And American Wilderness Systems

Converging Protected Area Policy: A Case Study of the Russian Zapovednik (Strict Nature Preserve) and American Wilderness Systems

David Ostergren Steve Hollenhorst

Abstract—Historically, while the United States and Russia have Policy Convergence ______some policy similarities, each country has placed a unique cultural and political stamp on the role of their protected areas. Russian Convergence theory in transnational comparative politi- zapovedniki have existed since 1916 and are areas emphasizing cal science is regarded as the tendency of societies over time preservation of typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological to solve similar problems with similar solutions, despite research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American Wilderness Areas different political processes. In general, the literature fo- were set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. This analysis cuses on democracies in Europe, Canada, and the United compares Russian and American protected areas policies and con- States (Bennett 1991). This comparison of Russia and the cludes that the policies are converging. United States allows for an interesting opportunity to inves- tigate convergence in two dissimilar nations. Policy convergence occurs when two countries become similar in terms of policy goals, content, outcomes, or style Russian zapovedniki have existed since 1916 as areas that (Bennett 1991). For the purpose of this discussion, analysis protect typical or unique ecosystems primarily for ecological is focused primarily on converging goals and content, or the research (Weiner 1988). In contrast, American wilderness coming together of intent to deal with common problems areas are set aside primarily for people to access and enjoy. (such as protecting natural areas). Policy content includes Although the two systems are founded on much different the statutes, administrative rules, and relevant regulations societal values, they are comparable because they both affecting the policy area. Seelinger (1996) suggests that represent relatively large, nonmilitary areas with the high- efforts to analyze convergence focus on a specific content est level of protection from development and economic use in area at two distinct periods of time. This article demon- their respective countries. This analysis compares converg- strates that Russian and American policies had distinct ing Federal management policies for protected areas in goals and content around 1930. Since the mid-1970’s, the Russia and in the United States. policies have converged, culminating in more similar policy Three sources of empirical data were employed to conduct goals and content by 1998. this analysis: (1) official document sources such as laws, agency policy statements, and legislative and professional society debates; (2) archival and dependable secondary Wilderness Policy in the United sources; and (3) formal and informal interviews with policy leaders. Formal, open-ended interviews with zapovednik States ______directors and officials provided data on the current status of United States wilderness philosophy and legislation is Russian policy. This analysis also used informal interviews well documented (Allin 1982; Nash 1982). The early preser- with officials, nongovernment organizations, scientists, and vationist movement in America is characterized by the late historians. Commonalities between the Russian and Ameri- 19th century transcendentalists. They embraced the roman- can conservation systems have received only brief mention tic notion of the sublime; that is, the aesthetic, intrinsic in previous work (Pryde 1972, 1991; Weiner 1988), and a beauty of wild areas. Wilderness was viewed as a source of comparison of preservation policies is largely unexplored. inspiration. The motivation for the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture’s Forest Service to protect wilderness found voice with men like Aldo Leopold. Leopold reasoned that wilderness “serves as the highest recreational use,” and may serve the need for civilized people to experience out- In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg H.; Hendee, John C., comps. 2000. Personal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- door, pioneer-type recreational activities (Leopold 1921). ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, volume II; Increasing demand for access to primitive recreation oppor- 1998 October 24–29; Bangalore, India. Proc. RMRS-P-14. Ogden, UT: U.S. tunities such as horse packing trips, big game hunting, and Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. David Ostergren is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, fishing influenced the Forest Service’s decision to designate Center for Environmental Sciences and Education, Box 5694, Northern Ari- the Gila Wilderness Area in New Mexico in 1924. zona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011U.S.A., e-mail: [email protected]. The United States National Park Service Organic Act of Steve Hollenhorst is Professor and Department Head, Department of Re- source Recreation and Tourism, University of Idaho, College of Forestry, 1916 was passed amid growing popular support. The Act Wildlife, and Range Sciences, Moscow, ID 83844-1139 U.S.A. e-mail: stipulated the conflicting goals of “(1) conserving the scenery [email protected] and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein,

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 3 and (2) providing for the enjoyment of the same leaving them grizzly habitat) was much more suited to wilderness than unimpaired for future generations.” In the 1920’s, some Research Natural Areas (Cutler 1980). A gauge for the rise people supported scientific research on unmanipulated eco- of research in wilderness may be Butler and Roberts’ (1986) systems, some people supported the aesthetic and recre- report that between 1970 and 1980, 731 of the total 851 ational values of wilderness while others, such as the rail- research projects conducted in wilderness were on topics in roads and automobile industry, promoted easy access and the natural sciences. full visitor facilities. (Note: the terms “wilderness” and The Wilderness Society (1994) position is that wilderness “primitive areas” are used by the Forest Service and the is valuable for more than just recreation and aesthetics. National Park Service at various times to refer to basically Wilderness should be supported because it protects water- the same type of area. We use “wilderness” throughout the sheds for pure water, provides critical habitat for plant and rest of the document.) animal species, improves air quality through the filtering action of the plants and trees, maintains gene pools, and serves as unique and irreplaceable living “laboratories” for Science in Natural Areas scientific and medical research. In addition, baseline eco- Initiated in 1927, research reserves have been described logical research on wilderness areas appears to be expand- as “the most preservation-oriented land use category the ing as government agencies and the academic community National Park Service had yet devised” and as precursors to use large, relatively natural conditions (Meersman 1997). wilderness areas (Sellars 1993). Although in the early 1930’s Despite renewed science-based decisionmaking, it appears the National Park Service added wildlife biologists who that the funding for basic biological research remains inad- emphasized an ecosystem approach, in practice the natural equate (Kenner 1998; Sellars 1997). research reserves were unused and remained too small to protect pristine ecosystems. By the late 1930’s, the research Zapovednik Policy in Russia ______reserve program had been largely abandoned and the Na- tional Park Service continued to emphasize recreation and Early 20th century zapovedniki were designated for developing roads for access (Sellars 1993, 1997). baseline ecological research and to protect habitat for en- The Forest Service alone maintained Research Natural dangered species. In the 1980’s, this policy was broadened to Areas over time. In 1925, the Forest Service designated include ecotourism and environmental education. these areas for research on land similar to timber producing sites. By 1953 there were 27 Research Natural Areas. However, the areas remained small, and large ecosystem The Formative Years of Russian Protected processes could not be studied. In the long run, the Forest Area Policy Service placed much more emphasis on Experimental Sta- tions and work in nurseries, management, and genetics Yanitsky (1993) notes that in the late 19th century, (Doig 1976). Clearly, scientific research was not used as a expanding Russian democratic associations were criticizing primary rationale for the creation of wilderness areas. the Tsar and speaking out against abuses resulting from development. An increased rate of exploitation and disinte- gration of species was attributed in part to an expanding Wilderness and the Hegemony of population and in part to the effects of capitalism (Bannikov Recreation 1966). Disappearing resources and an increase in public criticism prompted debate over Russia’s use of natural By the 1930’s, a small but visible role for wilderness resources. Within the Russian Academy of Science, various recreation was established in the Forest Service and in the scholars advocated land preservation for scientific purposes National Park Service. Advocacy for more areas culminated (Weiner 1988). In 1908, G. A. Kozhevnikov presented a with the 1964 Wilderness Act as the first Federal legislation conference report and called for establishing reserve plots: in the world to protect areas for wilderness qualities. The primary goal was to provide current and future generations The first reason is purely scientific. The second is practical because only a scientific study of nature can provide a with opportunities for solitude and primitive, unconfined firm basis for practical activities. Let us remember that recreation. Some parenthetical goals for wilderness are agriculture is no more than applied science…we must con- mentioned such as education, protecting unique geologic or sider the conservation of nature, at least in some places, in historic objects, and conducting science. It is significant that all its natural inviolability. the bottom-line goals of wilderness areas remained un- As the scientific community promoted reserves for re- changed from the 1930’s, namely the preservation of un- search, another coalition sought preservation for aesthetic modified wild lands for unconfined recreation purposes values. The movement was rooted in romantic German and (Nash 1982). Swiss visions of preserved landscapes (Weiner 1988). As it turned out, this romantic and moral argument had only a Growth of Science as a Wilderness Value minor policy influence, and the bulk of early reserves were into the 1990’s dedicated to scientific purposes. In 1919, the Ilmen’ski Zapovednik was established to Evidence from the 1970’s indicates that ecological re- protect its unique geological and mineralogical features. search emerged as a rationale for maintaining and creating This Zapovednik became the first area in the world protected wilderness areas. By 1980, the wilderness system had ex- primarily for scientific reasons (Weiner 1988). In 1921, panded, and research that required large land areas (such as Lenin issued the decree “On the Protection of Monuments of

4 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 Nature, Gardens, and Parks,” which set the official policy role in American wilderness. Several factors have worked to that zapovedniki were exclusively earmarked for the solu- move each nation toward the other. tion of scientific problems (Bannikov 1966). By 1930, after a “Determinism” is a factor in convergence when only one protracted battle over whether zapovedniki should be pris- solution is feasible given the nature of the problem (Bennett tine areas or experimental stations, it was decided that the 1991). It may be argued that policy convergence only repre- term “zapovednik” could only be applied to research areas sents a process whereby one country actively adapts policies preserved in pristine condition (Weiner 1988). From this from another country. However, natural resources have time onward, the zapovednik policy focused on ecosystem long-term, semi-stable characteristics that exert a determi- research. In 1960, the Russian Republic Supreme Soviet nate influence on a country’s wealth and power (Siegel and passed the Law on Conservation, reaffirming that Weinberg 1977). Protected areas in both nations share zapovedniki are permanently withdrawn from economic use commonalities such as movement of species, air and water for scientific research (Current Digest of the Soviet Press across boundaries, infinitely complex biotic relationships, 1960). shifting fire and weather patterns, and the absence of anthropogenic influences. Russia initially restricted all access, though they are now opening these places to some Trauma and Change educational and ecotourism purposes. The United States The economic and political systems in Russia were com- initially de-emphasized but now recognizes that baseline pletely reorganized after the fall of the U.S.S.R. in 1991. As data is an important ingredient for making decisions on one result, zapovedniki faced a 60 to 80 percent reduction in large, complex ecosystems. Regardless of whether the main Federal funding, affecting all aspects of management and emphasis in each country is for research or recreation, the research (Grigoriew and Lopoukhine 1993; Ostergren and scarcity of funds and narrow band of advocates dictate Shvarts 1998; Sobolev and others 1995). Fortunately, not all policies that broaden political support. the changes in post-Soviet Russia were negative. Despite a “Harmonization” is working together across national bor- drop in Federal funding, in 1998 Stepanitski (1998) reports ders, often with support of international policymaking bod- that 99 zapovedniki now protect over 31,000,000 hectares of ies who recognize the interdependence of countries for suc- land in Russia—a 30 percent growth since the fall of the cess. On May 23, 1972, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. signed an U.S.S.R. agreement to protect the environment from pollution and to The most significant indicator of policy change and adap- exchange strategies for the preservation of nature and tation is the 1995 Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas. management of reserves. Since the signing of the 1972 Overall, it is viewed as a positive shift in management agreement, conservation agencies have supported over one- strategies. This is the first time in Russian history that thousand exchanges of specialists in rare and endangered directors and government inspectors have been given legal species. The agreement was renegotiated in 1995, with authority to manage zapovedniki (Federal Law 1995). Ar- nature reserves targeted for several initiatives (National ticle 7 states that the goals are: Biological Service and Russian Academy of Sciences 1996). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural a) the protection of natural areas with the dual goals of Organizations (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere (MAB) preserving biological diversity, and the maintenance of program provides another example of harmonization. MAB protected natural complexes, seeks to establish an international network of Biosphere b) organization and performance of scientific research, Reserves representative of the world’s ecosystems. The c) ecological monitoring, three primary goals are (1) to better conserve biotic re- d) environmental education (which may include sources, (2) to provide areas for baseline environmental ecotourism), research, and (3) to provide areas for education and training e) participation in Expertiza (environmental impact as- (UNESCO 1974). In 1996, the Russian Federation added sessments), another reserve for a total of 17 Biosphere Reserves. Many f) assistance in training the conservation and scientific United States agencies are also participating in the UNESCO community. MAB program, with 47 biosphere reserves in existence as of As of 1995, the system was fulfilling the first three goals 1996. Regular scientific conferences throughout the world much better than the last three (Sobolev and others 1995). expedite the exchange of information on management re- Nonetheless, these last three goals incorporate the use of search. In this instance, the United States converged toward protected areas for environmental education and ecotourism Russian policy by increasing emphasis on research. The (aesthetic appreciation and unconfined recreation)—these creation of Biosphere Reserves in both nations is tacit goals are traditionally associated with the United States’ recognition that choices for natural resource management Wilderness System. translate across political boundaries. Another influential international body is the World Con- servation Union (IUCN). The IUCN (1994) defines Discussion of Convergence ______zapovedniki and wilderness areas within Category I as “Strict Protection.” The objectives of Category Ia, Strict The protected area policies of Russia and the United Nature Reserve (such as zapovedniki) are: States are more similar in 1998 than in the mid-1930’s. Although the degree of similarity is debatable, it is clear that to maintain natural processes in as undisturbed state as possible; to secure examples of the natural environment for zapovednik policy has incorporated recreational and educa- scientific study, education, and environmental monitoring; tional values, while science has achieved a more prominent

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 5 to provide for the maintenance of genetic resources in a enced during “kitchen discussions” over tea (Yanitsky 1993). dynamic and evolutionary state; and to limit public access. Children in the 1970’s developed into a substantial cadre of Category Ib, Wilderness Areas, have the additional objec- environmentally concerned citizens and activists who fueled tives of recreational use and to ensure that future genera- the green movement. Many of these environmentalists are tions have the opportunity to enjoy relatively undisturbed affiliated with conservation and zapovednik issues. By the natural areas. Only slightly different, zapovedniki and wil- late 1980’s, environmentalism had penetrated the political derness fulfill an important category in the IUCN scheme of process to shape Federal policy (Jancar-Webster 1993). conservation. “Democracy” is the most difficult postulate to substantiate “Emulation” is when policymakers from one country copy in this discussion of converging protected area policy. The or adapt a policy from another (Bennett 1991). A country implication is that as nations increase public participation, may be used as a model, or the actual wording in policy the policy choice is to create protected areas and expand content is similar. In the late 1980’s, the Russian environ- public access to wild lands—in effect, create wilderness mental movement became a legitimate platform to criticize areas. There is little doubt that increased participation has the government and ultimately contributed to the fall of the affected zapovednik policy. Both the emulation process and Soviet Union (Jancar-Webster 1993). As one result, the penetration rely on public access to policy and public input. Federal government opened the path for public participa- Overbye (1994) proposes that democracy contributes to tion in policymaking. Section 1, article 5 of the 1995 Russian convergence by diluting the ability for leaders to dictate Law on Specially Protected Natural Areas specifies that public policy. A fundamental difference in the two govern- citizens shall take an active role in the management of ments was the lack of citizen participation in the Soviet protected areas and that agencies must take into consider- legislative process. Leaders often issued decrees and the ation the suggestions of the local citizenry. This particular Supreme Soviet rubber-stamped associated legislation section of the act resembles the rights for public participa- (Peterson 1993). Now nongovernment organizations are tion in the 1964 Wilderness Act and the 1969 National actively lobbying in the Russian political process. Unfortu- Environmental Policy Act. Awareness of American law and nately, in light of the 1998 budget reduction for zapovedniki, the similarity of wording indicates an emulation of United the political clout of zapovednik interests appears to be States legislation. limited (Stepanitski 1998). Nonetheless, public participa- Little evidence surfaces in the literature that the United tion exists in a society that had no participation outside the States directly adopted zapovednik policies. However, agency communist party for 70 years. It can be argued that one personnel were most certainly aware of the work on pro- reason the Federal government continues to establish tected areas in the U.S.S.R. For instance, the Office of zapovedniki (several in 1997 and 1998) is to maintain a International Affairs in the Fish and Wildlife Service has “green” image to the polity. The green image is a nod to had a modest exchange program with Russian and Ukrai- voters and the democratic process. nian zapovedniki since the mid-1970’s (Kohl, personal com- Instances certainly occur whereby the American public is munication). deprived of participation in environmental policy. However, One new goal in Russia is environmental education. In citizens are fundamentally guaranteed the right of partici- 1996, the first environmental education center opened to pation, if by no other means than by the judiciary (Jones and develop positive public attitudes toward protected areas. Taylor 1995). The general trend for Federal agencies is to Interest has also grown for supporting ecotourism—ostensi- preempt litigation by negotiating and involving the public bly to build global awareness and help raise funds. Tourism prior to action. A result is that policies guiding natural and ecotourism are still met with suspicion, but several resource management now include a broader definition of directors are actively pursuing tourists interested in natural values and goals, such as biodiversity conservation. history (Laren, personal communication). The environmen- Figure 1 illustrates the pathway for converging protected tal education movement emulates the United States as well area policies. Although both nations had similar movements as several other national strategies. supporting the establishment of protected areas, contrast- “Penetration” is a factor in convergence when members of ing cultural and political conditions kept the policies distinct one polity serve as the participants in the political process of until the 1980’s. The evidence suggests that harmonization another. Consistent with observations by Siegel and Weinberg and emulation elements surfaced in the 1970’s. In the (1977), nongovernment organizations play an important 1980’s, environmental organizations penetrated the policy penetrative role in converging policies. In the 1970’s, both process. And finally, democratization surfaced in the 1990’s nations experienced a general growth in environmental and influenced policy in Russia significantly. awareness. The political climate of the 1960’s and 1970’s profoundly shifted American land management policies toward a biocentric view (Nash 1982). Conclusion______The Russian environmental movement had slightly differ- Although Russia and the United States protect areas in ent roots than the American movement. In the fifties, sixties, their pristine natural conditions, they developed culturally and early 1970’s, the scientific community was the center for distinct philosophies and policy goals in the early 20th environmental awareness. During the Soviet era, technical century. Russia emphasized ecological research while the information was censored from the general public, and only United States favored recreational and aesthetic values. scientists had access to the harmful effects (potential or From the mid-1970’s to 1998, the policies in both nations actual) of industrial pollution. One result was that friends, converged, reflecting a dynamic social process of reevaluat- spouses, and children of concerned scientists were influ- ing the role and purpose of protected areas.

6 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 Recreation and aesthetics in the United States Doig, I. 1976. Early forestry research: 1925-1975. Washington, DC: High Science in the United States U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 32 p. Science in Russia Federal law about the specially protected natural areas. 1995. (Federalnie zakon ob osobo okhranyaemikh prirodnikh Recreation and aesthetics in Russia Converging territoriyakh). Ekos Inform. 6: 3-56. policies Grigoriew, P.; Lopoukhine, N. 1993. Report prepared for the World Bank: Russian protected areas assistance project. Ottawa, Ontario: Parks Canada, Department of External Affairs. 30 p. IUCN (The World Conservation Union). 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. CNPPA (Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas) with the assistance of WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre). Gland, Swit- zerland: IUCN. 301 p.

Level on influence on protected area policy Jancar-Webster, B. 1993. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In: Kamienicki, S., ed. Environmental politics in the international arena: movements, parties, organizations, and policy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press: 199-222. Low Jones, E. S.; Taylor, C. P. 1995. Litigating agency change: the impact of the courts and administrative appeals process on the 1920 1970 1990 Forest Service. Policy Studies Journal. 23(2): 310-336. Year Kenner, B. C. 1998. Blasphemy from the hinterland: using National Park Service history to improve science and natural resources Figure 1—Convergence of Russian and American protected area management. The George Wright Forum. 15(2): 8-19. policy. Kohl, S. G. 1996. [Personal communication]. June 6. Washington, DC: Office of International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Convergence theory helps policy analysts understand the Kozhevnikov, G. A. 1908. On the necessity of establishing reserve process of two dissimilar countries adopting similar policy plots in order to conserve the natural resources of Russia. Re- printed in Bull. No. 4. Conservation of natural resources and the goals and content. The process of converging protected area establishment of reserves in the USSR. Translated and published policy can be explained by the deterministic nature of the in 1962 by the Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusa- problem itself, harmonizing international objectives, emu- lem: 73-78. lating successful policies, national and international non- Laren, V. V. 1995. [Personal communication]. September 7. Norilsk, government organizations penetrating the political process, Russia: Director of the Putoransky Zapovednik. Leopold, A. 1921. The wilderness and its place in forest recreation and democratization of the policy making process. policy. Journal of Forestry. 19(7): 718-721. It is unlikely that nations will dilute their primary goals Meersman, T. 1997. U.S. parks are a natural for a nature lab. for establishing protected areas to the point that the world Minneapolis Star Tribune [Minneapolis, MN]. June 4; Sec. A. only has one type of protected area. However, the analysis is Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American mind. 3d ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 425 p. useful to consider for all nations establishing new protected National Biological Service and The Russian Academy of Sciences. areas. For instance, nations setting up new policies or 1996. Area 5: Protection of nature and the organization of re- strategies for protected areas can adopt language and strat- serves. U.S.–Russia Environmental Agreement, Working Group egies from established protected area systems. Established Protocol. Government of the United States of America and the systems can work as models to be meshed into an existing Government of the Russian Federation. Ostergren, D. M. 1998. System in peril: a case study of five central culture while accounting for the various rationales for pro- Siberian zapovedniki. The International Journal of Wilderness. tected areas. This analysis demonstrates that convergence 4(3): 12-17. is a useful tool in analyzing trends and explaining similari- Ostergren, D.; Shvarts, E. 1998. Protected areas in Russia: manage- ties across dissimilar nations and their Federal protected ment goals, current status, and future prospects of Russian zapovedniki. In: Watson, Alan E.; Aplet, Greg, comps. Personal, area policies. societal and ecological values of wilderness: Sixth World Wilder- ness Congress proceedings on research, management, and allocation, Vol. I; 1998 October 24-29; Bangalore, India. Gen. Tech. Rep. References ______RMRS-P-4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 11-16. Allin, C. W. 1982. The politics of wilderness preservation. Westport, Overbye, E. 1994 Convergence in policy outcomes. Journal of Public CT: Greenwood Press. 304 p. Policy. 14(2): 147-174. Bannikov, A. G. 1966. Nature reserves of the U.S.S.R. Jerusalem. Peterson, D. J. 1993. Troubled lands: the legacy of Soviet environ- Translated from Russian and printed by the Israel Program for mental destruction. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 276 p. Scientific Translations 1969. Available from the U.S. Depart- Pryde, P. R. 1972. Conservation in the Soviet Union. New York: ment of Commerce. Cambridge University Press. 301 p. Bennett, C. J. 1991. Review article: what is policy convergence and Pryde, P. R. 1991. Environmental management in the Soviet Union. what causes it? British Journal of Political Science. 21(4): 215- New York: Cambridge University Press. 314 p. 233. Seelinger, R. 1996. Conceptualizing and researching policy conver- Butler, L. M.; Roberts, R. S. 1986. Use of wilderness areas for gence. Policy Studies Journal. 24(2): 287-306. research. In: Lucas, Robert, ed. Proceedings: national wilderness Sellars, R. W. 1993. The rise and decline of ecological attitudes in research conference: current research; 1986 July 23-26; Fort National Park management, 1929-1940. Part 2 of 3. Natural Collins CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-212. Ogden, UT: U.S. Depart- resource management under directors Albright and Cammerer. ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research The George Wright Forum. 10(2): 79-109. Station: 398-405. Sellars, R. W. 1997. Preserving nature in the National Parks: a Current Digest of the Soviet Press. 1960. Conservation law adopted history. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 380 p. for the Russian Republic. November 30, XII, No. 44: 3-5. Shtil’mark, F. 1995. Pervimi zapovednikami v Rossii [First Cutler, M. R. 1980. Wilderness decisions: values and challenges to zapovedniks in Russia]. Zapovestnik. July/August, No. 7-8(10- science. Journal of Forestry. 78(2): 74-78. 11): 6.

USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000 7 Shvarts, Evgeny. 1995. [Personal communication]. December 17. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Moscow, Russia: Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of (UNESCO). 1974. Programme on man and the biosphere (MAB). Science. Task force on: criteria and guidelines for the choice and establish- Siegel, R. L.; Weinberg, L. B. 1977. Comparing public policies: ment of biosphere reserves. MAB Rep. Series No. 22, UNESCO United States, Soviet Union and Europe. Homewood, IL: Dorsey and UNEP (United Nations Environment Program). Press. 430 p. Weiner, D. R. 1988. Models of nature: ecology, conservation, and Sobolev, N. A.; Shvarts, E. A.; Kreindlin, M. L.; Mokievsky, V. O.; cultural revolution in Soviet Russia. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Zubakin, V. A. 1995. Russia’s protected areas: a survey and University Press. 312 p. identification of development problems. Biodiversity and Conser- Wilderness Society. 1994. Wilderness Areas of the United States. vation. 4: 964-983. Wilderness. Fall: 3-9. Stepanitski, V. B. 1998. Several results of work by the protection Yanitsky, O. 1993. Russian environmentalism: leading figures, service for Russian zapovedniki in 1997. [Nekotorii itogi raboti facts, opinions. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnyje Otnoshenija Publish- cluzhb okhrani Rossiskikh zapovednikov v 1997 godu]. ing House. 254 p. Zapovedniki and National Parks Information Bulletin. May 29, No. 24-25.

8 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14. 2000