comprehensive textthat is well written, interesting, concise,and supported by short case studies.

Guidelines are included in the bookin both text and table format. Theword guidelines is highlighted through-out the book for quick identification.Guidelines are included for issues suchas creating park policies, identifyingtourism planning objectives, develop-ing infrastructure and services, andmonitoring tourism programs.

Numerous case studies, presentingexamples of natural and cultural tour-ism from around the world, are spreadthroughout the book. Areas with vary-ing levels of visitation and tourismdevelopment (e.g., Galapagos NationalPark in Ecuador and Chumbe IslandCoral Park in Tanzania) are included.Several case studies also present infor-mation about the activities of nongovernmental organizations such asThe Nature Conservancy.

Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areaswill appeal to a diverse audience. Tour-ism planners, entrepreneurs, andmanagers will appreciate the inclusion oftopics such as establishing fee structuresat tourism attractions, monitoring tour-ism impacts, and increasing publicinvolvement in tourism efforts. Collegestudents and educators will appreciate thebook’s well-organized approach to tour-ism planning and management, and thediverse case studies that are included. This

book is suitable for tourism profession-als and students working in developedas well as developing countries.

In addition to the factual contentand organization, I appreciated the de-sign of the publication. Rather thanextensive paragraphs of text on eachpage, a combination of concise para-graphs, numerous tables, full-colorphotographs, and case-study sidebarsare used throughout, making this bookenjoyable to read and suitable for itsdiverse audience. Though an index isnot included, the organization of thetext combined with a complete tableof contents make this book user-friendly. A list of references related totourism and protected areas is included.I liked how the authors carefully inte-grated the protection of culturalresources with that of natural resources,presenting a comprehensive view oftourism planning and management thateffectively includes the human element.Overall, I would strongly recommendthis book to anyone involved in sus-tainable natural or cultural tourismplanning or management.

Review by DIANE KUEHN, assistantprofessor, State University of New York,College of Environmental Science andForestry, Syracuse, N. Y. E-mail:[email protected].

Wilderness Management:Stewardship and Protection ofResources and Values (3rd ed.)

By John C. Hendee and Chad P.Dawson. 2002. International WildernessLeadership (WILD) Foundation andFulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colo. 640pp., $65.00 (paper).

Wilderness protection advocates, oncethey have figured out how to hold thisthree-pound tome in their laps comfort-ably, will find it surprisingly reassuring

to read. It offers a welcome contrast tothe anxious e-mail we receive from col-leagues daily that describe the latestcampaigns to erode wilderness integ-rity and what political countermeasuresto take. Its historical and global per-spectives encourage the reader tobreathe deeply, count to ten, and takesome well-deserved pleasure in consid-ering how far we’ve come, from theinitial 9-million-acre “instant” NationalWilderness Preservation System(NWPS) of 1964 to today’s far-flung106-million-acre NWPS, and to theactive pursuit of the wildland-protec-tion goal in Canada and many othercorners of the Earth. It even providesan optimistic view of our chances ofseeing a 200-million-acre system inplace in the United States one of thesedays, through the addition of majorchunks of national park backcountryand more contributions from the Bu-reau of Land Management, particularlyin Alaska. Most usefully, it systemati-cally traces the evolution of professionalthinking as to how to manage wilder-ness. Given the “minimum tool”rule—stated as “guardians, not garden-ers” by Howard Zahniser—the authorssteer a commonsense middle course (atleast in my view) between the guard-ians and the gardeners.

The new edition was written by JohnC. Hendee, former dean of the Univer-sity of Idaho’s College of NaturalResources, and Chad P. Dawson, chairof the Faculty of Forest and NaturalResources Management at SUNY-Col-lege of Environmental Science andForestry. An Acknowledgements sec-tion at the end of each of 17 chaptersidentifies both the author(s) of the origi-nal version in earlier editions and thosewho helped write or review the newchapters for this edition. The roots ofthis book go back to a 1971 U.S. For-est Service wilderness researchsymposium. The first edition (1978),


coauthored by Hendee, George H.Stankey, and Robert C. Lucas, wassponsored by the Forest Service andpublished by the Government PrintingOffice. Fulcrum Publishing of Golden,Colorado, produced both the second(1990) and this third edition. Vance G.Martin, president of the InternationalWilderness Leadership Foundation,wrote both the publisher’s Preface and(with Alan Watson) an encouragingchapter on international wilderness. Nostone is left unturned in the pursuit ofan encyclopedic review of the topic ofwilderness management.

For the teacher, study questionsand references are offered at the end

of each chapter. I can see this bookbeing effectively used as the textbookfor a 10-week college course or aweeklong in-service training sessionfor those who see wilderness as ei-ther their vocation or avocation (e.g.,trail maintenance volunteers). For re-source management professionals andlaypersons alike, it paints a compre-hensive picture of the history ofwilderness designations, the com-plexities of wilderness managementin the face of an expanding humanpopulation, and what the future mayhold in this regard. I salute VanceMartin and the International Wilder-ness Leadership Foundation for

sponsoring the thorough updatingand republishing of this unique ref-erence work on the state of theplanet’s wilderness resources.

Reviewed by RUPERT CUTLER, whocurrently resides in Roanoke, Virginia, andwas elected to the Roanoke City Council in2002. As the assistant secretary ofagriculture for conservation, research, andeducation in the administration of PresidentJimmy Carter, Dr. Cutler provided wildernessmanagement policy direction and initiatedthe RARE II roadless area review process athearings on the Endangered AmericanWilderness Act of 1978. E-mail:[email protected].

From ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE on page 33

that start in surrounding areas andotherwise would spread into wilder-ness are usually suppressed, furtherlimiting the amount of natural fire thatoccurs within wilderness.

Wilderness fire managers strive torestore or maintain fire as a naturalprocess and they need to knowwhether they can actually accomplishthis objective. We are helping wilder-ness managers assess whetherlightning-caused fires can indeed re-store ecosystem conditions and fireregimes in wilderness. In those areaswhere lightning-caused fires can beallowed to burn, we are developingcomputer tools that will allow man-agers to evaluate if there are enough

ignitions for restoring the natural orhistorical fire regime. In addition, weare attempting to quantify the effectthat suppression activities outside ofwilderness can have on efforts to main-tain natural fire regimes inside ofwilderness.

REFERENCESArno, S. F., Smith, H. Y. and M. A. Krebs, 1997.

Old Growth Ponderosa Pine and WesternLarch Stand Structures: Influences of pre-1900 fires and fire exclusion. USDA ForestService Research Paper INT-495. Intermoun-tain Research Station.

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. South-western ponderosa forest structure and re-source conditions: Changes sinceEuro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry92: 39–47.

Parsons, D. J. and P. B. Landres. 1998. Restor-ing natural fire to wilderness: How are wedoing? In T. L. Purden, and L. A. Brennan,eds., Fire in Ecosystem Management: Shift-ing the Paradigm from Suppression to Pre-scription. Tall Timbers ConferenceProceedings No. 20. Tallahassee, Fla. TallTimbers Research Station, 366–373.

Schmidt, K. M., J. P. Menakis, C. C. Hardy,W. J. Hann, and D. L. Bunnell. 2002.Development of Coarse-Scale Spatial Datafor Wildland Fire and Fuel Management.General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87.Fort Collins, Colo.: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Moun-tain Research Station.

CAROL MILLER is a research ecologist,Aldo-Leopold Wilderness ResearchInstitute, P. O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT59807 USA. E-mail: [email protected].

Date post:	09-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	international-journal-of-wilderness
View:	219 times
Download:	1 times

International Journal of Wilderness, Vol 09 No 2, August 2003

Documents