Journal of Wildernessijw.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/08/Vol-07.No-2.Aug-01small.pdfEdited by...

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

Journal of WildernessAUGUST 2001 VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2

FEATURESEDITORIAL PERSPECTIVESProtecting Mountain WildernessBY ALAN EWERT

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESSTo Rekindle Love of the Beautifulin Public Policy and ProfessionalPerformanceBY MICHAEL FROME

STEWARDSHIPWildlands in the NortheasternUnited StatesBY CHRISTOPHER MCGRORY KLYZA

Wilderness Management in theKgalagadi Transfrontier ParkBY MARETHA SHROYER, MARTIN ENGELBECHT, andODUMELENG KAKETSO

Which World? Which Wilderness?or Getting Back to the Right CrononBY GENE BAMMEL

SCIENCE AND RESEARCHHikers’ Perspectives on Solitudeand WildernessBY TROY E. HALL

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLDWILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTEAmphibians and WildernessBY PAUL STEPHEN CORN

Visitor Experiences of Stress andReported Hassles in the Shining RockWilderness AreaBY RUDY SCHUSTER and WILLIAM E. HAMMITT

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVESMountain Wilderness in South AfricaBY WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE

The Mountainous Wildlands of ItalyBY FRANCO ZUNINO

National Parks and other ProtectedAreas in MountainsBY LAWRENCE S. HAMILTON

WILDERNESS DIGESTAnnouncements andWilderness Calendar

Letters to the Editor

Book Reviews

Wilderness Comes Home: Rewilding the NortheastEdited by Christopher McGrory KlyzaREVIEWED BY CHAD DAWSON

Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundationsof Regional Reserve NetworksEdited by Michael E. Soulé and John TerborghREVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS

A Little Corner of Freedom: Russian NatureProtection from Stalin to GorbachëvBy Douglas R. WeinerREVIEWED BY J. CHRISTOPHER HANEY

3

Front cover photo of the Drakensberg Mountain Wilderness in South Africa andinset photo of bushman pictographs in Lesotho, southern Africa, both © 2000by Vance G. Martin.

4

8

11

16

20

25

26

30

35

40

43

46

47

2 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2001 • VOLUME 7, NUMBER 2

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

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

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada

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

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

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

PRODUCTION EDITORKurt Caswell, Cascade School, Whitmore, Calif., USA

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

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

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; Liz Close, U.S. Forest Service, Washington D.C.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State Univer-sity, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, Va.; Dr. William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. ForestService, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo,Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont,Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey,Sierra Club, Washington, D.C.; Chris Monz, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Bob Muth, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.;Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren,Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions and the Wilderness Guides Council, Ross, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Vir-ginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Mitch Sakofs, Outward Bound, Garrison,N.Y.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Jerry Stokes, U.S. ForestService, Washington, D.C.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.

International Journal of Wilderness

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

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

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

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are inU.S. dollars only—$30 for individuals and $50 for organizations/libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside NorthAmerica, add $20. Back issues are available for $15.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright© 2001 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation.Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to makefair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

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

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

World Wide Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

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

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

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

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

International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2001 • VOLUME 7, 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

Protecting Mountain WildernessBY ALAN EWERT

wilderness-based ecosystems, even in the mountains, can beineffective in preserving species or other ecosystem compo-nents unless they are large enough, represent “effective” con-tiguous blocks, and are properly managed.

This issue of the International Journal of Wilderness is dedi-cated to wilderness in mountainous areas, particularly thoseareas outside of North America. Maretha Shroyer and hercolleagues discuss the issues and challenges facing theKgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Africa. William Bainbridgeprovides a synopsis of mountain wilderness areas in SouthAfrica and a historical account of the wilderness manage-ment movement. Franco Zunino describes the mountain-ous wildlands of Italy, their problems, and managementopportunities. Lawrence Hamilton, vice-chair of the WorldConservation Union’s (IUCN) World Commission on Pro-tected Areas, describes issues and challenges recognizedby the IUCN relative to the management of mountain wil-derness areas.

ALAN EWERT is an executive editor of IJW. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESBader, M. 2000. Wilderness-based ecosystem protection in the northern

Rocky Mountains of the United States. In Wilderness Science in a Timeof Change Conference—Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context ofLarger Systems, compiled by S. F. McCool, D. N. Cole, W. T. Borrie,and J. O’Loughlin. May 23–27, 1999; Missoula, Mont. ProceedingsRMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 99–100.

Denniston, D. 1995. High Priorities: Conserving Mountain Ecosystems andCultures. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper: #123.

Muir had it right! Good things can happen topeople when they visit the mountains. Giventheir remoteness, lack of agricultural develop-

ment, and often, inclement weather, much of the world’swilderness and many undeveloped landscapes are in or closeto mountains. Mountain landscapes account for approxi-mately 20% of the world’s acreage and are home to at least10% of the world’s population. While their remoteness andextremes in climate protect them from the level of humandevelopment experienced in lower regions, mountains arebeing developed and exploited. The human tendency to-ward growth and expansion coupled with the “bank” ofnatural resources in mountainous areas (hydrologic, min-eral, and harvestable resources) exacerbate the pressureson mountain locales.

Inevitably this pressure also occurs in areas with wilder-ness designation. Whether an area is a de facto wildernessor an officially designated mountain wilderness, increas-ingly they are exposed to a variety of threats to ecosystemintegrity, resiliency, and cultural heritage. These threats arenot just economic in nature, but also include overuse andimpacts from tourism and recreation. For example,Denniston (1995) reports that visitation to the EuropeanAlps exceeds 100 million visitors per year and that ski re-sorts in Colorado divert two to three times the amount ofwater for making snow compared to 10 years ago.

Mountain wilderness is increasingly the last bastion of eco-system protection. That is, since these areas were the last tobe exploited and developed they are less damaged and, hence,should be the first to be protected. But as Bader (2000) notes,

Go forth into the mountainsand get their good tidings;

Let the winds blow their freshness into you;And the storms their energy.

—John Muir


FEATURES

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

At the turn of the 20th century John Muir commentedon the abundance of wilderness still evident acrossthe North American continent. Now, at the outset

of the 21st century, this is no longer the case. Whatever wildcountry remains is plainly vulnerable to human intervention.I don’t mean only wilderness as defined and classified by law.The truth is that all places of scenic and natural beauty arebeing reduced in number and degraded in integrity.

I believe the responsibility of our generation is to seethat future Americans enjoy the same opportunities for soli-tude and the same sense that nature prevails that we haveknown. Charles Evans Hughes, governor of New York inthe first decade of the 20th century (and later chief justiceof the Supreme Court), had it right at the dedication ofPalisades Interstate Park when he said:

Of what avail would be the benefits of gainfuloccupation, what would be the promise of prosperouscommunities, with wealth of products and freedom ofexchange, were it not for opportunities to cultivate thelove of the beautiful? The preservation of the sceneryof the Hudson is the highest duty with respect to thisriver imposed upon those who are the trustees of itsmanifest benefits.

President Theodore Roosevelt in that same period ex-pressed virtually the same idea in talking of the big trees ofCalifornia: “There is nothing more practical than thepreservation of beauty,” he said, “than the preservation ofanything that appeals to the higher emotions of mankind.”

We need to believe and echo these words, and to re-kindle love of the beautiful in public policy and profes-sional performance. The most important legacy our

generation can leave isnot a world at war, nora nation in debt tosupport a nuclear star-wars system, nor thesettlement of outerspace, transporting allour worldly problemsto the rest of God’suniverse, nor thebreeding of test-tubebabies and roboticdrones. Our most pre-cious gift to the futureis a point of view em-bodied in the protec-tion of wild places thatno longer can protect themselves.

I have spent much of my life in the cause of preserva-tion. Once, while in northern Minnesota, I found myselfthinking about Arthur Carhart, the pioneer in wildernessprotection. During the period he worked for the ForestService as a landscape architect, from 1919 to 1923, hewas dispatched to the Superior National Forest, in Minne-sota, with directions to prepare a plan for recreation devel-opment. His bosses wanted to build roads to reach everylake and to line the shores with thousands of summerhomes. Carhart, however, recognized that the area couldbe “as priceless as Yellowstone, Yosemite, or the GrandCanyon—if it remained a water-trail wilderness.” He per-sisted, won support, and laid the basis for establishment of

To Rekindle Love of theBeautiful in Public Policy

and Professional Performance

BY MICHAEL FROME

Article author Michael Frome. Photo by J. Eastvold.


what we now call the Boundary Wa-ters Canoe Area Wilderness.

Shortly before Carhart left, SigurdOlson arrived on the scene. Over theyears Olson would stand in meetinghalls urging that natural values be pro-tected from assorted mining, dambuilding, logging, and motor boating.It wasn’t easy, and sometimes he wastreated to scorn and derision. Carhartlater paid tribute to Olson for leadinga small group, which held, as he said,“a thin line of defense protecting thisexquisite wilderness until help couldrally to save it.”

What was it they found worth de-fending? Based on my experience, I callit the feel of freedom above all else. Free-dom from crowds, cars, and mechani-cal noises. Freedom that comes fromdoing for one’s self, without dependenceon technological support. Freedom innature, derived from being among crea-tures that get up and fly when they wantto, or run, swim, wiggle, dive, and crawl,all admirable modes of self-propulsion.In the northern Minnesota wilderness Ifeel free to pick and savor wild blueber-ries; free to swim in cool waters, cooland dark, almost as pure as in the daysof the Chippewa Indians.

Wilderness is an embodiment offreedom. The Wilderness Act (TWA)of 1964 is an extension of the charterhanded down by the Founding Fa-thers with its guarantee of life, liberty,and the pursuit of happiness. We needto safeguard the sources of freedom,challenge, and inspiration. The Con-stitution is recognized as a sacreddocument guaranteeing freedom ofexpression, though it requires con-tinual testing and defending. Wilder-ness is equally sacred, in my view—aliving document of land and people.Wilderness I equate with freedomfrom want, war, and racial prejudice,and the freedom to cultivate one’sthoughts in one’s own way.

I have asked different kinds ofpeople, at all stations of life, what wil-derness means to them. They madebeautiful statements, usually simpleyet lofty and profound, which I be-lieve can be summarized in the follow-ing two excerpts:

You get away from yourtradition and lifestyle in awilderness and you find out ina hurry who you are and whatyou’re capable of, what are thereal issues in life. What reallyfrightens you will come to thesurface.

Wilderness is necessary. Itrepresents that part of Americathat once was and always willremain. We don’t have to be likethe Europeans. We don’t have towish for that type of landrepresentation. We’ll have it.Wilderness is forever.

The very idea of wilderness en-riches my body, mind and spirit, butit also elevates me to look beyond myown wants and needs. The Americantradition has sought the transforma-tion of resources; TWA, however,stimulates a fundamental and oldertradition of relationship with resourcesthemselves. A river is accorded its rightto exist because it is a river, rather thanfor any utilitarian service. Throughappreciation of wilderness, I perceivethe true role of the river, as a livingsymbol of all the life it sustains andnourishes, and my responsibility to it.

Thus I feel that we need a revolu-tion of ideals and ideas—a revolutionof ethics to sweep the United Statesand the world, because the same forcesare at work everywhere. We must al-ter the superconsumptive lifestyle thatmakes us enemies of ourselves, alifestyle that confuses a standard of liv-ing with quality of life. That kind ofrevolution begins with the individual,inside oneself, with one’s own ecosys-tem, finding the unity of body, mind,

and spirit, and reaching out to othersto do the same.

We are now paying the price for in-dustrial progress with its overdevelop-ment and overconsumption, flirtingwith our own inevitable Bhopal orChernobyl or some other toxic disas-ter. But the most serious effect is inthe psychology of people. How sadthat we should accept alienation fromthe Earth; that we should even coun-tenance talk of “acceptable risk” interms of hazardous production mate-rials, or “acceptable change” in termsof wilderness use.

Critics sometimes demand to knowof me, “Well, exactly how much wilder-ness do you need?” While recognizingthat it can’t all be wild, I feel reluctantto answer; what counts more is whethereach succeeding generation must settlefor an increasingly damaged world, re-flected in degraded, circumscribed liv-ing. I can’t juxtapose resourcecommodities against wilderness whenthe great value of wild country lies inits freedom, challenge, and inspiration.

I believe the feeling to conserve isdeep-rooted in the minds and hearts ofpeople, more than the urge to exploitand degrade. We need to spark the posi-tive. “To do good works is noble,” wroteMark Twain. “To teach others to do goodworks is nobler, and no trouble.” Gov-ernment and, indeed, all institutions arewhat we want them to be. It all beginswith thee and me. I see the movementto protect and preserve ever strength-ening until it succeeds.

But we have a long road to travel torealize the promise of the promisedland. I’ve learned that even the expertsunderstand very little about wildernessreserves: of how to manage and inter-pret wilderness so it will always bewild; of its abundant benefits to soci-ety; of how to apply the lessons ofwilderness to make the whole Earth abetter place to live.


TWA has proven successful, inso-far as furnishing the techniques forpreservation of large tracts of federallands. From that foundation a fewstates have developed their own ini-tiatives in protecting wild places. Nowthere is great opportunity and need forthe states to do more, and for localcommunities to identify and to pro-vide statutory protection for smallertracts still in a relatively untouchedstate. Nature belongs where peoplelive, not as something remote or be-yond reach.

Wilderness, however small or large,wherever it may be found, is the sa-cred place for renewal and healing,where the words education and recre-ation take on different meaning. A psy-chologist might prescribe a wildernessexperience because of its freedom fromevidences of critical or harmful humanactions, or to find release from stressthrough stillness and solitude in theprimeval. There are no social valuesto conform to; it is classless—all par-ties become essentially equal, benefit-ing from cooperation rather thancompetition. The individual acquiresa sense of scale, conceding there issomething larger and longer-lastingthan anything he or she has knownbefore and feeling that he or she be-longs at the bosom of a much greaterwhole—and at peace.“The one thing in the world, of value,is the active soul,” wrote Emerson.“This every man [and woman] is en-titled to; this every man [and woman]contains within him [and her], al-though, in almost all men [andwomen], obstructed, and as yet un-born.” As in the ancient sacred places

of all religions, as in the sacred sitesthat hold meaning still to NativeAmericans, wilderness evokes the ac-tive soul, freeing it to respond to theEarth as alive, poetic, dramatic, musi-cal. Wilderness breaks down artificialbarriers between people bred to be-lieve they are different from each otherby reason of class, color, race, or gen-der; wilderness is teaching, real teach-ing, through which the physically andmentally disabled learn to overcomelimitations, and the abled learn tothink differently about competency.But, of course, in a sacred place all lifeis sacred, and the humblest are holyand blessed.

Wilderness areas are not play-grounds, nor theme parks, but sanc-tuaries, meant to be forever; they arepriceless time capsules for tomorrowthat we are privileged to know andenjoy today. By that I mean a wilder-ness is ideally suited to exercise thebody in a test with nature, stimulatethe mind with new learning, and chal-lenge the spirit of the individual toconnect with something larger thanhimself or herself, and more lastingthan all the mechanization of life andwork at home.

As evidence, I cite the experienceof Mark Wellman and the lessons fromit. Mark was an accomplished Califor-nia mountaineer who broke his backin a climbing accident in 1982 and wasleft without the use of legs. He lostdirection in his life, lived in pain, lone-liness, and shattered dreams—until hefound his new beginning in Yosemite.Living and working in the park, Markpushed himself to see as much as hu-manly possible in a wheelchair. He

advanced bit by bit, building his up-per body, ultimately making history in1991 when he and a partner climbedthe 3,500-foot granite face of ElCapitan. Then two years later hepulled himself to the summit of HalfDome, though it took 13 days to makeit. “I’ve always believed that true ad-venture involves discovering thingsabout yourself as you edge ever closertoward the boundaries of your per-sonal limits,” Mark wrote later. “Ilearned plenty about myself on ElCapitan and Half Dome.”

Overuse and misuse clearly depletethe visible physical resource thatpeople care about, but it does some-thing to the invisible spirit of place aswell. Native Americans have that an-cestral sense, honoring the Earth andlife as divine gifts. Here on the North-west Coast where I live Native peoplefor centuries have sought the giantcedar, hemlock, and Douglas fir of thecold rain forest, not simply for canoesand longhouses, but as source of a sa-cred state of mind where magic andbeauty are everywhere. In The Vanish-ing American, Zane Grey’s hero,Nophaie, most loved to be alone, outin the desert, “listening to the realsounds of the open and to the whis-pering of his soul.” Grey wrote that na-ture was jealous of her secrets andspoke only to those who loved her.The Rainbow Bridge, just north of theArizona-Utah border, curving upwardto a height above 300 feet, once was asacred destination for religious pil-grimage, reached by toil, sweat, endur-ance, and pain, proving to the pilgrimthat the great things in life must beearned. That makes sense even to theEuropean mind, for as Jung wrote,“There is no birth of consciousnesswithout pain.” Now, by contrast, how-ever, the impounded waters of GlenCanyon Dam have made painless vis-its possible, via boat on the reservoir

Wilderness areas are not playgrounds, nor themeparks, but sanctuaries, meant to be forever.


called Lake Powell to the Bridge Can-yon landing, then walking about onemile. Surely some element of criticalvalue—the sense of connecting withspirit—is lost.

Although sacredness sustained inwild places cannot provide a quickfix for the ills of society, it can bringnew understanding at a very per-sonal level. Society divides by eco-nomics, race, and religion, genderand sexual preference, and by physi-cal ability. Much of the time peoplefeel separate and fearful, as childrenof different gods, of greater andlesser gods. Wilderness evokes theunity and wholeness of creation, acommunity of brothers and sistersall kin, all equal, sharing in commonorigin, common destiny.

I learned this anew in 1992 in theBoundary Waters of Minnesota, trav-

eling with Wilderness Inquiry, a non-profit group that mixes people withand without disabilities; I mean thatparticipants include wheelchair users,deaf, blind, and mentally retarded.Wilderness on our trip became morethan a physical or intellectual experi-ence, but also a place to think differ-ently about physical competency andaccomplishment. We worked on po-tentials rather than limitations whilepaddling, portaging, doing campchores, and sharing songs and sunsets.Committed climbers and kayakersmay prefer wilderness where they ex-pose themselves to physical risk—thatmay be their sacred space—but whenpeople of mixed ability live, work, andplay together, they expose themselves,too, learning to rise above the barriersof modern society, and to recognizethat every life has meaning to it.

In sum, the wilderness experienceleads beyond the world of aggression,beyond history, beyond science. Thistype of experience is still available forme, but I recognize that I must meetthe sanctuary in the wild on its terms,rather than on my terms or those ofmy own mechanistic society. I appre-ciate that we need to walk lightly, morelightly, and, hopefully, to learn that thegods walk on every road and everyroad is sacred.

MICHAEL FROME is an author, educator,and tireless guardian of the environmentalcommons. Former Senator Gaylord Nelsonof Wisconsin declared in Congress: “Nowriter in America has more persistently andeffectively argued for the need of nationalethics of environmental stewardship thanMichael Frome.” He lives in Bellingham,Washington, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

Chad Dawson and Steve HollenhorstNamed IJW Co-managing

EditorsThe International Journal of Wilderness editorial board has named Dr.Chad Dawson of the State University of New York (SUNY) at Syra-cuse and Dr. Steve Hollenhorst of the University of Idaho as co-managing editors. Dawson will be responsible for overall content ofIJW, including article acceptance. Hollenhorst will be responsible forthe Wilderness Digest section of each issue and wilderness steward-ship articles. Both Dawson and Hollenhorst have served IJW as asso-ciate editors during its six years of publication. John Hendee, currentmanaging editor, will continue as editor-in-chief.

Professor Dawson teaches recreation and wilderness courses in the College of Environmen-tal Science and Forestry at SUNY. He also guides graduate students in wilderness recreationmanagement research. He has traveled extensively in U.S. wilderness and has participated in wilderness research studies.He is co-author with John Hendee of the forthcoming 3rd edition of the textbook Wilderness Management: Protection andStewardship of Resources and Values.

Dr. Hollenhorst is professor and head of the Department of Resource Recreation and Tourism at the University of Idaho.Formerly at West Virginia University, he regularly leads field courses to wilderness and protected areas in the United Statesand around the world. Dr. Hollenhorst’s teaching and research interests are in wilderness and protected area policy andmanagement. Short news articles for the Wilderness Digest can be sent to [email protected].

Chad Dawson. Photo courtesyof Chad Dawson.

Steve Hollenhorst. Photo courtesyof Steve Hollenhorst.


Wildlands in theNortheastern United States

BY CHRISTOPHER MCGRORY KLYZA

the state. New York State established the Adirondack andCatskill Forest Preserves in 1885 to protect these lands andadded a “forever wild” clause to the New York Constitutionin 1894. There are 17 wilderness areas in the Adirondackstotaling 1,071,590 acres, five of which exceed 100,000acres. Canoe and primitive classified lands receive virtuallythe same protection as wilderness (72,049 acres). Wild for-ests (1.2 million acres) add to the wildland landscape. TheCatskill Park has both wilderness (118,000 acres) and wildforest areas (155,000 acres). The protected wilderness andwild forest in the Adirondack and Catskill Parks are thecore of a potential wildlands system of the Northeast.

PennsylvaniaAllegheny National Forest has two designated wildernessareas. Pennsylvania state forests total nearly 2.1 millionacres, primarily in north-central Pennsylvania. The statehas an administrative wild areas program (110,000 acres)on these forests where existing roads may remain open andtimber harvesting for forest health and wildlife habitat im-provements are permitted. The state park system totals over283,000 acres, and there are 1.4 million acres of game landsthroughout the state. More wildlands, in north-central Penn-sylvania, would be an important link to the wilderness ofthe Catskills and Adirondacks to the north, and to the centralAppalachians to the south.

MaineFederal wilderness in Maine totals less than 20,000 acres intwo areas. Baxter State Park is the largest wilderness in theNortheast outside the Adirondacks and covers nearly 205,000acres with most managed as wilderness (176,139 acres). Mainehas two remote recreation roadless areas on its public reservedlands, totaling roughly 13,000 acres. The Allagash Wilder-ness Waterway (nearly 23,000 acres) in northern Maine was

STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness protection and management in theUnited States often focuses on the West wherefour federal land management agencies con-

trol over half the land in 13 states. In contrast, these sameagencies manage about 2% of the land in the nine states ofthe Northeast. This difference in ownership explains thelow amount of federally designated wilderness in the North-east states, only 205,000 acres. Nevertheless, federal own-ership and wilderness is important in the Northeast.Furthermore, several of these states have significant statewildland and wilderness programs. Following is a briefreview of the nine states.

New YorkNew York includes one federally designated wilderness. Inthe Adirondack and Catskill Parks, there are 1.26 millionacres of state wilderness and combined with wild forest-lands (which cannot be harvested or developed) the amountof protected wildlands rises to 2.9 million acres, or 9.5% of

Avalanche Lake in the High Peaks Wilderness of the Adirondack Mountains, New York State,USA. Photo by Chad Dawson.


created by the state legislature andadded to the National Wild and ScenicRiver system. However, the AllagashWilderness Waterway protective landcorridor is narrow and augmented byregulations in a half-mile corridor oneach side of the river. Northern Maineis a potential core of wildness in theNortheast, especially because of thepossibility for public acquisition of vastamounts of private land.

New HampshireNew Hampshire has four federal wil-derness areas totaling over 100,000acres and the highest level of federalownership of any state east of theRocky Mountains (over 13%) due tothe White Mountain National Forest.The state owns relatively little publicland. The White Mountain NationalForest can serve as an anchor for wild-lands recovery, and emphasis must beplaced or connecting it to other North-eastern wildlands to the east and west.

VermontSix wilderness areas in the GreenMountain National Forest total nearly60,000 acres. State conservation lands,totaling 310,000 acres, are classified

primarily as state forests, state parks,and wildlife management areas. Ver-mont wildland and wilderness helpconnect New York areas with those inNew Hampshire.

MassachusettsMassachusetts has one federal wilder-ness. The state has a wildlands pro-gram on its 535,000 acres of statelands. This program is an administra-tive classification on state forest andstate park lands. The backcountry ar-eas in the program, primarily forprimitive recreation, total roughly6,000 acres.

New JerseyNew Jersey has two federal wildernessareas. The Pinelands National Reservecovers over 1 million acres, nearly one-quarter of New Jersey. The Reserve isa joint federal-state-local regional openspace planning project with a core

preservation area of 368,000 acreswhere little new development is al-lowed. State conservation lands totalover 600,000 acres.

Connecticutand Rhode IslandThese two states have no federally des-ignated wilderness. Connecticut stateconservation lands total nearly 210,000acres. Although roughly 9% of RhodeIsland is in public ownership, the par-cels are all relatively small. It is unlikelythat the Connecticut or Rhode Islandlandscape will be a significant part of“rewilding” in the Northeast.

ConclusionDespite the common conception of theNortheast as being entirely developed,significant wildlands exist in the region.In a broad corridor from northern NewEngland, through the Adirondacks andCatskills, and down through central

Table 1—Acreage of public lands and wilderness in the Northeast

Despite the common conception of the Northeast asbeing entirely developed, significant wildlands existin the region.


Pennsylvania, the chance for a large,connected wildlands landscape is real.Such wilderness can be based on exist-ing federal and state lands in the North-east. A regional strategy for landacquisition, protection, and manage-

ment could include protecting represen-tative ecological communities, protect-ing large core reserves where naturalprocesses can largely determine thelandscape, creating corridors to connectprotected areas, and using easements on

The Great Gulf Wilderness in the Presidential Range of the White Mountain National Forest, New Hampshire, USA. Photo byChad Dawson.

private land areas to serve as bufferzones to adjacent ecological reserves orsensitive areas.

More states need to establish wilder-ness programs such as in New York,which is the only state in the Northeastwith a statutory or administrative wil-derness program. Additional wildernesscould be designated in the Northeast onfederal and state lands and, in certainareas, private lands that could be pur-chased. Lands in the nine Northeasternstates could be woven into a morecomprehensive approach to wilder-ness based on designing ecologicalreserves to protect biological diversity,rewilding lands to wilderness, and alandscape of ecosystem-based forest-land management.

CHRISTOPHER MCGRORY KLYZA isprofessor of political science and environ-mental studies at Middlebury College,Middlebury, Vermont 05763, USA. E-mail:[email protected]. He is editor of thenew book Wilderness Comes Home:Rewilding the Northeast (see review in thisissue).

The 7th World Wilderness Congress (WWC) will convenein Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, in South Africa, Novem-ber 2–8, 2001. Organizers of the event say the focus is

Wilderness and Human Communities—The Spirit of the 21stCentury, a response to “continuing and mounting crisis that threatenswildland areas and the services they provide to human society.”

The WWC will devote the initial two days to a World Wil-derness Summit to address alarming environmental reports fromthe World Resources Institute, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, World Watch, World Wildlife Fund, and others.The summit will include leaders in politics, business, science,education, field management, nongovernmental organizations,and rural development. The agenda is based on enhanced pro-tection for wilderness and wildland areas in Africa and interna-tionally. It highlights the fundamental services these areasprovide to all human communities and their irreplaceable bio-logical, economic, cultural, and spiritual benefits. Other actionobjectives include wildland political initiatives in southern Af-rica; privately owned wilderness, a model for designating andmanaging wildlands in perpetuity on private land; a new fund

7th World Wilderness Congress toConvene in South Africa

for African protected areas; presentation of new models for ef-fective education and training that enhance wildland benefitsfor human communities; and shared agendas, developing a wild-lands agenda for the upcoming Rio+10 Congress (2002) andthe World Parks Congress (2003), also in South Africa.

A four-day Wilderness Working Session will follow with ex-perts and professionals meeting with the public on a range of tar-geted subjects, plans, and models. Technical and Science Symposiameet in the afternoons. Finally, the Cultural Program will runthrough every day, including the International Environmental FilmFestival (a judged competition), the award-winning AGFA Wild-life Photography Exhibition, and other ethnic and contemporaryentertainment, music, and exhibitions.

Local wilderness areas, private protected areas, and nationalparks will be the venue for on-site trips and discussion sessions.Participation is limited to 800 delegates.

For more information contact Kathleen Du Bois, e-mail:[email protected]. Or stop by the website atwww.worldwilderness.org.


IntroductionThe Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) comprises 3.62million hectares of predominantly pristine wilderness,where wildlife can move unrestricted and undisturbed. Theabsence of human-made barriers, except to the west wherethe international boundary with Namibia is demarcated bya fence, and in the south where a fence partially separatesthe KTP from private farms, provides an area large enoughto maintain two ecological processes: the large-scale no-madic and migratory movements of wild ungulates; andunrestricted predation by large mammalian carnivores (Na-tional Parks Board et al. 1997). Until recently, some Kalaharilions have not had contact with modern humans, and re-searchers found interesting behavior patterns displayed bythese lions (Dr. Paul Funston, pers. comm.). The single-most important factor for this phenomenon in 2000 is thevast size of the conserved area, almost twice the size ofKruger National Park.

The reason for the high degree of naturalness in the parkis the harsh conditions. There is no surface water, and tem-peratures vary greatly—from –15oC on winter nights to 42oCin the shade on summer days when the ground-surface tem-peratures exceed 70oC. The groundwater of the Kalaharitends to be highly mineralized (South African National Parks[SANP] 1999). Survival in these conditions is difficult, and

vegetation and wildlife have adapted special strategies. Sur-vival strategies in this waterless environment with extremetemperature fluctuations include animals being predomi-nantly nocturnal versus diurnal, the implementing of en-ergy-saving strategies, and evolutionary adaptations.

Tourists to the KTP should be well prepared. Managementhas structures in place to safeguard visitors, providing theystay on the tourist road network. Should unauthorized travel

STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness Managementin the Kgalagadi

Transfrontier ParkBY MARETHA SHROYER, MARTIN ENGELBECHT,

and ODUMELENG KAKETSO

Abstract: The Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) is unique, as it was the first transfrontier park in Africa andthe only park in South Africa where wildlife still migrate in herds. The KTP combines South Africa’s KalahariGemsbok National Park and Botswana’s Gemsbok National Park into a single ecological unit. The Kalahari isa harsh and unforgiving wilderness. This article highlights wilderness management strategies, suitable for aharsh environment, where natural processes are still able to follow a natural cause, without the interference ofhuman beings.

Subgroup of Suricate (Suricata suricatta) on the alert for possible sources of danger. Photo byPiet Heymans.


on remote patrol tracks by an unsup-ported vehicle encounter mechanicalproblems, chances for survival areslim. The same applies for managersunder these conditions.

Although the Botswana and SouthAfrican wildlife authorities have coop-erated in the management of the twoparks since 1948, it was only in 1998that this agreement was formalized. InApril 1999 Botswana and South Af-rica signed a bilateral agreement un-dertaking to manage their twoadjoining parks, Gemsbok NationalPark in Botswana (28,400 km2) andKalahari Gemsbok National Park inSouth Africa (9,591 km2) as a single

ecological unit to be known as theKgalagadi Transfrontier Park. Thisagreement was signed by then Presi-dent Mandela and President Mogae.The South African Parliament ratifiedthe agreement in September 1999.

Kalahari LandscapeMany atlases refer to the Kalahari as adesert, but strictly speaking it is asemi-arid savanna. The sand is coloreda rich Venetian red by an iron oxidelayer that persists due to lack of rain,and was deposited by the wind intolong, roughly parallel northwest/southeast dunes. These dunes are sta-bilized by vegetation in the park. Af-ter a heavy rainfall, water is held for alimited period by permanent calcare-ous pans.

Dryness is the distinguishing fea-ture of the Kalahari. Nowhere in theentire KTP is there any natural surfacewater. The two rivers defined on maps,the Nossob and Auob, are somewhatof a misnomer, as they are both nor-mally dry. It is only in years of par-ticularly good rains that the Auobyields a limited flow of surface water.The Nossob flows once every 50 years.

The sand mantle of the conservationarea in the Kalahari basically displaystwo distinguishable landscapes (Van derWalt and Le Riche 1999). A virtuallydune-free, regular undulating landscapewith abundant trees is encountered eastand north of the Nossob River. To thewest and the southwest the sand is ar-ranged in a parallel dune patternthroughout, some 800 kilometers inlength and 100 to 200 kilometers wide,with grass being the predominant veg-

etation. The northwest orientation of theparallel dunes reflects the origin of pre-vailing winds that were instrumental intheir formation.

The Wilderness Conceptin the KTPThe wilderness concept in the KTP dif-fers from the general U.S. criteria interms of zonation, access, and relatedrecreational activities in that wildernessand nature conservation are managedin an integrated manner. In the KTP,four-wheel drive vehicle trails and rus-tic camps are acceptable in wildernesszones. The rationale is that, due to theremoteness and harsh environment, thearea would be inaccessible to visitorswithout motorized transport, and if visi-tors are excluded from the major por-tion of the park, the park cannot befinancially sustainable.

On the other hand, not classifyingthe vast natural landscape as wilder-ness, as a result of four-wheel drivevehicle trails, is an oversight. TheKalahari truly is a wilderness wherethe human footprint has been negli-gible over the years, mainly because itis so difficult to survive in this harshenvironment. The only people whohave managed to survive here arehunter-gatherers: the San who enteredthe area approximately 4,000 years agoand the BaKgalagadi who arrivedabout 2,000 years ago (SANP 1999).

The impact of sand tracks andgravel tourist roads are negligible,negative impacts on the wildlife in thislarge area. The major negative impact issmall animals and birds occassionallygetting killed on the roads. The benefitsof roads to wild animals are that theyprovide tracks of cleared areas with goodvisibility for both predator and preyspecies and road verges provide habitatfor ground squirrels, yellow mongoose,rats, mice, snakes, geckos, and birds.

Should unauthorized travel on remote patrol tracksby an unsupported vehicle encounter mechanicalproblems, chances for survival are slim.

An adult male lion. Photo by Piet Heymans.

Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), male. Photo by Piet Heymans.


2. Wilderness orlow-use zone area.Ungraded tracksfor four-wheel drivevehicles and rusticcamps to accom-modate people ontracks are permit-ted. A field rangeraccompanies allgroups, and visitornumbers are lim-ited. Off-road driv-ing is restricted.Ungraded trackswill be monitoredfor the first year toensure the environ-mental impact isacceptable. There-after, a three-yearmonitoring planwill be followed. Aminimum of twovehicles is permit-ted to ensure safetyin case of break-downs.

3. Natural Environ-ment or medium-use zonearea. Normal tourist roads anda three-kilometer strip on eitherside of the road falls into thiscategory.

4. Visitor services or developedareas. This category comprises restcamps, administration buildings,information centers, and touristinfrastructure and facilities.

Buffer areas adjoin the conserva-tion area. In the southeast of the KTP,wildlife management areas form abuffer zone between wilderness ar-eas and Botswana landowners. Acontractual national park, managedjointly by the Mier and San has beenproposed on the southwesternboundary; land-use issues are cur-rently being discussed.

Adult Lioness (Panthera leo) and subadults at water hole. Photo by Piet Heymans.

Two subadult lions engaged in playing, an important activity for developing survivalskills in adulthood. Photo by Piet Heymans.

Wilderness Qualitiesand Tourist Infrastructurein the KTPIn the large pristine wilderness areasof the KTP there are no roads, fences,windmills, survey beacons, or any hu-man modifications. Only naturalsound is present, and these areas arefree of air, water, and soil pollution.Surrounding the pristine wildernessare areas with sandy tracks, mainlyused for patrol purposes, and graveledtourist roads, mainly on the periph-ery of the park or along riverbeds.Artificial water holes are presentthroughout the park. These artificialwater points were sunk to support live-stock farming before the park was pro-claimed in the 1931 (SANP 1999).These water points are presently main-tained to prevent water-dependent an-telope such as the blue wildebeest fromfollowing their natural migration routesouthward for water, now blocked byfences on the boundary of the park.

Tourist roads are graveled androuted to incorporate artificial waterpoints, visited by water-dependentwildlife species and migratory andresident birds. Many birds are able todrink the salty water with no detri-mental effect on their health, as theyexcrete excess minerals through orbitalsalt glands. Furthermore, water holesprovide excellent game-viewing in apredominantly wild terrain.

Zoning of the KTPThe zoning scheme includes four typesof areas (National Parks Board, et al.1997):

1. Special protection area. This cat-egory is characterized by the ab-sence of human-made structuresand all forms of tourism. Access islimited to staff and approved re-searchers.

Wilderness ManagementStrategiesThe management strategies for wildernesszones in the KTP are summarized below.• Water points. The existing water

points will be maintained, but noadditions will be made. The effectof piomes (induced impact on artifi-cial water points) is continuallymonitored.

• Buildings and construction.Conventional tourist camps orpersonnel accommodation willbe excluded. Rustic camps, lim-ited to four-wheel drive vehicleusers, and simple research campsare permissible.

• Roads and tracks. All existinggraded service roads may be used,


The vast size of the conservation areais conducive to the sustainable oc-currences of large numbers of wildanimals, numbers which are “self-regulatory.”

• Overflying. Only official aircraftare allowed to overfly wildernessareas at low altitudes. Other air-craft may overfly (in transit) at analtitude of not less than 2,000 feetabove ground. Official aircraft areused for monitoring purposes, forresearch (radio telemetry), and forgame counting purposes.

• Poaching. Poaching is not a majorproblem in wilderness areas due toremoteness and low habitationalong boundaries. Regular patrolsare undertaken on a continuousbasis, and joint patrol with SouthAfrica and Botswana antipoachingunits takes place on irregular fre-quencies.

• Alien plants. Prosopis species areunder control. Argemone andSalsola species are controlled wherepossible. All eradication of alienplants is done by hand, without theuse of herbicides or pesticides.

• Malaria. There is a low frequencyof malaria in the park. Other thatnotifying visitors to take prophy-lactic medicine, no specific man-agement action is taken.

Proposed TourismDevelopmentIn addition to game-viewing in theirown vehicles, visitors to the KTP canenjoy night drives with experiencedrangers aboard park vehicles, orgroups can undertake excursions torustic camps in wilderness areas witha trained tracker. Tourist infrastructureis predominantly in the South Africanside of the park, while the majority ofthe wildlife is in the Botswana side dueto the differing habitats. The South

Open tree savanna on the undulating plains with camelthorn (Acacia eriloba) andsourgrass (Schmidtia kalihariensis) the dominant species. Photo by Noel van Rooyen.

Bare pan with Sporobolus spp. and Salsola spp. on the edge. Photo by Noel van Rooyen.

but no additions will be made. Onlythe tourist roads and the road alongthe western border are graded.Boundary roads are reserved forantipoaching, with some excep-tions. Off-road driving is restricted.Four-wheel drive vehicle trails areon ungraded tracks. Night drivingis restricted to existing roads.

• Borders and fences. Existingfences along the park border willbe maintained. No other barrierswill be erected, although Botswanawould like to extend their fenceline in the south in order to curtailmovements of stock-raiding lions.

• Fires. Natural fires (lightning-in-duced fires) are allowed to take theirnatural course, but are monitoredand only controlled if neighboring

properties and/or infra-structure are threatened,or when sensitive river-ine vegetation communi-ties are endangered.• Resource utiliza-tion. No harvesting ofwood, grazing of cattle,or removal of naturalproducts is permitted inwilderness areas.• Wildlife manage-ment. Wildlife is moni-tored for disease, but a“no-interference” strat-

egy is followed. In general terms,animals are predominantly disease-free with a low occurrence of mangeand rabies. In instances where ra-bies is suspected the animal is de-stroyed and samples sent in foranalysis. Carcasses are burned.

• Problem animals. Predators suchas lion, cheetah, leopard, caracal,and spotted hyena pose a threat tolivestock of farmers living adjacentto the park. KTP management doesnot pay for loss of domesticated ani-mals in South Africa or Namibia. InBotswana, payouts are made forstock losses; however, illegal claimsare stressing the system and it mightchange in future. Neighbors are edu-cated concerning the importance ofwildlife conservation whenever pos-

sible by the SANP SocialEcology Department inSouth Africa and theWildlife ConservationEducation Division inBotswana.• Quarries. Quarriesin wilderness areas arenot permitted. All formersites adjacent to the tour-ist road network will berehabilitated.• Culling. A no cullingwildlife policy is followed.


ConclusionThe KTP is largely wil-derness. It is a harsh en-vironment where onlygenetically strong indi-viduals that are eco-typi-cally adapted to theenvironment survive.Wildlife species living inthe Kalahari are adaptedto conditions of drought,fire, and lack of food atcertain times of the year.

Traversing the vastdistances of the Kalahari on foot is atough and risky situation, even for ex-perienced rangers, as a result of harshclimatic conditions, lack of water, andthe presence of predators. Access to thewilderness is not practically possiblewithout a vehicle for either managementor visitor use.

KTP management allows limited ac-cess by four-wheel drive vehicles in wil-derness zones, unlike the generallyaccepted standard for pristine wilder-ness, which excludes motorized access.As a result of the type of landscape, theroads, which predominantly consist ofsandy tracks, are only visible from theair and within a narrow margin on ei-ther side of a road. With such vast areasunder a nature conservation ordinance,the emphasis is on monitoring naturalphenomena, with minimal active man-agement strategies employed.

MARETHA SHROYER is an independentwilderness and wildlife researcher. She canbe reached at 2 Chudleigh Court, CarstensStreet, Tamboerskloof, Cape Town, 8001,South Africa. Telephone and Fax: 27 (0) 21426 2746. E-mail: [email protected].

MARTIN ENGELBECHT is the conservationmanager at Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park,South African National Parks, Republic ofSouth Africa. Telephone: 054 5612001.Fax: 054 561 2005. E-mail: [email protected].

ODUMELENG KAKETSO is a manager inthe Department of Wildlife and NationalParks, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park,Republic of Botswana. He can be reachedvia Tsabong. Telephone: 09267 540221.

The authors wish to thank Uwe Hass ofRealtime, S.A., for sponsoring thisresearch, and the Wilderness LeadershipSchool Trust for administering the project.

REFERENCESLovegrove, B. 1993. The Living Deserts of South-

ern Africa. Vlaeberg, South Africa: FernwoodPress.

National Parks Board, Republic of South Africa,and Department of Wildlife and NationalParks, Republic of Botswana. 1997.Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park ManagementPlan.

South African National Parks. 1999. KgalagadiTransfrontier Park: Travel Guide. Pretoria:S.A. National Parks.

Van der Walt, P., and E. Le Riche. 1999. TheKalahari and its Plants. Pretoria: publishedby authors.

African side consists of Nama Karooand Arid Savanna biomes (Lovegrove1993), while the Botswana side has agreater rainfall gradient to the north-east, making the habitat more suitablefor sustained use by wildlife.

A need has been identified to im-prove the linkage between the SouthAfrican and Botswana sides of the parkvia a tourist road. This road will have totraverse through pristine wilderness. Aroad is planned from Mabuasehube inBotswana to the Nossob valley.

Day walks and wilderness hikingtrails could be established to provide theadventurous tourist with a “close to na-ture experience” in difficult-to-surviveconditions. A “pack it in, pack it out”policy will be followed, and all partici-pants will have to carry their own wa-ter and be accompanied by anexperienced ranger as dangerous ani-mals are present throughout the park.A walking trail in riverine areas is un-der consideration.

Training courses in tracking andfield-guiding by experienced Bushmanor Mier trackers could provide income-generating opportunities to local peopleand expand a visitor’s knowledge baseregarding nature and wildlife.

Environmental Impact Assessments(EIA) are mandatory for all develop-ments on the South African side of thepark. Currently, Botswana is not un-der obligation to undertake EIAs, butall new developments are subjected toapproval by the Transfrontier Manage-ment Committee.

Proposed ManagementInitiates for Wilderness ZonesA need has been identified to refine thezonation in terms of categories of wil-derness that reflect degrees of wilder-ness, ranging from pristine to modified,according to international acceptablewilderness classification criteria.

View of the Auob River with camelthorn (Acacia eriloba) and grey camelthorn (A.haematoxylon). Photo by Noel van Rooyen.

Nowhere in the entire Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park isthere any natural surface water.


STEWARDSHIP

Editor’s NoteIn 1996, in the first issue of the journal Environmental His-tory, William Cronon wrote an article titled “The Troublewith Wilderness; or, Getting back to the Wrong Nature.”The essay was based on a book edited by Cronon Uncom-mon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature, and excerpted inthe Sunday New York Tames Magazine. The article was fol-lowed by an equally provocative critique by Samual P. Haystitled “The Trouble with Bill Cronon’s Wilderness.” The ar-ticles stimulated what came to be known as the “great wil-derness debate” that has raged in academic, management,and advocacy circles ever since.

To summarize the debate, Cronon “deconstructs” wil-derness by arguing that rather than offering an antidote orcounterbalance to industrial capitalism and ecological ex-ploitation, wilderness might very well serve the same ends.He reaches this conclusion by emphasizing the bifurcationof nature and culture, or nature and society—an ideologi-cal construct—that effectively removed humans from thatwhich we consider nature. The problem Cronon sees inthis “construction” of nature are twofold: (1) it denies ob-vious acts of human management/actions that influence

Which World?Which Wilderness?

or Getting Back to the RightCronon

BY GENE BAMMEL

wilderness (e.g., removal of indigenous people, predatorextermination, recreation impacts); and (2) it leaves no roomfor a nature ethic in those places where we do reside. Thus,we are excused to despoil places of non-nature (culture/society) because they have “fallen” and are not worthy ofprotection. Wilderness gives us false comfort in the beliefthat there is a pristine “nature” out there beyond our reach.Cronon concludes by calling for an expanded ecologicalethic that embraces all places as places of nature, and rein-tegrates human life into ecological thinking.

Beginning with Hay’s critique, Cronon’s article has re-ceived bitter backlash from ecologists and wilderness ad-vocates who argue that it blatantly ignores the biologicalreality of wildness (can you socially construct a wild griz-zly?) and provides wrongheaded academic support forantiwilderness forces.

In the following article, Gene Bammel takes a philosophi-cal looks at the debate from outside both factions. (See theDecember 1999 IJW for a book review by Greg Aplet ofThe Great New Wilderness Debate, J. Baird Callicott andMichael P. Nelson, editors.)

—Steve Hollenhorst, IJW co-managing editor

William Cronon is a heretic. A heretic is usuallysomeone who started out sharing the common,received traditions and then subverted them.

Martin Luther was a pious Catholic monk, until itdawned on him that justification was by faith alone, andneither good works nor sacraments made one pleasing

to God. Cronon takes the received wilderness doctrineand says that he too is a true believer: he knows thedelights of a misty waterfalls in a Sierra canyon, and inthe presence of the irreducibility of the nonhuman, he hasexperienced something profoundly Other than himself(Cronon 1995).


Luther’s reformation was successful,in part because of the shortcomings ofthe official Church, partly because thevision he conveyed was consistent withlong-neglected aspects of Christianity,and partly because his insights coin-cided with the nominalist philosophi-cal perspective of his time. Cronon’sappeal derives from his embrace of aworldview—that reality is a social con-struct—long ignored by wilderness en-thusiasts, but which enjoys broadintellectual support today. My critiqueof Cronon rests largely with this socialconstruction worldview.

The world is a very simple place forthose who have only one worldview.Among the happiest people I have evermet have been nomads and Bedouinwho enjoyed a very simple, and veryabsolute worldview. We inhabitants ofthe modern, Western world are not sofortunate. Whether we realize it or not,we all have, as Walter Truett Ander-son (1995) pointed out, four differentworldviews, which we slip in and outof, often unconsciously.

Worldview I is the world inhabitedby those of us who think we are prac-titioners of modern science. It is a sci-entific, rational approach, in which“truth” is found through methodical,disciplined, replicable inquiry. We canfor example “know” the actual carry-ing capacity of an area, the amount ofplant and animal life a given area cansustain, without detriment to thebiota. Those for whom biodiversity isthe primary justification for wildernessregard this worldview as deservingsupremacy. For many scientists, thisworldview becomes a kind of absolute,because it provides something as closeto absolute truth as one can possiblycome. The stubborn, irreducible factsof the physical world support thispoint of view. As Wittgenstein (1999)expressed it, “The world is everythingthat is the case.”

Worldview II is a social-traditionalapproach, in which truth is found inthe heritage of U.S. and Western civi-lization. Subscribing to this point ofview are those wilderness advocateswho regard the writings of Thoreau,Muir, and Leopold as almost divinelyrevealed truth. There is a sacred tradi-tion, a way of doing things, a heritagethat deserves reverential awe, and allthis is kept alive in the enthusiasticwritings found in various popular wil-derness journals. On the larger stage,Allen Bloom’s book The Closing of theAmerican Mind (1987) is an early re-statement of the absoluteness of ourliterary heritage. More recently, MarthaNussbaum, in Cultivating Humanity(1997), speaks in terms of reform inliberal education, while really defend-ing the role of tradition in coming togrips with everyday reality.

Lastly, Worldview IV—the view thatCronon supports—is that truth is so-cially constructed. This view has beenexplained best by Thomas Kuhn(1962), who suggested that we all op-erate within some given paradigm, wehave a picture that we apply to reality,that helps us solve our everyday prob-lems. Philosophically, this worldviewdates back to Immanuel Kant (1973),who said we never know things-in-themselves; we only know the con-structs of things our own mindimposes. (Wilderness becomes a so-cial construct, a picture we imposeupon a given reality, to make it com-prehensible.)

There are two issues on the frontburner. First of all is the philosophi-cal issue of our appropriation of real-ity. Do I really know things, or do Iknow only the (social) constructs of

Wilderness can also be a source of personal renewal, ofspiritual exploration, of personal “at-one-ment” with thenature of which we are a part.

Worldview III has been called “neo-romantic,” because truth is found ei-ther through attaining harmony withnature, or through spiritual explora-tion of the inner self. Anyone familiarwith the writings of Gary Snyder willknow how perfectly his writings epito-mize this approach. Wordsworth is stillthe model of the neo-romantic, whilethe writings of those who explore theinner self fill entire sections in book-stores. The masters of the art includeMihaly Csikszentmihalyi, The EvolvingSelf (1993);, James Hillman, The Forceof Character and the Lasting Life (1999);Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything(2000); and Jon Kabat-Zinn, Full Ca-tastrophe Living (1990).

my own mind? And more importantly,is there a reality out there that is in-dependent of my judgment, not de-pendent upon my mind or mypresence for its continuing reality?This is a central philosophical issue,and will not be solved in the confinesof this article. But it must form themental backdrop of those who wouldunderstand Cronon, his popularity,and the reaction to him.

As in most philosophical debates,there is some truth on both sides. Ican make statements about the worldthat are accurate statements aboutwhat is really going on “out there.”When I say: “Water boils at 100ºC,” Ihave said something that is true about


the world, it is not just a social con-struct. A roomful of people claimingthat water boils at 50ºC will not makeit so. On the other hand, there arethings that we do make so by agree-ing to see them in a certain way.Aestheticians struggle with the state-ment “Beauty is in the eye of the be-holder,” because there is a certaindegree of “social construct” in termsof what we accept as beautiful. Forexample, someone may make you agift of music regarded by the giver asbeautiful, but you may find it displeas-ing. Landscape architects and interiordecorators both have certain canonsof what is commonly regarded aspleasing, but both acknowledge that“individual tastes” may not cotton tothe common canons.

So, what is wilderness? Is there some-thing intrinsically valuable about wil-derness? Or is wilderness, as Crononsuggests, a “social construct” that ourculture has imposed upon us? Curi-ously, social constructionists are not rela-tivists. A genuine relativist will say: anyview is as good as any other; you areentitled to your point of view, as I am tomine. The relativist says: do not arguereligion or politics, because your pointof view is relative to your upbringingand current mindset, which is inevita-bly different from mine. Truth cannotbe attained, but agreement can, whetherby force, the tyranny of numbers, or thecapacity to shout more loudly than theopposition.

Cronon, like other social construc-tionists, is not a relativist. He believeshis statements are “true,” and that oth-ers, once properly enlightened, will

come to share his convictions. In aword, not only are some social con-structions of reality superior to othersocial constructions, some have suchusefulness, so much correspondenceto the way things ought to be, that theyshould push away or dissolve othersocial constructs.

For those who would validate wil-derness, its objective reality, its onto-logical primacy becomes the criticalissue. Wilderness, areas that are “for-ever wild,” areas where humans arevisitors who do not remain, areaswhere mining and logging and roadbuilding are not permitted, wildernessmust have some legitimacy in its ownright. It is not just a social construct,not just a historical accident, not justa “landscape of choice for elite tour-ists,” nor just a “place of recreation,”but something that should be left as itis, something that has the same rightto exist as human beings.

And with that reference to humanbeings, we come back to ImmanuelKant, as both the ultimate originatorof this strange idea of the social con-struct, and as the author of a poten-tial solution to the problem. Kant saysyou must treat persons as ends inthemselves, and never as mere means.In this regard, Kant is as guilty as therest of the Western tradition in sup-porting human exceptionalism—thathumans are somehow not just a partof nature, but superior to it. But, hav-ing established that there is somethingin nature that must be treated not asa mere means, but as an end in itself,why not extend that concept to in-clude something like wilderness? I

propose that we conceive of wilder-ness as an area that must be treated asan end in itself, and not as meremeans. Since wilderness is not a per-son, persons must act as guardians ofwilderness, much as someone mightbe “appointed” a guardian for some-one unable to engage in self-care. Andthis brings me to my second point.Writers as diverse as ChristopherStone (1974) and Martin Heidegger(1949) have pointed out that humanbeings are in some sense the shep-herds of being, because perhaps treesand other natural objects do have“standing,” legal rights, objective le-gitimacy in the real world.

Is wilderness a social construct?Yes it is, but it is also an objectivereality that can be appropriated byvarious scientific disciplines. It isalso subject to the interpretationsthat our traditions have placed uponit, and the Thoreauvian vision helpsmany not only to understand wil-derness, but to come to grips withtheir lives amidst an urban civiliza-tion that has gone global, yet seekssuccor from wild nature. Wildernesscan also be a source of personal re-newal, of spiritual exploration, ofpersonal “at-one-ment” with the na-ture of which we are a part. Crononis right on many issues, and there isa great deal of admirable subtlety inhis expression of his point of view.It is in the initial assumption thatwilderness is only a social constructthat he goes astray. Aristotle (1987)is still the master of objective real-ism, of affording a primacy to theworld “out there” that our minds re-ally know. I do not know what hewould make of our modern, Kantiannotion of social construct. I thinkhe would be unhappy with anyonewho thought that was the only ap-proach to reality. Aristotle was fondof saying: “A small mistake in the

The world is a very simple place for those who haveonly one worldview.


beginning is a great one in the end.”Not to realize that we have manyapproaches to reality is no smallmistake; it is the tumor that spreadsits malignancy over any attempt tomake “social constructionism” theonly way to view reality.

It is a little known fact that MartinLuther was invited by the CatholicChurch to the Council of Trent in1545, an invitation that Luther did notaccept. Had he done so, the valuablecorrectives of the Protestant Reforma-tion might have been incorporatedinto the main body of the Church, andthe great schism might have beenavoided. The heresy that Crononspreads has much to offer wildernessadvocates, for there is a sense in whichwilderness is a “social construct,” it isin a way what we make it out to be.But we must also be aware of the real-ist response: what we make it out tobe is limited by the shortcomings ofour understanding of what the thing-in-itself really is.

Philosophy perpetually renews it-self by returning to its roots and an-choring itself in reality. The same must

be said about all our reflections aboutwilderness. Muir and Thoreau,Leopold and Zahniser and Marshall,all offer us helpful incentives to grasp-ing what wilderness “really” means.But there is no substitute for the ex-perience of the thing-in-itself. What Iexperience, and what I want futuregenerations to be able to experience,and the intrinsic value of biodiversity,is no mere social construct, no mere“resource,” but the anchor and bed-rock of reality. Perhaps, like the her-esy of Martin Luther, the heresy thatWilliam Cronon spreads will be a use-ful corrective, bringing us all back toa more accurate understanding of thewilderness that is the substrate of ourbiological existence. In every ortho-doxy, heresy serves a useful function.It brings the true believers back to theauthentic bedrock of their belief andpractice. Perhaps Crononism will servethe same useful function.

GENE BAMMEL is a West VirginiaUniversity professor emeritus and presidentof the Sage Program at the University ofArizona.

REFERENCESAnderson, Walter Truett, ed. 1995. The Truth

About Truth. New York: Penguin/Putnam.Aristotle. 1987. A New Aristotle Reader, edited

by J. L. Ackrill. Princeton University Press.Bloom, Allan. 1987. The Closing of the Ameri-

can Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Cronon, William. 1995. The trouble with wil-

derness; or, getting back to the wrong na-ture. In Uncommon Ground: TowardReinventing Nature, edited by W. Cronon.New York: W. W. Norton.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1993. The EvolvingSelf. New York: Harper-Collins.

Heidegger, Martin. 1949. Existence and Being.Chicago: Regnery.

Hillman, James. 1999. The Force of Characterand the Lasting Life. New York: RandomHouse.

Kabat-Zinn, Jon. 1990. Full Catastrophe Living.New York: Dell.

Kant, Immanuel. 1973. Critique of Pure Reason,edited by N. Kemp Smith. New York:Macmillan.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The Structure of Scien-tific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating Humanity.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Stone, Christopher. 1974. Should Trees HaveStanding? Toward Legal Rights for NaturalObjects, Los Altos, Calif.: Kaufmann.

Wilber, Ken. 2000. A Theory of Everything.Boston: Shambhala.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1999. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by C. K. Ogden.New York: Dover.

striking similarity between rhetoric ofStalin’s Plan for the Great Transforma-tion of Nature and the modern Wise-Use Movement? Do Westernenvironmentalists realize that “wild-lands,” “reserve networks,” and otherconservation jargon originated inde-pendently in Soviet Russia a half-cen-tury ago? What motivated local partyofficials to protect nature reserves from“takings” by the central Politburo? Inthe end, did the Russian paradigm of

closed ecosystems (biocenoses) benefitor hinder nature protection?

A Little Corner of Freedom confirmsthat wilderness and other forever-wildprotections are not aberrations ofWestern culture. The previous centuryof Russian nature protection also hintsat a radically different model for wil-derness, a vision fixed in ecologicalfunctionalism. Russian zapovedniki of-fer a remarkably fresh defense of wildplaces rooted in the “what” and “how”

of ecosystems ecology. This book willnot resolve the quandary posed by the“does nature need people?” or “dopeople need nature?” polemic. But itcould prompt some lively debate.

Reviewed by J. CHRISTOPHER HANEY,Ecology and Economics Research Depart-ment, The Wilderness Society, 900 17thStreet, NW, Washington, D.C. 20006,USA. Telephone: (202) 429-2641. FAX:(202) 420-3958. E-mail:[email protected].

From BOOK REVIEWS on page 48


The Issue ofWilderness SolitudeWilderness managers today areembroiled in debates over pro-viding solitude in wilderness.The 1964 Wilderness Act(TWA) declares that wildernessmust provide outstanding op-portunities for solitude orprimitive and unconfined rec-reation. In the past, when wil-derness provided low-densityrecreation, meeting this re-quirement was not difficult.However, as use has increased,solitude has become a conten-tious goal, with polarized de-bate about the proper courseof action. For example, theMount Baker Snoqualmie Na-tional Forest received nationalattention and criticism overplans to reduce use at popularareas in Alpine Lakes Wilder-

ness. The repercussions of attempting to guarantee soli-tude by reducing use at popular destinations are potentiallygreat—displacing many to achieve moderate gains in soli-tude, while impinging dramatically on visitors’ freedom(Cole 1997; Cole et al. 1997).

In some wilderness areas, managers have assumed thatoutstanding opportunities must be provided everywhere, atall times. Others argue that if most of a wilderness remainsunused, the wilderness does provide outstanding opportuni-ties for solitude, even if it has several heavily used destina-tions. Whether managers decide to manage for solitudeeverywhere or just in some places, they must evaluate oppor-tunities that exist. Usually this has been accomplished bymonitoring encounters between groups (Cole 1997). Encoun-ters are objective and measurable, and early research suggestedthat they affect the quality of wilderness experiences. Mostresearch has focused on refining techniques for obtaining in-formation about visitors’ standards for acceptable numbers ofuser encounters (Manning et al. 1996; Vaske et al. 1986).Based on such research, many wilderness managers have es-tablished standards for encounters, and some are activelymonitoring encounter levels (Watson et al. 1998).

However, some have questioned whether encounters arean accurate or adequate indicator for solitude (Pattersonand Hammitt 1990). Hollenhorst et al. (1994) argued thatsolitude and crowding are not opposites. Roggenbuck etal. (1993) determined that encounters were “rated amongthe least important influences” on experiences. With theexception of several studies (Hammitt and Brown 1984;Hammitt and Madden 1989), relatively little research hasbeen done on how wilderness visitors define and experi-ence solitude.

This study sought to investigate wilderness hikers’ experi-ences of solitude, to understand what factors contributed to

Hikers’ Perspectiveson Solitude and Wilderness

BY TROY E. HALL

Abstract: The role of user encounters in shaping a wilderness experience and sense of solitude was investi-gated in Shenandoah National Park using open-ended interviews with 117 groups of hikers. Among thosefeeling that they had had a wilderness experience, 44% said the lack of encounters contributed to this sense,while 52% of those who did not have a wilderness experience cited crowding or encounters. The majorityreportedly experienced solitude, although many said solitude only occurred at times or places during the hike.

SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PEER REVIEWED

Article author Troy Hall. Photo courtesy of TroyHall.


those experiences, and to understandthe extent to which encounters withother groups detracted from the senseof solitude.

MethodsThe research was exploratory, using aseries of open-ended questions to elicitperceptions and descriptions in visi-tors’ own words. Semi-structured exitinterviews were conducted withbackcountry and wilderness hikers at23 trailheads in Shenandoah NationalPark during October 1997. All trailsprovided access to wilderness, al-though in some cases the wildernessboundary was more than a mile fromthe trailhead itself, and it was not pos-sible to ascertain with certainty thatall groups entered wilderness.

Interview questions first asked whatcontributed to and detracted from ahiker’s overall wilderness experience.Hikers were asked whether their trip feltlike a wilderness trip to them—why orwhy not—and to explore their personaldefinition of wilderness. Hikers wereasked if they experienced a sense of soli-tude during their hike and to explainwhy or why not. Finally, hikers wereasked whether they felt at all crowded,and whether they paid any attention tothe number of other groups they en-countered during their hike.

Interviews took about 8–10 min-utes. Tapes of the interviews were tran-scribed, resulting in more than 200pages of text. Several readings resultedin a refined coding manual that cap-tured the full range of responses inmutually exclusive categories (Straussand Corbin 1990). All interviews werecoded, with each meaningful elementof a response classified (i.e., a singlestatement could be assigned multiplecodes). The unit of analysis was thegroup—if anyone in a group volun-teered a response, that answer wascoded for the group. If group mem-

bers disagreed, which was rare, allanswers were coded for the group.Groups could give more than one typeof answer to a question; thus, percent-ages can sum to more than 100%. Intables, percentages are based uponthose groups providing codable an-swers to each question, with responsessuch as “I don’t know” eliminated.

ResultsA total of 117 groups were interviewed(91% response rate). Group sizesranged from one to six people (60%were in groups of two, while 11% wereindividuals traveling alone). Whenasked whether the hike had felt like awilderness experience, 55% of thegroups had some members who said

yes, 39% had some members who saidno, and 16% had some members whogave a qualified answer (“in some waysyes, some ways no”). Forty-one groups(35%) listed a diversity of factors thatcontributed positively to a feeling ofwilderness (see Table 1), such as natu-ral setting features and lack of manyencounters. For those who did not feelthat they had experienced wilderness,wide trails, proximity to Skyline Drive,and the presence of other groups weremost important.

When asked to define wilderness intheir own words, 17 groups said theycould not. The rest gave answers simi-lar to TWA definitions (see Table 2).Although lack of physical modificationand presence of natural features were

Table 2—Elements in personal definitions of wilderness (100 groups).

Elements Percent

Lack of human influence (no developments, untouched, uninhabited) 60

Natural setting features (trees, scenery, rocks, water, mountains) 53

Wildlife 47

Experiences (solitude, peace, harmony) 37

Access/Location (remote, difficult access, large area) 36

People (few encounters, no people) 25

Table 1—Factors influencing whether a hike felt like a wilderness experience.

Factors Contributing to a Feeling of Wilderness Percent (41 groups)

Natural setting features (trees, scenery, rocks, water, wildlife) 51

People (seeing no one, seeing few others, not being crowded) 44

Human influences (unmanaged, no developments) 27

Access (challenging trails, remote, rugged) 22

Experiences (escape, peace, harmony) 15

Sounds (water, wind, natural sounds) 12

Factors Detracting from a Feeling of Wilderness Percent (46 groups)

Access (not remote, trail too developed or maintained) 83

People (too many people, crowded, large groups) 52

Experiences (too safe, easy hike, too short) 26

Sounds (sounds of cars) 20

Human influences (evidence of people, developments) 15


When asked what contributed to asense of solitude, 68% mentionedpeople, mainly that they had seen onlya few or no other groups (see Table4). About one-quarter said solitudecame during times that they were awayfrom other parties. Those who saidthey had not experienced solitude gen-erally said it was because they saw alot of other people. Although a fewsaid that interactions within theirgroup prevented a feeling of solitude,such factors were less important thanintergroup encounters.

Several other factors contributed toa sense of solitude, including quiet ornatural sounds and being away fromsounds of civilization or cars. Othersreferred to the natural setting, usuallyforests, water, or mountains. Severalreferred to experiences, such as feelingsof calm or peace. About 16% answeredthis question by describing sitting qui-etly in some place, usually with a niceview, “I just felt like we were the onlypeople in the area, it was wonderful.”

Most groups (89%) answered affir-matively when asked if they had “paidattention to the number of othergroups around.” Interestingly, 42%followed up by spontaneously statingthe number of encounters they had.For example, a typical statement was,“we saw one, two, three guys back-packing and two people and a dog, sowe’ve seen five people.” This tendencyapparently occurred when the num-ber of encounters was relatively small;above about six to eight groups, peoplewere more likely to say they didn’tkeep track of the number of peoplethey met or that there were “a lot.”

Answers to the question about feel-ing crowded were largely consistentwith responses about solitude: 79% ofgroups had members who did not feelcrowded, while 28% had memberswho felt crowded. Most of those whofelt crowded offered qualifications to

Table 4—Factors contributing to a sense or absence of solitude.

Factors Contributing to a Sense of Solitude Percent (91 groups)

Presence of people or encounters 68

Saw few people 39

Saw no one else 24

During times away from people 24

Didn’t hear people 3

Quiet/natural sounds 42

Natural setting 32

Personal experiences 28

Being still/observing 16

Being away/remote 11

Factors detracting from a sense of solitude Percent (34 groups)

Presence of people or encounters 85

Saw a lot/too many people 62

Talking amongst selves 12

Own group size 9

Saw more people than expected 3

Experiences (easy, short) 15

Sounds (cars) 12

Management setting 6

Table 3—Reported experiences of solitude or lack of it while hiking.

Did Experience Solitude Percent (91 groups)

Unqualified “yes” 64

Qualified “yes” 25

Adamant “yes” 17

Did Not Experience Solitude Percent (34 groups)

Unqualified “no” 84

Didn’t expect it 16

Qualified “no” 7

the most common descriptors, encoun-ters featured in about one-quarter of thedefinitions. Thirteen percent specificallymentioned the terms solitude or isolation.

Most groups (91) had members whosaid they had experienced solitude dur-ing their trip, whereas 34 groups hadmembers who did not (see Table 3).Eight groups had some members whoexperienced solitude and others who

did not. Most groups simply answered“yes” or “no,” but some qualified theiranswers. For example, 25% said theyhad experienced solitude, but only atcertain times or places such as “for afew minutes,” “during the last half ofthe trip,” or “on the trail down, butnot up.” Of those not experiencingsolitude, 16% pointed out that theyhad not expected it.


their answers. For example, 42% ofthese groups said they felt crowded “inplaces,” implying that they didn’t feelcrowded in other places. Many ex-plained that they expected (or didn’texpect) what they encountered, orcompared the trail to more or lessheavily used trails. In fact, one-quar-ter of all groups (both those who feltcrowded and those who didn’t) an-swered by comparing their hike toanother place or time, such as “Well,I’ve been on this trail probably at leasta dozen times, and today was the mostcrowded I’ve ever been.”

Discussion and ConclusionsHow Important Are Encountersto a Feeling of Wilderness?Shenandoah hikers reported that en-counters or lack of encounters affectedtheir feeling of being in the wilderness(40–50%), and 25% said that lownumbers of encounters were impor-tant to defining wilderness. Answersto this open-ended interview questionwere unprompted, so encounters ap-pear salient.

How Important Are Encountersto a Feeling of Solitude?One-quarter of hikers who said theyexperienced solitude qualified their an-swer; many described times or placeswhere they experienced solitude. Thus,having high overall numbers of encoun-ters across the whole trip did not pre-clude some experience of solitude.Descriptions of solitude episodes vol-unteered by several respondents suggestthat the pattern of encounters may bemore important than the number of en-counters. For such individuals, manyencounters all at one time, followed bylong periods of seeing no one, might bemore likely to promote a sense of soli-tude than the same number of encoun-ters that occur one after another.Furthermore, managers may conclude

that opportunities forsolitude do not existwhen the number ofencounters are high,but visitors themselvesmay feel that they haveexperienced solitude tosome degree. Managersmight consider askingvisitors directly whetherthey felt they had “out-standing opportunitiesfor solitude.”

What Other FactorsContribute to Solitude?Many respondents described feelingsolitude during episodes when theywere still, away from other groups, andin the presence of natural settings, natu-ral sounds, or quiet. Given the range ofcomments received in this study, furtherresearch should investigate whetherpeople are indeed more likely to expe-rience solitude in certain settings (e.g.,undisturbed views or near water). AtShenandoah, for example, the effect oftraffic noise from Skyline Drive seemedto interfere with solitude.

What Is the RelationshipBetween Solitude and Crowding?The relationship between solitude andcrowding was generally strong amongShenandoah hikers; however, indi-vidual factors (past experience and ex-pectations) influenced feelings ofcrowding more than solitude. Manypeople qualified their answers aboutcrowding by contrasting this trip toother times they have visited or otherplaces they have been. Also, many hik-ers felt solitude during episodes inwhich they were away from others,even if they had—across the whole

Solitary hiker on the Riprap Trail, South District, Shenandoah National Park. Photo byMary Cottone.

Hikers crossing a stream on the Slaughter Trail, Central District, Shenandoah National Park. Photo by Steve Bair.


trip—many encounters. Thus, a moni-toring approach that evaluates solitudeopportunities solely on the basis of thenumber of encounters per day wouldnot have captured important experi-ential dimensions for many hikers.This study suggests that indicatorsmight be expanded to include othermore subjective indicators, such as“the longest period of time withoutseeing others.” Using such an indica-tor, a manager might conclude thatsome opportunities for solitude wereavailable. The desirability of expand-ing the objective and subjective indi-cators to measure solitude should bedebated.

TROY E. HALL is an assistant professor atthe University of Idaho, Department ofResource Recreation and Tourism, Moscow,Idaho 83844, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESCole, D. N. 1997. Solitude: researchers con-

tinue to delve into solitude components ofWilderness. Signpost for Northwest Trails(January): 33–34.

Cole, D. N., A. E. Watson, T.E. Hall, and D. R.Spildie. 1997. High-use destinations inthree wildernesses: social and biophysicalimpacts, visitor responses, and manage-ment options, Intermountain Res. Sta. Re-search Paper INT-RP-496. Ogden, Utah:USDA Forest Service.

Hammitt, W. E., and G. F. Brown. 1984. Func-

tions of privacy in wilderness environments.Leisure Sciences 6: 151–166.

Hammitt, W. E., and M. A. Madden. 1989.Cognitive dimensions of wilderness pri-vacy: a field test and further explanation.Leisure Sciences 11: 293–301.

Hollenhorst, S., E. Frank, III, and A. E. Watson.1994. The capacity to be alone: wilder-ness solitude and the growth of the self. InInternational Wilderness Allocation, Man-agement, and Research, edited by J. C.Hendee and V. G. Martin. Fort Collins,Colo.: International Wilderness Leadership(WILD) Foundation: 234–239.

Manning, R. E., D. W. Lime, and W. Freimund.1996. Crowding norms at frontcountrysites: a visual approach to setting standardsof quality. Leisure Sciences 18 (1): 39–59.

Patterson, M. E., and W. E. Hammitt. 1990.Backcountry encounter norms, actual re-

ported encounters, and their relationship towilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Re-search 22: 259–275.

Roggenbuck, J. W., D. R. Williams, and A. E.Watson. 1993. Defining acceptable condi-tions in wilderness. Environmental Manage-ment 17 (2): 187–197.

Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of quali-tative research: grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, Calif.: SagePublications.

Vaske, J. J., A. R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T.Heberlein. 1986. Backcountry encounternorms: theory, method and empirical evi-dence. Journal of Leisure Research 18 (3):137–163.

Watson, A. E., R. Cronn, and N. A. Christensen.1998. Monitoring inter-group encounters inwilderness. Fort Collins, Colo.: USDA ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Day hikers on Hawksbill Summit, Central District, Shenandoah National Park. Photo courtesy of ShenandoahNational Park.



nonnative fish on aquatic systems have made management ofrecreational fishing in wilderness increasingly controversial.

In October 1998 I organized a workshop of researchersand managers to discuss current research and managementalternatives (see Ecosystems issue 4, volume 4, Summer 2001).Two papers discuss management issues: (1) a look at the his-tory of fish stocking in California and (2) a review of case law,agency policies, and federal-state agreements relating to TheWilderness Act and fisheries management. Four papers presentresearch results on: (1) fish introductions, including effectson amphibian populations, (2) effects on native fish down-stream from headwaters lakes, (3) alteration of algal commu-nities and nutrient cycling, and (4) recovery of planktoncommunities following removal of trout.

Other threats to amphibians occur in wilderness, such assaprophytic chytrid fungus, which has been associated withdeclines of amphibians in relatively undisturbed forests inCentral America, Australia, and western North America. Con-servation of amphibians in the face of pathogens and otherstressors, such as global change, that occur across wildernessboundaries, will be extremely challenging.

PAUL STEPHEN CORN is a research zoologist with the NorthernRocky Mountain Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. He can bereached at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, P. O.Box 8089, Missoula, Montana 59807, USA. Telephone: (406) 542-4191.E-mail: [email protected].

Amphibians and WildernessBY PAUL STEPHEN CORN

The decline of amphibian species has emerged as amajor global conservation issue in the last decade.Last year, the Department of the Interior (DOI) ini-

tiated a major national initiative to detect trends in am-phibian populations and research the causes of declines.The program, conducted principally by the U.S. Geologi-cal Survey (USGS), emphasizes lands managed by DOI, butcollaboration with the Forest Service is encouraged to increasethe scope of inference about population trends. Although am-phibians are not usually the first group of animals that comesto mind when one thinks of wilderness, conservation of am-phibian populations is clearly a wilderness issue.

The two largest wilderness areas east of the MississippiRiver have high amphibian species diversity: OkefenokeeWilderness, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (GA), andMarjory Stoneman Douglas Wilderness, Everglades NationalPark (FL). Twenty species (15 frogs and toads, and 5 sala-manders) occur in the Everglades, and at least 38 species (21frogs and toads, and 17 salamanders) occur in the Okefenokee.The USGS Florida Caribbean Science Center is developingmonitoring programs for both areas, despite daunting logisti-cal obstacles (http://www.fcsc.usgs.gov/armi).

Although amphibians have comparatively low diversity inhigh-elevation wilderness areas and backcountry areas of na-tional parks in the western United States, many of these spe-cies occupy important ecological niches. Knowledge aboutthe status of amphibians in these areas is important, becausea high proportion of western amphibian species have under-gone recent declines, often in protected habitats.

Until 150 years ago, more than 85% of high-elevation lakesand ponds in the western United States were fishless. Amphib-ians were the dominant aquatic vertebrates in these watersbefore nonnative trout were stocked to establish recreationalfisheries. Grazing by tadpoles influence algal communities,and the aquatic larvae of ambystomatid salamanders are vora-cious predators. Stocking fish into previously fishless waters haslarge effects on amphibians and other aquatic biota, and onecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling. The effects of

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


People experience stress in everyday life and cope withit; recreation in wilderness environments is no ex-ception. Stressful situations and the stress process

have the potential to negatively affect a recreation experi-ence. A better understanding of the stress and coping processin recreation activities can help managers to designmanagement techniques that reduce perceived stress andenhance visitor experiences. Providing information concern-ing the stress process will help recreationists to mitigatestressful situations and improve their overall experience.

Stress and coping theory (Kaplan 1996; Lazarus andFolkman 1984) has been used to understand recreationists’appraisal of stressful situations, coping processes, responseto stress, and the outcomes of the process. Hassles are aform of stress. The daily hassles concept was developed byDeLongis (1985), DeLongis and others (1988), Kanner andothers (1981), and Lazarus and others (1985). Hassle vari-ables measure the immediate and multiple pressures thatoccur during the recreation experience and the disruptionassociated with them. The hassles concept suggests thatevery day demands on a person have a greater overall effectthan larger life events.

The definition of hassle used here is the irritating, frus-trating demands or situations that occur during recreationexperiences; they can range from minor annoyances to fairlymajor pressures or problems. A wilderness visitor mightexperience numerous events that must be appraised and

coped with, but may beconsidered regular eventsin a wilderness context.For example, travelingoff-trail might create aroute-finding hassle,nearby campsite usersmay cause irritatingnoise, and seeing litter inthe backcountry mightbe frustrating. In addi-tion, situations used todescribe conflicts in out-door recreation settingscan be sources of hassles,such as user crowding ornegative interactions be-tween horse riders andhikers. Hassles represent specific attributes of the outdoorrecreation experience that may negatively affect the experi-ence, and when taken collectively, could have a significant-disruptive impact.

Previous studies used the stress and coping model toinvestigate recreation conflict; according to stress theory,recreation conflict was methodically treated as a stressfulmajor life event (Lazarus and Folkman 1984; Schneider1995; Miller 1997). The work reported here expands upon

Visitor Experiences of Stressand Reported Hassles in the

Shining Rock Wilderness Area

BY RUDY SCHUSTER and WILLIAM E. HAMMITT

Abstract: This article describes the nature of hassles experienced by visitors in a southern U.S wildernessarea, defined as irritating, frustrating demands and situations during a recreation experience. Of the 486respondents, 87% indicated that a hassle was experienced. The greatest sources of hassle were litter andother impacts from human use of the resource. A visitor education program is recommended to achieve themanagement goal of reducing the amount and intensity of hassles.


Article co-author Rudy Schuster. Photocourtesy of Rudy Schuster.


previous studies and promotes the“hassle” concept for recreation stressresearch. The primary objective of thisarticle is to provide information thatwill aid in the management of stress-related hassles in wilderness areas.

Study AreaThe Shining Rock Wilderness Area(SRWA) consists of 18,700 acres andis located in the Blue Ridge Mountainsof western North Carolina. The SRWAis located within four hours’ drivingtime from multiple urban centers,shows signs of previous human activ-ity, and receives a high amount of rec-reation use. The dominant uses withinthe SRWA include day hiking, back-packing, berry picking, and hunting.Mountain-bike and horse use are per-mitted on trails surrounding theSRWA.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS)manages the SRWA and surroundingbuffer zone for dispersed recreationuse. The SRWA has a group size limitof 10 people, and the buffer zone agroup size limit of 25. In the bufferzone, trail blaze-markers and signs areprovided, but trails are not markedwithin the SRWA. Campsites are notdesignated in either the SRWA orbuffer zone, and due to high and con-sistent recreation use, many sites havebecome regularly used, with someposted for closure due to severe im-pacts. Recreationists in the SRWA andbuffer zone must cope with hasslesthemselves since little on-site assis-tance is available.

MethodsA survey of visitors to the SRWA andsurrounding buffer zone was con-ducted from July through Novemberof 1999. Sampling was conducted atfour different trailheads and designedto increase the diversity of users in thearea (e.g., summer and fall hikers,

berry pickers, and hunters). Commer-cial groups requiring special use per-mits or groups who had leaders/facilitators were not included in thesample. A mail survey was used withup to three reminders.

ResultsA total of 713 surveys were mailed;486 surveys were completed and re-turned (adjusted response rate of68%). While 424 (87%) indicated thatsome sort of hassle was experiencedat the study site, only the results froma screened sample of 388 respondentswho had no missing data in the sur-vey were used here.

The three most frequently partici-pated-in activities in the SRWA were

weekend backpacking (45%), day hik-ing (39%), and backpacking tripslonger than one night (13%). Otheractivities reported were: blueberrypicking (5%), wildlife viewing (2%),car camping and hiking (2%), andphotography (2%). Visitors could par-ticipate in more than one activity onthe same trip.

Twenty-seven percent of respon-dents were on their first visit to theSRWA; 73% had been to the area pre-viously. Most of the respondents spentfive days or fewer per year within thedesignated SRWA boundaries (56%)or in the buffer zone (38%). Overall,about three-quarters of respondentshad more than one year of experiencein the SRWA and buffer zone.

Table 1—Sources of hassles in the SRWA reported by respondents.

Source of Hassle Percent (n=388)

Litter 46

Noise from other people 44

Damage to the resource (plants, trails…) 36

Too many people at campsites 36

Vehicles near the Wilderness Area 26

Too many people on the trail 26

Dogs or other pets 25

Route finding/navigation 24

Behavior of other people 23

Weather conditions 20

Hunters 18

Equipment problems (tent, backpack…) 10

Traveling to the area 7

Developed facilities 7

Group troubles (disagreements, arguments) 6

Traveling home after the trip 6

Personal ability to complete desired task 6

Mountain bikers 5

Things were not as I hoped they would be 5

Planning the trip 3

Other 24


A checklist of 21 possible sourcesof hassle was included on the survey,plus an open-ended “other” category.The single greatest source of hassle waslitter (see Table 1). The seven most fre-quently reported hassle sources wereassociated with interactions with otherpeople or the result of high levels ofrecreation use in the SRWA. Routefinding and navigation may have beena frequent source due to the fact thattrail markings and signs were not pro-vided within the SRWA.

Respondents expected the types ofhassles experienced to occur occasion-ally (58%), frequently (21%), everytrip (5%), or never (16%). Whenasked if this sort of hassle was experi-enced in the past, 30% reported never,42% indicated occasionally, 21% re-ported frequent occurrences, and 7%indicated that it occurred every time.Many respondents indicated thathassles were of moderate intensity(41%), slightly more than one-thirdthought the hassles were of high (23%)to very high (12%) intensity, and about

one-quarter noted the hassles as low(19%) to very low (5%) intensity.

Management ImplicationsBased on Sources of StressThe main source of hassle at the SWRAwas litter and is typically from hikerswho drop items, campers who do notclean sites thoroughly, or visible toiletpaper from inadequate burial of hu-man waste. The most effective man-agement tool may be education effortsdirected at increasing visitor awarenessof the problem and leading to self-imposed behavior modifications(Schneider 1995). The SRWA is man-aged directly and indirectly for dis-persed recreation. Education effortscan highlight the benefits to visitorwilderness experiences of the indirectmanagement techniques and in theprocess emphasize the responsibilityof the recreationist to help maintainacceptable conditions. Informationshould make recreationists aware oflitter as a source of hassles; hence the

need to not leave litter, to remove lit-ter left by others, and to remind othervisitors to pack it out.

Other frequent sources of hassleswere “noise from other people” and“behavior of other people” in theSRWA and can be addressed with edu-cational programs as well. Informationcan be directed at increasing aware-ness that many people share theSRWA, and the actions of one indi-vidual, or group, have the potential tonegatively impact many others. Theeducational campaign could contrastthe differences between a wildernessenvironment and other recreation set-tings to highlight the idea that what isappropriate behavior in one area mightnot be in the other.

Two often reported sources ofhassles were “too many people atcampsites” and “too many people onthe trail,” even though there are group-size limits in the SRWA and bufferzone, and a permit is required for com-mercial groups to use either area. Insome cases, larger groups may be un-aware of their impacts on otherrecreationists. Educational programscan make larger groups and commer-cial permit holders more aware of thehassles (social impacts) experienced byother recreationists and methods ofreducing hassle situations.

Dogs and other pets were a fre-quently reported hassle during the on-site contacts; two sources ofdog-related stress were fear of un-leashed dogs and pet feces on the trail.Given the dispersed managementtechniques, one solution is to increasevisitor awareness of the need and rea-soning for the use of leashes and clean-ing up after animals.

The use of four-wheel-drive ve-hicles near the SRWA was a frequentreported hassle. Permits could be re-quired to use the unmaintained road

Entrance to the study area. Photo courtesy of Rudy Schuster.


leading to the SRWA, or it could beclosed to vehicular traffic. Better man-agement of vehicle use in the areawould likely contribute to the reduc-tion of other stress sources becausevehicles increase the amount of hard-goods that people bring to campsites,such as radios, barbecue grills, andpicnic tables. Probable positive sideeffects would include reduction in lit-ter, noise, and crowded conditions ontrails and at campsites.

SummaryA better understanding of stress situ-ations can help managers to reducethe amount and intensity of per-ceived hassles and enhance visitorexperiences. Information concern-ing recreation related hassles canhelp recreationists themselves tomitigate hassle situations and im-prove satisfaction of the overall ex-

perience; thus, reducing the need formanagement intervention. However,more than a cursory level of knowl-edge is recommended; signs at thetrailhead may not be adequate. Thereasoning for regulations or the needfor “appropriate” user behavior mustbe evident. The responsibility forstewardship can be promoted byhighlighting the visitor’s stake in themanagement process. Self-imposedbehavior modification can lead tofewer occurrences of hassles, whichshould lead to less detraction fromthe recreation experience.

Indirect management is more ap-propriate in a wilderness setting; thus,a visitor education program is recom-mended to achieve the managementgoal of reducing the amount and in-tensity of hassles. SRWA visitors canbe made aware of (1) the sources ofhassles to visitor, (2) the educational

management approaches, (3) the rea-soning for the educational programs,(4) the role of the visitor in fosteringappropriate behaviors among all visi-tors, and (5) the benefits to visitors fortaking an active role in reducing theproliferation of hassles.

RUDY SCHUSTER is employed at the Parks,Recreation, and Tourism ManagementDepartment at Clemson University and canbe reached at Lehotsky Hall, Room 263,Clemson University, Clemson, SouthCarolina 29634, USA. Telephone: (864)656-0112. E-mail: [email protected].

WILLIAM E. HAMMITT is a professor in theParks, Recreation, and Tourism Manage-ment Department at Clemson University.

This research was supported in part byfunds provided by the Aldo LeopoldWilderness Research Institute, RockyMountain Research Station, Forest Service,U.S. Department of Agriculture.

REFERENCESDeLongis, A. M. 1985. The relationship of

everyday stress to health and well being:inter- and intra-individual approaches.Unpublished dissertation, University of Cali-fornia, Berkeley.

DeLongis, A., S. Folkman, and R. S. Lazarus.1988. The impact of daily stress on healthand mood: psychological and social re-sources as mediators. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 54 (3): 486–495.

Kanner, A. D., J. C. Coyne, C. Schaefer, and R.S. Lazarus. 1981. Comparison of two modesof stress measurement: daily hassles and

uplifts versus major life events. Journal ofBehavioral Medicine 4 (1): 1–39.

Kaplan, H. B. 1996. Perspectives on psychoso-cial stress. In Psychosocial Stress: Perspec-tives on Structure, Theory, Life-Course, andMethods, edited by H. B. Kaplan. San Di-ego: Academic Press: 3–24.

Lazarus, R. S., S. Folkman. 1984. Stress, Ap-praisal, and Coping. New York: SpringerPublishing.

Lazarus, R. S., A. Delongis, S. Folkman, R. Gruen.1985. Stress and adaptional measures.American Psychologist, (July) 770–779.

Miller, T. A. 1997. Coping behaviors in recre-ational settings: substitution, displacement,and cognitive adjustments as a response tostress. Unpublished dissertation, Universityof Montana, Missoula.

Schneider, I. E. 1995. Describing, differentiat-ing, and predicting visitor response to on-site outdoor recreation conflict. Unpublisheddissertation, Clemson University, Clemson.


IntroductionThe Republic of South Africa (SA) is fortunate that, accordingto Wells (1995), it has one of the best-managed protectedarea systems in the developing world. He states that this sys-tem enables our country to play a leading role in achievingthe aims of the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commis-sion on National Parks and Protected Areas (IUCN 1994),and the implementation of such global environmental im-peratives as the conservation of biological diversity, as advo-cated by the Rio Conference and Agenda 21 (United Nations1993). The first protected areas on the African continent wereproclaimed in Zululand in 1895; since then a total of 422individual areas have been proclaimed, with a total area of

some 6.7 million hectares,covering about 5.5% of thecountry (Department of En-vironment Affairs and Tour-ism 1996). This protectedarea system has been built ontraditions that date back tothe private hunting reserves,which had a conservationfunction, that were set asideby early black leaders suchas King Shaka. Toward theend of the 19th century, con-cern was expressed by thecolonial white governments at the widespread carnagewrought by hunters who killed for gain on a massive scale,which eventually led to the declaration of the first reserves inZululand, but these afforded protection to only a small por-tion of the present SA. By the end of the 19th century, most ofthe great herds that once roamed this country had all butdisappeared, and some large mammal species such as the whiterhinoceros were already thought to be extinct (Pringle 1982).

However, major advances have been made in this coun-try since that time, especially in the advancement of wild-life science and establishment of effective protected areaagencies, which have led to the establishment of the presentsystem. Our protected areas are now increasingly receivingrecognition by international tourists and lovers of wildlands,especially since the recent recognition by UNESCO of thefirst SA Natural World Heritage Sites. Two of the most im-portant protected areas in KwaZulu-Natal Province, theGreater St Lucia Wetland and Ukhahlamba-DrakensbergParks have recently received World Heritage Site status. Bothof these incorporate extensive wildernesses—the latter con-tains four designated mountain wilderness areas (KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service 2000).

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Mountain Wildernessin South Africa

BY WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE

Article author Bill Bainbridge.

De facto wilderness in the Mnweni area, Drakensberg Mountains of KwaZulu-Natal Province,South Africa, at the interface of the Subalpine and Afro-alpine Belts. Photo by John Hone.


SA was also the first African coun-try to establish wilderness areas as partof the national protected area system,inspired by the passage of The 1964Wilderness Act in the United States,and in recognition of the rapid rate oflandscape transformation that wasimpacting on the wild lands for whichAfrica had an international reputation.The first attempts to set aside wilder-nesses were made in the 1950s by theNatal Parks Board, now KwaZulu-Na-tal Nature Conservation Service (KZNNCS), in portions of Lake St LuciaReserve in 1955, and the UmfoloziGame Reserve in 1957. Both areaswere protected by administrative ar-rangement, however, and only recentlyhas legal protection been mooted forthese areas (Bainbridge 1984).

At the same time a national author-ity, the then Department of Forestry,which had custody of extensive highaltitude natural areas known as moun-tain catchment areas, was also consid-ering use of the wilderness concept forthe long-term protection of these sen-sitive ecosystems. SA is a land of lim-ited water resources—only 20% of thecountry receives rainfall in excess of800 mm per year, and water is con-sidered a limiting factor to the indus-trial economy. The countryexperienced a series of severe droughtsin the 1930s, when the governmentof the day decided to protect all pub-licly owned mountain catchments aspart of the national forest lands, andensure the optimum runoff of clearwater. Mountainous land in privateownership was purchased and addedto the area to be managed by the de-partment for conservation of the wa-ter resources, protection of the naturalcommunities, and public outdoor rec-reation. Within 40 years, the depart-ment had custody of almost 1 millionhectares of high altitude catchmentareas, distributed over the most im-

portant mountain systems of the coun-try (Ackerman 1976).

The concept of wilderness conserva-tion amongst professional foresters inSA developed in the early 1970s underthe leadership of Danie Ackerman, sec-retary for forestry, who was aware of thestrong support for wilderness conser-vation in the United States at that time.He was aware that relatively large por-tions of the natural areas in the SA stateforests still retained much of their origi-nal character and was determined toensure the long-term protection of thisresource, which he perceived to haveinestimable value for our people. Fromhis experience in the United States, heresolved to seek a means of obtainingsecure legal protection for the wild ar-eas in the state forests. This was achievedin 1971, when the minister of forestry

secured an amendment in Parliamentto the Forest Act of 1968, which pro-vided the first legal instrument for thedesignation of wilderness in the coun-try. This remains the legislation,amended over time, under which thepresent wilderness areas on state forestland are protected (Ackerman 1972).

The department then established re-gional teams for the purpose of plan-ning and managing its natural areas,which comprised natural forests, coastalecosystems, and mountain catchments.These teams were also tasked with theselection of the most suitable portionsof the natural areas for designation aswilderness areas. The criteria employedfor the selection of the new wildernesseswas largely based on protocols devel-oped in the United States, modified tosuit local conditions (Bands 1977). At

Bushman rock art in the Cederberg Wilderness Area, Northern Cape. Photos by Vance G. Martin.

South Africa was also the first African country toestablish wilderness areas as part of the nationalprotected area system …


even Ntendeka lies in hilly country,and it conserves one of the most im-portant Afromontane natural forests inKwaZulu-Natal.

1973 was a momentous year forwilderness conservation in SA, whenthe first three wildernesses were pro-claimed in terms of the provisions ofthe Forest Act for the protection ofimportant high altitude catchment ar-eas. The first two were Mdedelelo andMkhomazi both in the DrakensbergMountains of KwaZulu-Natal, fol-lowed by the Cederberg in the moun-tains of the Western Cape.

While the total extent of the desig-nated wildernesses is small (less than5% of the total protected area system),they play a very significant role in allthe accepted conservation functions ofprotected areas. Some of the most im-portant functions are the following.

Conservation ofWilderness ResourcesThe wilderness areas protect high alti-tude landscapes, which, at the time theywere proclaimed, were some of the lastof the near-pristine, largely unmodifiedwildlands in the country. They wereamongst the few areas that had not beenoccupied by technological humans, be-ing generally unsuited for agricultureother than seasonal grazing, and, thus,the landscapes have not been trans-formed as in most other parts of thecountry. Most of the subcontinent wasoriginally occupied by the San people,also known as Bushmen. The Bushmenare recognized as the autochthonousinhabitants, who were present for veryextensive periods (over 8,000 years)prior to the arrival of the Iron Age peopleand the settlers, and before that, vari-ous Stone Age cultures. Yet throughoutthis extended period, the San have leftlittle evidence of their occupation, otherthan the art painted or engraved on rock

Table 1—The Mountain Wilderness Areas of South Africa.

Wilderness Area Area (ha) Mountain Range Management Authority

Designated areas

Boosmansbos 14,200 Langeberg Western Cape Departmentof Nature Conservation

Cederberg 71,000 Cederberg

Doringrivier 11,000 Outeniqua

Grootwinterhoek 19,200 Grootwinterhoek

Groendal 28,900 Grootwinterhoek Department of Economic Affairs,Environment & Tourism,Eastern Cape

Mdedelelo 27,000 Drakensberg KwaZulu-Natal NatureConservation Service

Mkhomazi 48,000 Drakensberg

Mlambonja 14,000 Drakensberg

Mzimkulu 28,300 Drakensberg

Ntendeka 5,230 Drakensberg

Wolkberg 22,000 Wolkberg, Dept. of Nature Conservation,Strydpoort Northern Province

Candidate area

Baviaanskloof 177,500 Baviaanskloof DEAET, Eastern Cape

Totals 466 330 9

Zulu village in the Drakensberg Mountains, near Royal Natal National Park, KwazuluNatal. Photo by Vance G. Martin.

that time, “wilderness area” had not yetbeen accepted as a protected area cat-egory; this only occurred following thethird World Wilderness Congress heldin Scotland in 1983 (Bainbridge 1984).The IUCN Commission on NationalParks and Protected Areas first incor-

porated wilderness in theinternational system sixyears later (IUCN 1994).Subsequently, the criteriafor the selection andmanagement of wilder-ness areas were formalizedin an SA national system(Department of Environ-mental Affairs and Tour-ism 1996). This systemis largely based on thecriteria employed fordesignation of the stateforest wilderness areas.

Since 1971, 11 wilderness areashave been designated in terms of theForest Act (see Table 1). All but one(Ntendeka Wilderness Area) protecthigh altitude ecosystems in the prin-cipal mountain systems of the country,spread over four provinces. However,


surfaces—a bequest to posterity of anart treasure, now considered to be anational heritage (KZN NCS 2000).

Africa stands out among the conti-nents due to the manner in which itslandscapes were formed, and which,according to Partridge and Maud(2000), are unique on the planet. Itsbroader face is typified by the landscapesof the southern Africa subcontinent,which are dominated by high plains,interspersed by higher mountain mas-sifs. The mountains lie in a near con-tinuous chain that extends from theentire subcontinent from Namaqualandin the Western Cape; through theRoggeveld, Nuweland, and other moun-tains of the Karoo regions; the CapeFolded Mountains; to the Drakensbergmountain range, which spread throughthe Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, andMpumalanga Provinces to the North-ern Province, not far from the Zimba-bwe border in the north. The nationalwilderness system, while small in rela-tion to the total extent of this chain, nev-ertheless conserves some of the mostwild and beautiful portions of the prin-ciple mountain ranges of the country,most of which characterize some of themost spectacular scenery on the sub-continent.

Conservation ofBiodiversity ResourcesThe wilderness system plays an ex-tremely important role in the conser-vation of biodiversity resources. SA hasan extremely rich flora of vascularplants—some 23,400 taxa (speciesplus infraspecific taxa). It also has oneof the highest species densities in theworld, and one of the highest levels ofendemism (Arnold and de Wet 1993).However, biodiversity is not uniformlydistributed, and some areas are clearlymore species-rich than others. Sevencenters of plant diversity have been

identified in southernAfrica (Davis andHeywood 1994), but anumber of these areunder threat as a resultof large-scale habitatmodification or trans-formation. Cowling andHilton-Taylor (1994)have identified eightbiodiversity “hotspots”(Myers 1988) compris-ing plant diversity cen-ters considered to beunder threat. Ten of thedesignated wildernessesand a candidate areaprotect natural commu-nities in four of the eighthotspots.

SA is the only coun-try in the world that canboast an entire floral kingdom withinits borders—the Cape Fynbos. Sevenwildernesses (six designated and onecandidate area) protect habitats in vari-ous forms of fynbos, the predominantvegetation type of the Cape Hotspot.This is the richest of the hotspots ofplant diversity world-wide, with some 8,600species, not less than68% of which are en-demic (Cowling andHilton-Taylor 1994).

A wide range of fau-nal species are alsopresent, ranging fromleopard (the largestpredator), eland (thelargest herbivore), anddown to a wide spec-trum of smaller species,including several en-demic and threatenedmammals. Of particularnote is the avifaunapresent. For example,the four Drakensberg

wildernesses conserve just under 300bird species, including 31 endemicand 46 threatened species.

Water ResourcesThe wilderness areas are important inconserving significant portions of the

Part of the extensive de facto wilderness in the Alpine Belt of the Maloti-DrakensbergMountain Range, shared between Lesotho and South Africa, looking down intoKwaZulu-Natal Province in the Mnweni area. Photo by John Hone.

De facto wilderness in the Icidi Valley, Mnweni area, Drakensberg Mountains ofKwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa, in the upper reaches of the Montane Belt,looking up to the main escarpment. Photo by John Hone.


primary water source areas of thecountry. As examples, the CederbergWilderness Area conserves the highcatchments of the Olifants River, ofconsiderable significance for watersupplies for intensive agriculture in itslower reaches and domestic supplies.The Drakensberg wildernesses con-serve the headwaters of the four mostimportant rivers of KwaZulu-Natal, onwhich depend much of the industrialand agricultural economies of theprovince, as well as most of the urbanand rural settlements.

Wilderness ExperienceThe wilderness areas are the only pro-tected areas in the country that spe-cifically aim at the provision ofwilderness experience that enables itscitizens to experience wild country onfoot, to commune with nature, to en-joy freedom and solitude, as well asthe spiritual, aesthetic, and mysticaldimensions of wilderness—within amountain environment. The opportu-nity to appreciate the rare rock art trea-

sures in a few select shelters be-queathed by a now-extinct culture,adds significantly to the quality of theexperience provided. An interestingdevelopment has been the use of wil-derness for therapy and healing pur-poses, involving street children andothers who have been subjected tosocial trauma.

ConclusionWhile the national wilderness systemforms only a small part of the overallprotected area system, it neverthelessplays a major role in the conservationand protection of the natural ecosys-tems, biodiversity, water, and othernatural resources of the mountain sys-tems of South Africa. In addition, it isthe only protected area category in thecountry that specifically aims to pro-tect the unspoiled natural character ofthe landscapes conserved within it. In2000 World Heritage Site status wasaccorded by UNESCO to theUkhahlamba-Drakensberg Park inKwaZulu-Natal in both the Natural aswell as the Cultural categories. This

park incorporates all fourDrakensberg wilderness ar-eas listed above, designatedover two decades prior to in-ternational recognition.They comprise a little lessthan half the area of the park,thus illustrating their valuein protecting the resources of“outstanding universalvalue,” for which this recog-nition was accorded (KZNNCS 2000).

WILLIAM R. BAINBRIDGE is anatural resources consultant inSouth Africa. He is founder ofthe Wilderness Action Groupand a frequent contributor to theIJW. E-mail:[email protected].

REFERENCESAckerman, D. P. 1972. The proclamation of

wilderness areas by the Department ofForestry. South Africa Forest Journal 82:19–21.

Ackerman, D. P. 1976. Control of watercatchments by the Department of Forestry.South Africa Forest Journal 98: 24–27.

Arnold T. H. and B. C. de Wet. 1993. Plants ofsouthern Africa: names and distribution.Pretoria: National Botanical Institute. Mem-oirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa62: 825 pp.

Bainbridge, W. R. 1984. Management objec-tives and goals for wilderness areas: wilder-ness areas as a conservation category. InThe Way Ahead: Proceedings of the 3rdWorld Wilderness Congress, edited byVance Martin and Mary Inglis.

Bands, D. P. 1977. Planning for a wilder-ness area. South Africa Forest Journal103: 22–27.

Cowling, R. M. and C. Hilton-Taylor. 1994. Pat-terns of plant diversity and endemism insouthern Africa. In Botanical Diversity inSouthern Africa: An Overview, edited by B.Huntley. Strelitzia 1. Pretoria: National Bo-tanical Institute. Botanical Diversity in South-ern Africa. pp 31–52.

Davis, S.D. and V.H. Heywood, eds. 1994.Centres of Plant Diversity: A Guide and Strat-egy for rheir Conservation. Oxford Univer-sity Press, Oxford.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tour-ism. 1996. National Register of ProtectedAreas in South Africa. Pretoria, South Af-rica. Department of Environmental Affairs& Tourism. 38 pp.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected AreaManagement Categories. Gland, Switzer-land: IUCN Commission on National Parksand Protected Areas. 83 pp.

KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Service.2000. Nomination proposal for theDrakensberg Park. Pietermaritzburg, SouthAfrica: KZN NCS.

Myers, N. 1988. Threatened biotas: “hotspots”in tropical forests. The Environmentalist: 10:243–255.

Partridge, T. C. and R. R. Maud. 2000. TheCenozoic of Southern Africa. Oxford, En-gland: Oxford University Press.

Pringle, J. 1982. The Conservationists and theKillers. Cape Town, South Africa: T. V. Bulpin.

United Nations. 1993. Report of the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment. New York: United Nations.

Wells, M. P. 1995. The Economic and SocialRole of Protected Areas in the New SouthAfrica. Unpublished report. Johannesburg,South Africa: Land and Agricultural PolicyCentre, 69 pp.

Mdedelelo Wilderness Area in the northern portion of the Ukhahlamba-Drakensberg World Heritage Site, South Africa, showing Mdedelelo (Cathkin)Peak and adjacent peaks of the main escarpment, with Natal Bottlebrush(Grayia sutherlandii) in flower in the Little Berg. Photo by John Hone.



Italy is a Mediterranean peninsular country of southernEurope, and many people believe it has only a marineclimate and chaparral habitat. But Italy is also a moun-

tainous country with very high peaks and glaciers, wherenatural, open plains are scarce. Italy is a very populatedcountry with 57 million people. Thanks to this geographicsituation, and notwithstanding the population rate, Italy ispreserving some of the few remaining wild areas of western,central, and southern Europe. England, France, Belgium, theNetherlands, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have lostalmost all their wildlands because of scarce mountainousregions, or from an overdevelopment of mining or tourism.

Large expanses of wild areas in southern Europe to-day probably exist only in Spain, in the Balkans, inGreece, and on the French island of Corsica. This ar-ticle refers to the largest wild areas remaining in Italy,including nearby Corsica. But we must be clear that,though all these wild areas are “roadless,” they are notunaltered natural landscapes. The forests have been ex-ploited for many centuries, and some old human arti-facts exist of historic or cultural value. All such areasmay be correctly considered only as Class II Wilderness

Areas, as described by VanceMartin at the 6th World Wil-derness Congress (WWC).

The island of Corsica isconsidered here not only be-cause of its geographic consis-tency and nearness to Italy, butalso because it likely has thehighest proportion of wild ar-eas in west, central, and south-ern Europe. The character ofits indigenous people, of an-cient Italian roots, has beentraditionally one of respect forthe wild aspects of the landand its resources—perhapsmore so than any other largeEuropean community.

A pertinent question to askis, “Have the mountainous re-gions of Italy have been pre-served by conscious intention,or simply due to their remoteand rugged character?” The reality is that most of the wild-lands exist because natural resources are scarce or difficultto harvest. Essentially, I believe the people do not have areal “preservation mentality.” They enjoy their mountainsfor the well-loved sport of mountaineering and the possi-bilities for adventure, rather than for recognizing the roleof mountains as habitat for wildlife and as part of an eco-system that must be valued and preserved. For the mostpart, the concept of wild nature has not been philosophi-cally developed by the people of my country.

For example, the Italian Alpine Club is a club of moun-tain lovers, that since its founding in the 18th century hasworked to develop the mountains, to domesticate them, to

The Mountainous Wildlandsof Italy

BY FRANCO ZUNINO

Article author Franco Zunino near a protectedchestnut tree. Photo by Mario Norziglia.

Glaciers and ibex in Gran Paradiso National Park. Photo by Alexander Marconato.


woods, alpine prairies, lakes and wa-terfalls, and glaciers. In the last cen-tury, the city has come to themountains, effecting an almost irre-versible destruction of their wild

beauty. Fortunately,through citizen action,we can still save somewild and formidablemountain areas. This isalready underwaythrough our system ofNational and RegionalParks, though many ar-eas remain unprotectedbecause there are no se-rious environmentallaws to enforce roadlesspreservation. We havewild flora and faunapreservation—whichideally would be linked

to wilderness preservation—environ-mental laws are not likely given the pre-vailing economic interests and becauseroadless preservation is not a priority.

As a result of these problems, ourmountainous wildlands are decreasingin area and are subject to erosion fromconstruction of huts, dams, powerlines and, recently, energy windmills.In addition, where there is adequateprotection, massive tourist use de-creases wilderness solitude.

While I lack an accurate wildlandsinventory, I would like to speak brieflyof the significant mountain chains ofItaly. The biggest are the Alps, to thenorth. They extend beyond our na-tional boundaries, but the southernwatershed is in our country. TheAppennini Mountains extend downthe peninsula. Other mountain chainsexist on the large island of Sicily(Mount Etna and the Nebrodi Moun-tains) and in Sardinia (GennargentuMountains). In these mountains arelocated the largest and wildest areasof Italy. Similarly large alpine wild-lands exist in France (Vanoisse, MountBlanc e Plateau du Vercors), and inSwiterland (Grand Comben-Matterhorn, Silvretta, Jungfrau-Aleschhorn), but rarely are they asundeveloped, roadless, and wild asthose in Italy.

In my country, the wildest of suchmountainous areas is the Val Grande,in the Alps of the northern PiedmontRegion. In Italy, Val Grande is symbolicof the word wilderness thanks to thebattles of the Italian Wilderness Soci-ety for its preservation. This 30,000-hectare wilderness was proposed asthe first Italian and European Wilder-ness Area in the 1970s, and proposedagain after the WWC in Scotland in1983. A resolution of this Congressaddressed the Italian and PiedmontRegional governments’ opposition totwo dam projects in the valley; the

The Abruzzo brown bear, animal logo of the Italian Wilderness Society. Photo byFranco Zunino.

Italy is also a mountainous country with very highpeaks and glaciers, where natural, open plains arescarce.

make them accessible by roads, andto have huts everywhere. The objecthas been to open these areas for “per-sonal conquest” in all the places ofbeautiful scenery: remote peaks,

Black pine in the Appennini Mountains, Mejella National Park. Photo by Franco Zunino.


projects were stopped and the valleysaved. The battle for an officially de-clared wilderness never stopped, be-cause the politicians favored schemesthat increased state revenue from tour-ism and other job creation associatedwith national park status. Today, thenational park authorities like to usethe word wilderness as an attractivetourist slogan, but they do not wishan officially designated wilderness be-cause it would restrict their manage-ment for tourism.

Despite the opposition, we had thefirst officially designated wildernessestablished in 2000 in a national parkby the park authority itself: the Calderadel Monte Somma, only 125 hectareson the top of the famous Vesuvio Vol-cano, near the city of Naples. In addi-tion, we had two other smallwildernesses designated in a nationalpark, but by a municipality only andby the park authority: Tempa del Paloand Viscigli Luonghi, of 200 and 250hectares, designated by the CamporaCommune in the Cilento: Vallo diDiano National Park. These wilder-nesses establish a very important prin-ciple, following the 6th WWCresolution about Italy to “encourage allnational parks, regional parks andstate nature reserve authorities to offi-cially recognize wilderness areas insidetheir boundaries …”

In the Alps are other large expansesof wildlands, such as the GranParadiso Mountain and National Park.It is penetrated by valleys, some withroads and towns, though it retains wildareas on the mountainsides. This Eu-ropean area is famed for its rich popu-lation of Ibex and Chamois. Theroadless part may be about 40,000hectares. Another wild area, famousfor its big glaciers and the highestpoint of Europe, is Monte Bianco.These wildlands are shared by Franceand Switzerland, with Italy’s portion

being about 10,000hectares of roadless ar-eas, divided in twoplaces by a large inter-national connectedcable railway.

To the east, a largewild area with big gla-ciers exists in the GruppoOrtles-Cevedale (StelvioNational Park). The areais divided by beautifulvalleys, rich in alpineforest fauna such as redand roe deer, chamois, and ibex.These pristine areas (30,000 hectares)are unfortunately penetrated by roadsalong the valleys and with many smallalpine villages. To the south are theAdamello (30,000 hectares) and theBrenta Mountains wild areas (20,000hectares), all in regional parks. Farnorth and east of them are two wildareas just south of the Austrianboundary: the Giogaia di Tessa andCima S. Cassiano, each about 10,000hectares. Finally, we have what isprobably the second largest and wild-

The Val Grande Mountains National Park. Photo by Franco Zunino.

est area of the whole Alps: the Alpi Carnichecomplex, a very rough and beautiful expanseof about 40,000 hectares, famous for itsmountainous dolomite scenery. It is almostall protected in a regional park, with a smallpart in the largest and wildest wilderness areaof Italy: the Valmontina (3,340 hectares), es-tablished as a result of an Italian WildernessSociety proposal.

In the Appennini Mountains, only a fewwild areas remain in the central and south.The largest is the famous Majella Mountain,now a national park, where an expanse ofabout 20,000 hectares may be considered

Dolomite Mountains in Alpi Carniche Regional Park. Photo by Franco Zunino.


wild: the Valle dell’Argentino-Monteamountains, in the Calabria Region. Avery wild area of about 15,000 hect-ares is included in the Pollino NationalPark and partially protected in a statenature reserve. It is populated by someof the last ancient natural stock of roedeer and black woodpecker of southItaly.

In Sicily, the only large expanse ofroadless area is the famous Etna Vol-cano, where a 10,000-hectares area isprotected in a regional park. InSardinia, we have two large wild ar-eas, but only one considered moun-tainous: the Supramonte plateau(20,000 hectares), so wild that todayit is a refuge for modern “desperados”and kidnappers. The area is rich inalmost all the rare species and subspe-cies of the Sardinia fauna and flora.

Near the mountainous wild areasof Italy is an important wild place—the French island of Corsica. Here isthe largest remaining roadless andwild area of the European Mediterra-nean region. Monte Cinto is the big-gest, probably 50,000 hectares, andmay be one of the largest in southEurope. It includes the northwest partof the island, with rough, rockymountain slopes and long, intact val-leys. The Cinto Mount, 2,706 metersis the highest point of the island. Itcontains the last natural Europeanpopulation of Bearded Vulture outsideof Spain and Greece. Next in size(about 40,000 hectares) and just tothe south is Monte Rotondo-LaRestonica, where a large expanse ofthe Corsican laricio pine forests exist,with very big trees that may be con-sidered “European sequoias.” The veg-etation is mostly chaparral or pineforest, with large expanses of high pas-ture and rocks, and small, very beau-tiful alpine lakes and streams. In theforest areas lives the endemic Corsicannuthatch. A third Corsican area is

A monumental laricio pine in the Restonica Valley, Corsica Island, France. Photo by Franco Zunino.

The vast Lacerno Plateau in the Serra Lunga. Photo by Franco Zunino.

roadless. This is a mountainous areanoted for its canyons and high alpineplateaus, with rare and endemic flora.Here some rare brown bears roam—an emigration phenomenon—and theabruzzo chamois have been restocked.

Another wild area, preservedthrough the battles of the AssociazioneItaliana per la Wilderness (AIW), is the

10,000 hectare Serra Lunga-Lacernoplateau, where an alpine prairie existswith roughly wooded valleys of beechforest. Rare species of Appennini faunalive here, such as brown bears, abruzzochamois, wolves, golden eagles, andperegrines.

South of these two large areas, thereis only one other that can be considered


L’Incudine (30,000 hectares) on thecentral-south part of the island, wherethe landscape, vegetation, and faunaare similar. These three areas are allpartially protected in the CorsicaNatural Regional Park.

As an Italian, I work with theAIW to protect our wild, roadless,mountain areas as wilderness. As aEuropean, I hope that the Frenchand Corsican environmentalists andpeople may forever preserve theirwild areas in a future French or Eu-ropean Wilderness System. The AIWwill be proud to help activate thispreservation on the basis of the Ital-ian experience. We appeal to ourcolleagues to work with us. Thiswould conserve the value of a typi-cal European wilderness resourceboth for itself and as a rich resourcefor appropriate tourism.

In sum, wilderness is being desig-nated in Italy, but slowly, and onlysmall areas of genuine wildland. Ofthese 23 areas, almost all are moun-tainous. The largest are the citedValmontina and the Val di Vesta (1,525hectares) in the Alps. A third largewilderness is Ernici Orientali in theAppennini, the Monte Cesima, and arecently designated Valle dell’Innola-Capo Cosa (830 hectares) in the samemountainous chain of the Lazio Re-gion. These small wildernesses arebeing established with the hope thatsuch examples may make it possiblein the future to obtain official preser-

For the most part, the concept of wild nature has notbeen philosophically developed by the people of mycountry.

The Valmontina Wilderness, the largest, wildest place in Italy. Photo by Franco Zunino.

vation of all the large wildlands men-tioned here as Italian and Europeanenvironmental treasures.

In the mean time, the AIW hasproposed a Regional Wilderness Actto establish Regional WildernessSystems and is working with someItalian regional governments toadopt it. Among other issues, thisdraft law will address the consump-

tive use of natural resources, suchas hunting, which are restricted innational parks but allowed in mostItalian wilderness areas.

FRANCO ZUNINO, a previous contributorto IJW, is the founder of WildernessAssociazione Italiana and an advocate ofdeveloping new and innovative ways todesignate and protect wilderness in Italy.Fax: (+39) 019-53545.



Mountains, because of their three-dimensionalnature as major landforms, present special problems and opportunities. Lowland-based ap-

proaches to mountain use and mountain-protected-areasdesign and management have not worked. The special fea-tures from which key issues arise include the following:• Given the worldwide shortage of water of sufficient

quality to meet present and future needs, and the factthat the bulk of the world’s precipitation falls on moun-tains, high-quality water is a paramount and economi-cally valuable product of mountain protected areas.

• Due to the altitudinal vegetation (and corresponding fauna)zones that characterize mountains, their different com-pass orientations, and the micro-relief characteristics, theirbiological diversity is extremely high. Moreover, the levelof endemism is outstanding, due to the “island” effect ofsingle mountains separated by lowlands. Half of the 24“biodiversity hot spots” are mountainous.

• The cultural diversity of mountain peoples is a precious,but eroding, heritage needing conservation as part of

mountain-protected areas planning and policy. The in-volvement of mountain peoples in protected-areas plan-ning and management is especially imperative as theyknow how to live with mountains.

• Long-distance transport of pollutants in the atmosphereis affecting mountain protected areas more than otherkinds of protected areas due to cold condensation andorographic effect.

• Because of the relatively narrow altitudinal vegetationalzones and diminishing space with increasing elevation,any global warming will have a major impact on moun-tain flora and fauna, and this presents real challenges tomountain-protected-areas management and policies.Where there are mountain protected areas embeddedin mountain ranges, there are opportunities for geneand species migration along ranges (e.g., poleward inN-S ranges for warming, and E-W for precipitationchanges), but mountain-protected-area managers needto be attempting linkages along the ranges in large con-servation corridors.

National Parks and otherProtected Areas in Mountains

BY LAWRENCE S. HAMILTON

A high meadow above the cloud forest in Itatiaia National Park in Brazil’s Serra do Mar. Photoby Lawrence Hamilton.

Article author Lawrence Hamilton. Photo courtesy ofLawrence Hamilton.


• Mountain protected areas need re-design and enlargement down themountain, as most include only thesummits and higher elevations ofmountains with scenic, spiritual, orrecreational value and are inad-equate to protect biodiversity, cul-tural diversity, and water resources.Larger areas could better accommo-date major natural disturbances andcontinuing evolutionary processes.

• Because these mountain protectedareas tend to be in the most remoteand inaccessible areas of a coun-try, the reality of isolation of fieldstaff needs to be addressed by ap-propriate networking.

The remoteness of mountain protectedareas means that they are the greatestbastion of remaining wilderness—anincreasingly precious commodity in anincreasingly populous and technologi-cally saturated world.

To address these and other issues,the World Commission on ProtectedAreas (WCPA) of the World Conser-vation Union (ICUN) established in1992 a Mountain Theme program andappointed the coordinator as vice-chair of the commission. With part-ners, the WCPA Mountain Theme hasplayed a major role in bringing “moun-tains” as an arena of concern onto thepolitical and societal agendas. Moun-tains have been placed alongside tropi-cal rainforests, coral reefs, anddesertification in the Earth Summit’sAgenda 21, and will get center stagein 2002, the UN-declared “Interna-tional Year of Mountains.”

A global network of 460 mountain-protected-area managers, researchers,and key users (e.g., mountaineers) nowexists and reaches to 66 countries. Thisnetwork is nourished by a quarterlynewsletter—Mountain Protected AreasUPDATE. The theme promotes inter-change, park twinnings or partnerships,organizes and cosponsors workshops

The Jungfrau in Switzerland is part of a proposed World Heritage Site, the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn complex, with Europe’s largest glacier. Photo by J. Ives.

Duck Hole in the Adirondack Forest Preserve, New York State, USA. Photo by Lawrence Hamilton.

and meetings, and pro-duces publications. (Seetheir website at http://wcpa.iucn.org and clickon “theme” and then“mountain protectedareas.”)

The Mountain Themehas cosponsored or offi-cially collaborated inplanning and imple-menting several majorconferences and work-shops, including: Moun-tain Trans-border Pro-tected Area Cooperation(Australia 1995); Trans-boundary Protected Ar-eas in Europe (Czech Re-public 1996); LinkingMountain Protected Areas to CreateLarge Conservation Corridors (Canada,World Conservation Congress 1996); IIISimposio Internacional de DesarrolloSustentable de Montañas (Ecuador1998); Workshop on MediterraneanMountain Protected Areas (Italy 1999);and the National Mountain Conference(United States, 2000).

The main and current thrust of themountain-protected-areas activity isthe promotion of large bioregionalcorridors of core protected areas,linked through nature-friendly landand water management. Largebioregional corridors are a possibilityin many areas and are being developedin places such as the Great Southeastern


Escarpment in Australia, the Serra doMar in Brazil, the Central Appenines,and the Andean Spectacled Bear Cor-ridor in Venezuela. The networkstrongly endorses all of the corridorsof The Wildlands Project in NorthAmerica.

LAWRENCE S. HAMILTON is vice-chair formountains of the IUCN’s World Commissionon Protected Areas and is a partner in theIslands and Highlands EnvironmentalConsultancy, 342 Bittersweet Lane,Charlotte, Vermont 05445, USA. E-mail:[email protected].

The entrance to Mount Cook National Park in New Zealand’s southern Alps, the world’s most formally protected majormountain range. Photo by Lawrence Hamilton.

Hiking at TsitsikamaRed saffron, white pear, candlewood,

yellowwood and beech. I walk through trees

whose branches reach wide as plains

to envelop me. Their ancient bodies,

shaggy barked, bent, thick, heavy,

and huge as rhinocerous, stand

at the edge of the continent, holding

reservoirs of woven light and shade.

Silent conduits of breath,

century after century, they grow.

Unconsciously, their roots sink down,

holding together the earth I stand on.

I pass through them without words

thinking of my father,

my mother.

—Anna Citrino

ANNA CITRINO is a native Californian who has livedoverseas since 1991. She currently lives in Singapore whereshe regularly bikes and walks in the local rain forest, an areathat is fast shrinking. She has had poems accepted forpublication in journals such as Bellowing Ark, Fine Madness,and Flyway.


Announcements andWilderness Calendar

SUNY-ESF AnnouncesSupport of IJWDr. William Bentley, chair of the facultyof forestry in the College of Environ-mental Science and Forestry at the StateUniversity of New York at Syracuse,announced the college will sponsor theInternational Journal of Wilderness finan-cially. Dr. Bentley noted, “We are pleasedto contribute to the continued successof the International Journal of Wilderness.SUNY-ESF is part of the academic com-munity providing wilderness stewardshipand management education programsand is part of New York’s history of wild-land and wilderness protection.”

Roadless Decision HitsRocky Road with BushAdministrationBy carving out a prowilderness positionwith his 11th hour action banning road-building and logging across some 60million acres of national forest, formerPresident Bill Clinton set up PresidentBush to either live with the measures orrisk being perceived as anti-environ-ment. In one of his first acts in office,President Bush signaled his willingnessto fight the roadless designations bypostponing implementation of the rule.Then on March 16 in a federal court-room in Boise, Idaho, the Bush Admin-istration filed a motion to roll back therules even further, probably until at leastearly summer. The motion of postpone-ment essentially granted a request by

the timber corporation Boise Cascadeand the state of Idaho, which had askeda federal judge to grant a preliminaryinjunction barring the Clinton roadlessdecision from taking effect. In a five-page response submitted March 21, theBush Administration did not attempt toaddress any of the legal claims raisedby Boise Cascade and the state of Idaho,namely that the Roadless Area Conser-vation Rule lacked specific details, therewas insufficient time for the state to re-spond, and public participation wasinadequate. The roadless rules wereadopted after a review that lasted morethan two years, included scores of pub-lic meetings, and prompted written ororal comments from more than 1 mil-lion people. Affecting one-third of thenational forests, the roadless rules areone of the most ambitious conservationactions taken by the Clinton Adminis-tration. The issue is shaping up as amajor test of the degree to which thecurrent administration will take a dif-ferent course. For more on the roadlessdecision, visit the U.S. Forest Serviceroadless website at http://roadless.fs.fed.us/.Source: The Wilderness Societywebpage: http://www.wilderness.org/

Parks and Protected AreaManagement Symposiumto be held in SardiniaThe 2001 International Symposium onSociety and Resource Management willbe held November 7–10 at LaMaddalena National Park, Sardinia,

Italy. With the theme of Global Chal-lenges of Parks and Protected Area (PPA)Management, symposium topics willinclude cross-boundary managementand PPA sustainability, balancing tradi-tional uses, ecotourism, maintenance ofcultural heritage with PPA protection,social and political considerations inPPA management and planning, train-ing, communication, and public in-volvement and collaboration. Sardiniais the second largest island (23,813 sq.km. or 14,764 sq. miles) in the Medi-terranean. As a result of the distanceseparating it from mainland Italy, it hasconserved its own economy and tradi-tions far more than have the other re-gions of Italy. On the northwest coast ofSardinia lies the Archipelago of LaMaddalena, comprising 60 small andlarge islands. With its deep transparentaqua sea and beautiful sandy beaches,this area has been an irresistible attrac-tion for tourists, particularly those in theMediterranean region and the oil-richcountries of the Middle East. In 1996the Archipelago of La Maddalena wasestablished as an Italian national park.Since that time the park has been adopt-ing a program of management aimed atensuring long-term ecosystem integritywhile managing the large number ofpark visitors. The deadline for presen-tation proposals is June 1, 2001. Theearly symposium registration of $195is due July 15. For more information,visit the symposium website at http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/NRRT/SSRM.

WILDERNESS DIGEST


Alberta’s Wild LandsAdvocate Available OnlineThe Wild Lands Advocate, the newsjournal of the Alberta Wilderness As-sociation, is now available online athttp://albertawilderness.ca/. TheAlberta Wilderness Association (AWA)is the longest-standing conservationgroup dedicated to conservation andthe completion of a network of pro-tected areas (parks, wilderness, areas,natural areas, etc.) Formed in 1965 bybackcountry enthusiasts, ranchers andoutfitters, AWA it is the lead organiza-tion in Alberta focusing on the preser-vation of wilderness lands and watersthroughout the province. It has alsotenaciously worked for better publicpolicy for the conservation, manage-ment, and ecologically sustainable useof all public lands, waters, and wild-life in Alberta.

Russian Protected AreaJournal Seeks ArticleSubmissionsVery little information is available inRussian related to wilderness and pro-tected area issues. To help fill the void,the Russian journal Okhrana DikoiPrirody (Protection of Wild Nature) islooking for articles that communicatethe experience of protected area man-agers, researchers, policymakers, andactivists around the world. Readers arethe staff of zapovedniki (strict naturepreserves) and national parks, univer-sity and institute professors and lec-turers, scientists and researchers invarious fields related to nature conser-vation, university students, membersof NGOs, and government officials. Ofparticular interest are articles that dis-cuss the challenges of conducting andorganizing protected area research pro-grams, planning and management sys-tems, and reviews of the mainprotected area policy and management

problems in North America, Europe,and other countries with well-devel-oped wilderness and protected areasystems. Translations of already pub-lished articles, or summaries of thesearticles, are acceptable. All manu-scripts should be translated prior tosubmission. In rare instances of par-ticularly important articles, translationcan be arranged. The maximum lengthis 15 pages. The manuscript style isopen and should reflect a scientificpopular style (avoid technical jargon)accessible to a broad audience of pro-tected area professionals. The editorshope to publish eight of these inter-national articles in the next year, twoeach issue. Send inquiries or manu-scripts to Ekaterina Pavlova,Biodiversity Conservation Center.E-mail: [email protected].

International Seminar onProtected Area ManagementThe 2001 international training pro-gram on the management of parksand protected areas will be heldfrom August 9–25, 2001, in thenorthern Rocky Mountains of thewestern United States. Designed formid-career planners and managersof nationally significant protectedareas worldwide, this integrated,state-of-the-art course will examinemanagement strategies, policies, andinnovative institutional arrange-ments to address the conservationand use of the world’s most specialplaces. The program is jointly spon-sored by the International ProgramOffice of the U.S. Forest Service andthe University of Montana, theUniveristy of Idaho, and ColoradoState University. The program joinscourse participants with leaders inprotected area management fromuniversities, the private sector, gov-ernment agencies, and nongovern-mental organizations. Through site

visits and in-depth case study cri-tiques, participants learn of assess-ment and planning tools, techniquesto address visitor interests and im-pacts, and mechanisms to reconcileresource protection with develop-ment pressures. The program stimu-lates deliberations and interactiveproblem-solving, taking advantageof the rich experiences and multiplecultural points of view representedamong program participants. The17-day seminar wil l begin inMissoula, Montana, and travel toseveral major types of protected ar-eas in the northern Rocky Mountainregion, including national parks,wildlife refuges, tribal reservations,privately held land conservancies,and multiple use forest and grass-land reserves. At each location, re-spected experts within the naturalresource management arena will jointhe group to assist in the study andevaluation of protected area manage-ment. For more information, visitthe U.S. Forest Service Interna-tional Program website at http://www.fs.fed.us/global/is/ispam/welcome.htm.

Pew Wilderness CenterFounded to Help Fight forWilderness ProtectionThe Pew Wilderness Center has beenestablished to protect more publiclands as part of the National Wilder-ness Preservation System. Its missionis to rejuvenate the public’s interest inthe wilderness by educating a broaderspectrum of the populace about theneed for increased wildlands protec-tion. Funded by the Pew CharitableTrust, the center will accomplish itsmission through commissioning newresearch; conducting symposia; build-ing public education campaigns; col-laborating with federal agencies,


academics, environmental organiza-tions, and other organizations; andproducing an annual publication en-titled Annual Review and Anthology ofthe Wild that will chart progress in se-curing wilderness protection. “Ourgoal is to bequeath to future genera-tions the ecological, geological or otherfeatures of scientific, educational, sce-nic and historical value that wildplaces contain,” said Executive Direc-tor Mike Matz. Headquartered inWashington, D. C., the Pew Wilder-ness Center also maintains offices inSeattle, Washington; Jackson Hole,Wyoming; and Boulder, Colorado. Formore information, visit the Pew Wil-derness Center website at: http://www.pewwild.org/index.htm.

Federal Judge StopsLogging inTongass National ForestRoadless AreasA federal judge halted all logging onroadless areas in the Tongass NationalForest in Alaska. The ruling came inresponse to a lawsuit filed by environ-mental groups that argued that theU.S. Forest Service had breached en-vironmental laws by writing a newmanagement plan for the Tongass in1997 without considering theroadless tracts for formal protectionas wilderness areas. The judgeagreed with the groups and orderedthe agency to write a new plan thatweighs whether any new wildernessareas should be created. Roadlessareas cover about 9.4 million acresof the forest’s 17 million acres. Thesame tracts would be protected un-der former President Clinton’s ruleto ban road-building on 58.5 mil-lion acres of national forestland, ifPresident Bush lets the rule stand.Source: Wildnet Digest

Latest Poll: AmericansOppose Drilling in ArcticRefuge by 2 to 1 MarginBy a 52 to 35% margin, U. S. votersoppose changing the law to allow theoil industry to drill on the coastal plainof the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,according to a new bipartisan survey bythe Mellman Group (D) and BellwetherResearch (R). Those opposing drillinghave much stronger opinions than thosewho support it. The survey team reportedthat 41% strongly oppose such develop-ment, while just 22% strongly supportit—a nearly 2 to 1 margin. The pollingwas commissioned by The WildernessSociety for the Alaska Coalition. Thefindings come as U.S. RepresentativesEd Markey (D-MA) and Nancy Johnson(R-CT) and U.S. Senator JosephLieberman (D-CT) introduce legislationto permanently protect the coastal plainby adding it to the National WildernessPreservation System. Doing so wouldput the area off-limits to oil drilling.Source: The Wilderness SocietyWebpage: http://www.wilderness.org/

Nominations Requestedfor Keith CorrigallWilderness StewardshipAwardThe deadline for nominations for the2001 Keith Corrigall Award for Excel-lence in Wilderness Stewardship is June30. The award is given annually to anindividual or team of persons whoseefforts to protect and/or steward wil-derness is worthy of special recogni-tion. Nominees may be professionalsor citizens involved in wildernesswork. Submit a 500-word statementand seconding letter to IJW, CorrigallAward, University of Idaho, Wilder-ness Research Center, Moscow,Idaho 83844, USA. E-mail:[email protected]. Be sure to include

contact information for both the nomi-nee and the person(s) making the nomi-nation. Keith Corrigall worked as thewilderness branch chief for the Bureauof Land Management during its forma-tive years and was a strong leader andadvocate for wilderness protection.

American Explorer BecomesWilderness Trust PatronColonel Norman Vaughan, the re-nowned American polar explorer, hasagreed to become a copatron of theWilderness Trust (WT) with SirWilfred Thesiger. Vaughan was sleddog chief to Admiral Byrd during thefirst ever U. S. Antarctic Survey of1928–30. The second-highest moun-tain in Antarctica was named after him.At age 90, in company with WT chairSir Humphrey Wakefield, he set off onthe first ever ascent 75 years after Ad-miral Byrd named the mountain forhim. Now at age 95, he still competesin the 800-mile Trans Alaska, NomeSerum Run. His 4000-mile earlysnowmobile record is still legendaryalong with his Iditerod records.

The WT was established in 1981with the fundamental goal of provid-ing future generations with an essen-tial appreciation of the environment.The trust’s main objectives are thepromotion of conservation of naturalresources and the building of aware-ness of the continuing abuse of theseresources. The trust’s programs at theLapalala Wilderness School focus onboth conservation and the develop-ment of effective interpersonal re-lationships and cross-cultural under-standing. Since its establishment,50,000 children from all South Afri-can cultures have attended courses atLapalala.

The first of the Sir Laurens van derPost memorial lectures was held in theState Apartments at St. James’s Palace


impressive beauty. It is the raw wild-ness of this land, with its enchantingsnowscapes and icescapes under con-stantly changing shades of lights, towhich so many travelers are drawn.

Much of Svalbard is protected innational parks and nature preserves.However, Central Spitsbergen, thelargest island of the archipelago, is stillsubject to new coal-mining enter-prises, radar and satellite stations, aswell as increasing tourism. It is nowestimated that exhaust fumes fromsnow scooters exceed pollution fromcoal mining. Nonmotorized touristsare becoming increasingly critical ofnoise, and the Russian and Norwegiancoal companies have plans to buildnew roads through beautiful country.

The World Wildlife Fund has anArctic Program encouraging the Nor-wegian government to make Svalbard“one of the best managed wildernessareas in the world” by giving the en-tire archipelago national park status.Please encourage IJW readers to writeto the Norwegian prime minister insupport of making all Svalbard a na-tional park. The address is The PrimeMinister, Jens Stoltenberg, P.O. Box8001 Dep, 0030 Oslo, Norway.

I urge everyone’s support.

Robin BuzzaArctic Wilderness ExperiencePostboks 110N-9171 LongyearbyenSvalbard, Norway

Dear IJW,I am a British citizen in Norwegianterritory, but Svalbard has been myhome for 25 years, most of which hasbeen spent dog-sledging. I run a smallcompany, Arctic Wilderness Experi-ence, where the emphasis is not onlyon outer perceptions, but also the in-ner journey, often uncharted and un-explored.

Allow me to bring to your atten-tion the present struggle to preservethe unique pristine qualities of theSvalbard Archipelago, also known as“Europe’s Last Great Wilderness.”

The country (63,000 km.) is domi-nated by low alpine mountains, longfjords and valleys, and many ice capsand glaciers, a natural panorama of

Letters to the EditorHelp Preserve the Svalbard Archipelago, Europe’s Last Great Wilderness

on February 13, 2001. HRH PrinceCharles, who spoke movingly of hislong friendship with van der Post,hosted the evening. David Rattray, theSouth African historian, spoke of thelink between the Zulu culture, the as-pirations of van der Post, and the last-ing friendship and mutual admirationbetween the British and their erstwhilefoes. This lecture was the first of a se-ries dedicated to fulfilling van derPost’s hopes for advancing wildernessideals by making them relevant to themodern world. For more informa-tion, visit the Wilderness Trustwebsite at www.wildernesstrust.org.za/index.html.Source: Chris Blessington, WildernessTrust, [email protected]

Wilderness ManagementTraining at the 7th WorldWilderness CongressThe organizers of the 7th World Wil-derness Congress (WCC) (November2–8, 2001, South Africa; see IJW April2001) have announced a wildernessmanagement training initiative inassociation with the congress. Execu-tive Director Andrew Muir confirmedthat the 7th WWC will conduct aprecongress training session for fieldand management level staff fromprotected areas in developing coun-tries in association with trainersfrom local NGOs and internationalnatural resource agencies. The ob-ject of this technology-transfer ini-

tiative will be to take advantage ofthe gathering of wilderness experts,issues, and information at the con-gress to supply training and expo-sure for managers who may have theopportunity to manage and influ-ence the designation of wildernessareas in their countries. The five-dayprecongress session will be held inPort Elizabeth, Eastern Cape, begin-ning October 28. The WILD Founda-tion and the 7th WWC secretariat areraising funds to supply scholarshipsfor selected participants. To apply fora scholarship, which includes thetraining plus registration and supportmoney to be a delegate to the 7thWWC, contact Andrew Muir [email protected].


Book Reviews

WILDERNESS DIGEST

Wilderness Comes Home:Rewilding the Northeastedited by Christopher McGrory Klyza.2001. Middlebury College Press,published by University Press of NewEngland, Hanover, New Hampshire.336 pp., $50.00 (hardcover), $22.95(paperback).

Federally designated wilderness in thenortheastern United States includesonly 205,000 acres, and federal agen-cies manage 2 million acres, about 2%of the region’s land area. “Pristine” and“primeval” are now only historic land-scape descriptors for the Northeastwhere evidence of human habitationis endemic. However, there is somehope for change as the region now hasmore forested area than it did 100years ago, and some wildlife species,once dwindling in numbers as the ag-ricultural and forest industries ex-panded, have been reestablished.

The prospects for “rewilding” thislandscape are explored in WildernessComes Home: Rewilding the Northeast, thefifth volume in the Middlebury Bicen-tennial Series in Environmental Stud-ies. Edited by Chris Klyza, each of the12 chapters is written by a different au-thor addressing three main themes: thehistorical context of the current wild-land and wilderness resource in the re-gion, a northeastern conservationstrategy built on creating ecological re-serves within a mixed public and pri-vate land ownership pattern, and aconceptual model of conservation basedon a region with ecologically recoveredand restored lands.

The authors argue that the regionrequires a rethinking of stewardship

on public lands where wilderness andwildland areas form a core ecologicalreserve and where ecological processesand integrity are being restored. Theauthors further argue that these corereserves are surrounded by privatelands managed for sustainable forestand agricultural conditions. Pristinewilderness conditions in the Northeastis only an idea from the past, and con-cerns for continued human develop-ment and population expansion in theregion suggest that a proactive andpragmatic approach needs to be for-mulated and implemented. The bookstrongly states that the rewilding ofecological conditions and processescan be achieved only throughregionwide conservation efforts.

Reviewed by CHAD DAWSON, IJWco-managing editor. E-mail:[email protected].

determining the success or failure ofcontemporary wilderness manage-ment has not gone unchallenged (mostof its tenets remain unproved), and itsinfluence has been stalled by the wide-spread lack of awareness of its tenetsand implications among both the gen-eral public and the staff of resourcemanagement agencies themselves.

Continental Conservation attempts toaddress these shortcomings by review-ing the principles of conservation bi-ology (e.g., connectivity, the Paineeffect), empirical evidence supportingthese principles, and their ramifica-tions for protecting large-scale, healthyecosystems (e.g., corridors, ecologicalrestoration). Another key objective isto provide a call to arms for the tradi-tionally politically inert scientist totake on the role of conservation activ-ist. The latter objective reflects thebook’s direct link with The WildlandsProject (TWP). Continental Conserva-tion is the result of a conference con-vened by TWP in 1997, and spells outthe vision of TWP: to protect and re-store the North American landscapethrough the creation of a large-scale,connected system of wildlands.

Both the conference and book werecoordinated around six topics: the com-plex issue of scale in designing reserves(chapter 2), the question of whetherecosystems are regulated by “top down”or “bottom up” forces (chapter 3), therole of ecological restoration (chapter 4),the critical importance of connectivitybetween ecosystems (chapter 6), and thenecessity of incorporating both core(chapter 5) and buffer areas (chapter 7)in creating an integrated system of

Continental Conservation:Scientific Foundations ofRegional Reserve Networksedited by Michael E. Soulé and JohnTerborgh. 1999. Island Press, Washington,D. C. and Covelo, California. 265 pp.,$25.00 (paperback).

In the last ten years, the discipline ofconservation biology has become aprogressively influential lens throughwhich society views landscapes. Itsprinciples are embedded within thoseof ecosystem management and arethus increasingly used in the creationand management of wilderness andother protected areas. However, theprimacy of conservation biology in


reserves. Between eight and 15 scien-tists co-authored each chapter, but theeditors and lead authors worked hard tocreate a focused, well-integrated book.

Many of the concepts articulated inthese chapters are extremely controver-sial. For example, the authors contendthat approximately 50% of land mustbe conserved to prevent widespreadanthropogenic extinction; conservationmust be pursued at spatial and tempo-ral scales never attempted before (i.e.,contemporary protected areas are far toosmall to conserve current ecological pro-cesses over the long term); buffer zonesare required around core areas of pro-tection to maintain the connectivity oflandscapes; the concept of sustainabledevelopment or harmony with natureis a dangerous myth; and top carnivoresmust be reintroduced into ecosystems.To the authors’ credit, the philosophi-cal implications of these and equallyprovocative issues are usually acknowl-edged and discussed, although the fi-nal positions always reflect the aims ofTWP. Being forced to address these chal-lenging issues is the primary joy of read-ing Continental Conservation: so manyquestions are raised by the issues in-cluded in this book that readers areforced to question their own feelings andbeliefs in these weighty matters.

Another major strength of this bookis the authors’ willingness to admit thatthe state of knowledge in conservationbiology currently makes the questionsraised in the book difficult if not im-possible to answer. The authors alsoacknowledge that the attempt to in-corporate conservation biology in wil-derness management relies as muchon human dimensions research as itdoes on ecological research. Conse-quently, both the practical and scien-tific components of conservationbiology are addressed throughout thebook, with several chapters providingas much practical advice as empirical

evidence. One minor criticism is thatthe potential role of traditional eco-logical knowledge is ignored; the booktotally focuses on the conventionalempirical research tradition of ecology.

Given the growing influence of con-servation biology in wilderness man-agement, its critical ramifications (ifproven correct) for ecosystem manage-ment, the number of philosophicaland practical questions raised in thebook, the pedigree of its authors, andthe high quality and balanced ap-proach of the research and writing, thisbook demands a wide readership. Itprovides a formidable, provocative vi-sion of a North American landscapethat maintains the ecological processesthat sustain our native flora and fauna,rather than becoming, like Europe, aregion bereft of wildness, lackingmegafauna, and overrun with theweeds of introduced species. It is avision that will be near and dear tothe hearts of many readers of the IJW.

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

civic activism must be regarded ashighly implausible under Stalin or hissuccessors. Could any “archipelago offreedom” really survive the party-state?

Nature protection did not just en-dure in the Soviet Union, it thrived.Scientific public opinion persisted dueto clever practitioners and the oblivi-ous machinery of a grinding state bu-reaucracy. Scientists anchored activismaround zapovedniki, strict nature re-serves without a Western equivalent.Zapovedniki carry great weight in theRussian land ethic, an ethic fosteredby professional societies founded inthe 1800s. This distinctive vision ofwildlands allowed Soviet nature pro-tectionists to disguise their actions ascultural patriotism for a beloved fa-therland. Scientists became experts atcamouflaging their “rightful domain”as arbiters of resource policy. Partybureaucrats thereby came to perceivenature protectionists as harmless ec-centrics (chudaki) who did not meritthe extreme measures of the Gulag.

Without romanticizing nature pro-tectionists as complete democrats,Weiner succeeds in illuminating a re-markable social movement. What, then,does this book portend for wilderness?Much, as it turns out. Weiner offers atoo-brief contrast of Russian zapovednikiand U.S. national parks. But U.S. parks,rooted in monumentalism, have scantlikeness to the ecological origins ofRussia’s most protected lands. The in-violable zapovedniki most resemble des-ignated wilderness, reserves oftenpromoted today as a means to protectbiological diversity.

A Little Corner of Freedom raises im-portant questions. If nature protectionsymbolized freedom within a Marxistautocracy, why then is environmen-talism usually attributed to the politi-cal left? What are we to make of the

A Little Corner of Freedom:Russian Nature Protectionfrom Stalin to Gorbachëvby Douglas R. Weiner. 1999. Universityof California Press, Berkeley and LosAngeles. 570 pp., $45.00 (hardcover).

Weiner’s A Little Corner of Freedom setsout to show how Russian scientists,despite state repression during a darkera, fought for “alternative visions ofland use.” Weiner details the coura-geous tactics and often idealistic aspi-rations of these practitioners ofnauchnaia obshchestvennost (scientificpublic opinion). The author cautiouslyadmits that revisionist interpretationis risky when probing a country (ac-tually countries) undergoing rapidchange, and any sort of independent

Continued on page 19

Date post:	17-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Journal of Wildernessijw.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/08/Vol-07.No-2.Aug-01small.pdfEdited by...

Documents