Intangible Values of Protected Areas

The George Wright

FORUvolume 21 number 2 • JunMe 2004

Intangible Values of Protected Areas Origins Founded in 1980, the George Wright Society is organized for the purpos es of promoting the application of knowledge, fostering communication, improving resource management, and providing information to improve public understanding and appreciation of the basic purposes of natural and cultural parks and equivalent reserves. The Society is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and management of cultural and natural parks and reserves through research and education.

Mission The George Wright Society advances the scientific and heritage values of parks and protected areas. The Society promotes professional research and resource stewardship across natural and cultural disciplines, provides avenues of communication, and encourage public policies that embrace these values.

Our Goal The Society strives to be the premier organization connecting people, places, knowledge, and ideas to foster excellence in natural and cultural resource management, research, protection, and interpretation in parks and equivalent reserves.

Board of Directors DwiCHT T. PlTCAITHLEY, President • Rcston, Virginia ABIGAIL B. MILLER, Vice President • Alexandria, Virginia JERRY EMORY, Treasurer • Mill Valley, California GILLIAN BOWSER, Secretary • Bryan, Texas REBECCA CONARD • Mnrfrecsboro, Tennessee BRUCE M. KiLGORE • Poeatcllo, Idaho D.WIDj. PARSONS • Florence, Montana JOHN J. REYNOLDS • Castro Valley, California RICHARD B. SMITH • Placitas, New Mexico WILLIAM H. WALKER, JR. • Herndon, Virginia STEPHEN WOODLEY • Chelsea, Quebec

Executive Office DAVID HARMON, Executive Director ROBERT M. LINN, Membership Coordinator EMILY DEKKER-FIALA, Conference Coordinator P. O. Box 05 • Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 USA 1-906-487-9722 • fax 1-906-487-9405 infofgIgeorgewright.org • wrww.georgewright.org

The George Wright Society is a member of US/ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites—U.S. Committee), IUCN-The World Conservation Union, and The Natural Resources Council of America

Editorial guidelines may be found on the inside back cover. Text paper is made of 50% recycled fibers. Printed by Book Concern Printers, Hancock, Michigan. FORUMThe George Wright volume 21 number 2 • June 2004

Society News, Notes & Mail 2 MISSION STATEMENTS Reading the Earth: From Wonder to Appreciation Robert Sterling Yard 5 INTANGIBLE VALUES OF PROTECTED AREAS Intangible Values of Protected Areas: What Are They? Why Do They Matter? David Harmon 9 Managing the Intangible Anthony J. English and Ellen Lee 23 National Parks as Scientific Benchmark Standards for the Biosphere; Or, How Are You Going to Tell How It Used to Be, When There’s Nothing Left to See? Gary E. Davis, David M. Graber, and Steven A. Acker 34 Aesthetic Values and Protected Areas: A Story of Symbol Preservation Eduardo Crespo de Nogueira and Consuelo Martínez Flores 45 Battling Religions in Parks and Forest Reserves: Facing Religion in Conflicts over Protected Places Bron Taylor and Joel Geffen 56 Life and the Nature of Life—in Parks Holmes Rolston III 69

Protected Landscapes in Canada: Current Practice and Future Significance Guy S. Swinnerton and Susan Buggey 78

On the cover: the soaring walls of Canyon de Chelly National Monument (USA) symbolize several intangible values: aesthetic beauty, scientific interest, and cultural meaning. Photo courtesy of Eduardo Crespo de Nogueira Society News, Notes & Mail Call for Papers: GWS 2005 Conference The next George Wright Society Conference will be held at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel March 14–18, 2005. By the time you receive this issue of the FORUM, the Call for Papers will just be coming out via e-mail. All GWS members for whom we have e-mail addresses will get the CFP automatically.If you are not a member, or if you otherwise missed the CFP, send a note to info@ georgewright.org and we’ll get one to you right away.The deadline for receipt of abstracts is October 1—earlier than in years past, so please mark your calendar! 2003 Conference Proceedings Published Protecting Our Diverse Heritage: The Role of Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, the proceedings volume from the 2003 GWS / National Park Service joint conference, was published in March. Ninety-six papers are included, covering a wide range of topics. The book (427 pp.) is available as a paper- back ($26.00; $19.50 for GWS members) or on CD ($10.00 / $7.50) postpaid to U.S. and Canadian addresses (additional shipping elsewhere). To order, go to www.georgewright.org and follow the links from the right-hand column. Complete Library of The George Wright Forum Now Available on CD Now you can have a comprehensive collection of The George Wright Forum that will take up only about two inches on your bookshelf. The entire backlist of the Forum—every issue from its inception in 1981 through 2003—is now available as a set of four CDs. You get high-quality PDF versions that are suitable for on- screen viewing or printing. We are selling these sets at a special introductory price of $20.00 ($15.00 for GWS members). A limited number of sets are available at this cost; when these are gone, the price will go up. To order, go to www.georgewright.org and follow the links from the right-hand column. Ocean Park Conservation on the Rise Not since the 1960s, when the Stratton Commission examined ocean policy, have Americans focused so clearly on ocean conservation and governance. Last June, a Pew Foundation-funded commission lead by Leon Panetta and David Rockefeller reported the results of a two-year study of ocean conditions (www.pewoceans.org). This April, a congressionally chartered U. S. Ocean Commission led by retired navy Admiral James D. Watkins did the same (www.oceancommission.gov). Both commissions expressed concern for depleted ocean resources and recommended changes in federal activities. In 2001, the National Park System Advisory Board encouraged the National Park Service to play a leadership role in ocean conservation, noting that, “If human stewardship has been lax on land, it has been even worse in the sea” (www.nps.gov/policy/ futurereport.htm). In response to these notices of concern over ocean resources, the National Park Service developed a strategy to improve conservation in the 72 ocean parks, and established a task force of superintendents and national pro- 2 The George Wright FORUM gram managers to implement the strategy. The framework for this strategy was developed in a series of four sessions at the 2003 George Wright Society Conference in San Diego, California.

New and Noteworthy • NPS partnership with USGS on the national map. The National Park Service is developing a geodatabase application to roll up geospatial data from the NPS base cartography inventory.The geodatabase will utilize a data model that is compatible with the U.S. Geological Survey national map. A major initiative of the USGS, the national map promotes a consistent framework for geographic knowledge. A draft concept paper and initial data layer standards documents are available for review at www.nps.gov/gis/ data_info/standards.html under the National Map Data Architecture head- ing.

• Pitcaithley, Shull contribute to book on public history and the environment. GWS President Dwight T. Pitcaithley and the keeper of the National Register, Carol Shull, were recent contributors to a new publication by Krieger Publishing Company, Public History and the Environment, edited by Martin Melosi and Philip Scarpino. Their chapter, titled “Melding the Environment and Public History: The Evolution and Maturation of the National Park Service,” argues that the National Park Service is a very different agency from the one created in 1916. It has evolved, especially over the last fifteen years, into an agency that has a far more sophisticated understanding of the environment and of the role historic places play in contemporary society. The National Park Service’s more expansive management of historic places, a more inclusive vision of the National Register of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmark Program, and a re-configuring of the National Park System by Congress, all have combined to create a system of parks and a management structure that could not have been imagined by Stephen T. Mather. For more info, go to www.krieger-publishing.com/html/ publicstack_11.html.

• New suite of biodiversity tools. NPS has released a new set of biodiversity tools and web sites, including NPSpecies, the biodiversity data store, species- new-to-science web pages, and nature guides. More info: http://nature.nps. gov/ScienceResearch/Biodiversity.

• Research Links covers ecological history, more. The new (spring 2004) issue of Parks Canada’s research newsletter features articles on the ecological history of caribou and musk ox on Ellesmere Island; patterns of visitor use in Banff, Kootenay, and Yoho national parks; and using digital cameras to monitor plant biomass at Grasslands National Park. Available in PDF format upon request. For more info, contact the editor, Dianne Dickinson, at Research. [email protected].

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 3 • New book on the curation of archeological collections. Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship,by S. Terry Childs of the National Park Service’s archeology and ethnography program, discusses ethics concerning the stewardship of archeological collections and offers practical articles about their management and care. Articles cover budgeting for curation, the long-term preservation of archival and digital records, access and use of collections, Native American issues, and collection rehabilitation. Info at www.saa.org.

• “Ethnic and Racial Diversity of National Park System Visitors and Non- Visitors”: technical report. Prepared by the Social Research Laboratory at Northern Arizona University, and based on data from the 2000 NPS Comprehensive Survey of the American Public. Available at www.nature. nps.gov/socialscience/products.htm.

• “Meeting Challenges with Geologic Maps.” This publication of the American Geological Institute (AGI) shows how information from geologic maps is useful in everyday life. The document presents 16 examples that show how geologic maps are helping to delineate fragile habitat and ecosystems, protect against natural hazards, and find needed resources. Available at www.agiweb.org/pubs/pubdetail.html?item=634601.

• Report on ozone-sensitive plant species. The report, from the NPS Air Resources Division (ARD), summarizes the results of a June 2003 workshop in Baltimore, Maryland. At the workshop, a group of ozone effects scientists reviewed, revised, and updated lists of sensitive plant species. Copies of the report can be obtained from ARD (contact Ellen Porter at 303-969-2617) and an electronic version will soon be available at www2.nature.nps.gov /air/pubs. The ARD can also provide lists of park-specific ozone-sensitive species and users of NPSpecies will soon be able to generate lists of sensitive species in real-time.

•American Birding Association volunteer directory now on-line. The American Birding Association’s (ABA’s) volunteer opportunities for birders directory is now available on-line. Each year the ABA gathers and publishes information on bird-related projects in need of volunteers. The directory is published as a service to ABA’s 22,000 members, typically very skilled birders, and as a service to the agencies and organizations in need of skilled volunteers to help with bird-related projects. Parks have advertised for volunteers in this directory for years. Review the current directory at www.ameri- canbirding.org/opps/. On-line submissions (free listings) are welcome at any time. 1

4 The George Wright FORUM MISSION STATEMENTS Reading the Earth: From Wonder to Appreciation

Robert Sterling Yard

Ed. note: An important figure in the early development of the National Park Service, Robert Sterling Yard was hand-picked by Stephen Mather to spearhead publicity for the new national park system. A former editor with several widely read national magazines, Yard was enthusiastic and effective in helping make the national parks into beloved American icons. In this excerpt from the first chapter of The Book of the National Parks (1919), Yard extols the benefits of a deeper understanding of natural phenomena as a way to achieve real appreciation of the parks. ❖

o the average educated American, scenery is a pleasing hodge-podge of mountains, valleys, plains, lakes, and rivers. To him, the glacier-hol- lowed valley of Yosemite, the stream-scooped abyss of the Grand TCanyon, the volcanic gulf of Crater Lake, the bristling granite core of the Rockies, and the ancient ice-carved shales of Glacier National Park all are one—just scenery,magnificent, incomparable, meaningless. As a people we have been content to wonder, not to know; yet with scenery, as with all else, to know is to begin fully to enjoy. Appreciation measures enjoyment. And this brings me to my proposition, namely, that we shall not really enjoy our possession of the grandest scenery in the world until we realize that scenery is the written page of the History of Creation, and until we learn to read that page. The national parks of America water’s fall, a trick of the senses result- include areas of the noblest and most ing from failure to realize height and diversified scenic sublimity easily distance. accessible in the world; nevertheless it “To think they are the highest in is their chiefest glory that they are the world!” she mused. among the completest expression of I told her that the soft fingers of the earth’s history.The American peo- water had carved this valley three ple is waking rapidly to the magnitude thousand feet into the solid granite, of its scenic possession; it has yet to and that ice had polished its walls, and learn to appreciate it.... I estimated for her the ages since the “Is it true,” a woman asked me at Merced River flowed at the level of the the foot of Yosemite Falls, “that this is cataract’s brink. the highest unbroken waterfall in the “I’ve seen the tallest building in the world?” world,” she replied dreamily, “and the She was an average tourist, met longest railroad, and the largest lake, there by chance. I assured her that and the highest monument, and the such was the fact. I called attention to biggest department store, and now I the apparent deliberation of the see the highest waterfall. Just think of Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 5 it!” Probably the majority of those silent If one has illusions concerning the gazers were suffering something akin average tourist, let him compare the to pain at their inability to give vent to hundreds who gape at the paint pots the emotions bursting within them. and geysers of Yellowstone with the I believe that the statement can not dozens who exult in the sublimated be successfully challenged that, as a glory of the colorful canyon. Or let people, our enjoyment of scenery is him listen to the table-talk of a party almost wholly emotional. Love of returned from Crater Lake. Or let him beauty spiced by wonder is the equip- recall the statistical superlatives which ment for enjoyment of the average made up his friend’s last letter from intelligent traveller of to-day. Now add the Grand Canyon. to this a more or less equal part of the I am not condemning wonder, intellectual pleasure of comprehen- which, in its place, is a legitimate and sion and you have the equipment of pleasurable emotion. As a condiment the average intelligent traveller of to- to sharpen and accent an abounding morrow. To hasten this to-morrow is sense of beauty it has real and abiding one of the several objects of this book. value. To see in the carved and colorful Love of beauty is practically a uni- depths of the Grand Canyon not only versal passion. It is that which lures the stupendous abyss whose terrible millions into the fields, valleys, woods, beauty grips the soul, but also to-day’s and mountains on every holiday, chapter in a thrilling story of creation which crowds our ocean lanes and whose beginning lay untold centuries railroads. The fact that few of these back in the ages, whose scene covers rejoicing millions are aware of their three hundred thousand square miles own motive, and that, strangely of our wonderful southwest, whose enough, a few even would be ashamed actors include the greatest forces of to make the admission if they became nature, whose tremendous episodes aware of it, has nothing to do with the shame the imagination of [the fact. It’s a wise man that knows his Romantic illustrator Gustave] Doré, own motives. The fact that still fewer, and whose logical end invites sugges- whether aware or not of the reason of tions before which finite minds their happiness, are capable of making shrink—this is to come into the pres- the least expression of it, also has ence of the great spectacle properly nothing to do with the fact. The equipped for its enjoyment. But how tourist woman whom I met at the foot many who see the Grand Canyon get of Yosemite Falls may have felt secret- more out of it than merely the beauty ly suffocated by the filmy grandeur of that grips the soul? the incomparable spectacle, notwith- So it is throughout the world of standing that she was conscious of no scenery. The geologic story written on higher emotion than the cheap won- the cliffs of Crater Lake is more stu- der of a superlative. The Grand pendous even than the glory of its Canyon is the stillest crowded place I indigo bowl. The war of titanic forces know. I’ve stood among a hundred described in simple language on the people on a precipice and heard the rocks of Glacier National Park is unex- whir of a bird’s wings in the abyss. celled in sublimity in the history of

6 The George Wright FORUM mankind. The story of Yellowstone’s accomplishment as a precedent to making multiplies many times the study and observation of our national thrill occasioned by its world-famed parks, I seek enormously to enrich the spectacle. Even the simplest and enjoyment not only of these supreme smallest rock details often tell thrilling examples but of all examples of world incidents of prehistoric times out of making. The same readings which will which the enlightened imagination prepare you to enjoy to the full the reconstructs the romances and the message of our national parks will tragedies of earth’s earlier days. invest your neighborhood hills at How eloquent, for example, was home, your creek and river and the small, water-worn fragment of dull prairie, your vacation valleys, the land- coal we found on the limestone slope scape through your car window, even of one of Glacier’s mountains! your wayside ditch, with living inter- Impossible companionship! The one est. I invite you to a new and fascinat- the product of forest, the other of sub- ing earth, an earth interesting, vital, merged depths. Instantly I glimpsed personal, beloved, because at last the distant age when thousands of feet known and understood! above the very spot which I stood, but It requires no great study to know then at sea level, bloomed a and understand the earth well enough Cretaceous forest, whose broken for such purpose as this. One does not trunks and matted foliage decayed in have to dim his eyes with acres of bogs where they slowly turned to coal; maps, or become a plodding geologist, coal which, exposed and disintegrated or learn to distinguish schists from during intervening ages, has long granites, or to classify plants by table, since—all but a few fragments like or to call wild geese and marmots by this—washed into the headwaters of their Latin names. It is true that geog- the Saskatchewan to merge eventually raphy, geology, physiography, mineral- in the muds of Hudson Bay. And ogy, botany and zoology must each then, still dreaming, my mind leaped contribute their share toward the con- millions of years still further back to dition of intelligence which will enable lake bottoms where, ten thousand feet you to realize appreciation of Nature’s below the spot on which I stood, gath- amazing earth, but the share of each is ered the pre-Cambrian ooze which so small that the problem will be later hardened to this very limestone. solved, not by exhaustive study,but by From ooze a score of thousand feet, a the selection of essential parts. Two or hundred million years, to coal! And three popular books which interpret both lie here together now in my palm! natural science in perspective should Filled thus with visions of a perspec- pleasurably accomplish your purpose. tive beyond human comprehension, But once begun, I predict that few will with what multiplied intensity of inter- fail to carry certain subjects beyond est I now returned to the noble view the mere essentials, while some will from Gable Mountain! enter for life into a land of new In pleading for a higher under- delights. standing of Nature’s method and 1 Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 7 “Mission Statements” is an occasional column that presents compelling statements of values and ideals that are important to the people, places, and professions that the Society serves. We are looking for inspirational and insightful writings that touch on close-to-the-heart issues that motivate us to do what we do as park professionals. We invite readers to submit their own Mission Statements, or suggest previously published essays that we might reprint in this column. Contact GWS executive director Dave Harmon at [email protected] or by phone at 1-906-487-9722.

8 The George Wright FORUM David Harmon Intangible Values of Protected Areas: What Are They? Why Do They Matter?

he creation and management of protected areas is now a global enterprise. From humble beginnings in a rather obscure corner of North America more than a century ago, protected areas now involve millions Tof hectares on every continent (including Antarctica) and probably well over 100,000 professional caretakers worldwide. Protected areas are the center- piece of conservation, universally acknowledged as the indispensable core of any effort to preserve biodiversity and, more broadly, environmental quality. Economically, they are a dynamic component of the world’s largest industry, tourism, and are the foundation of one of that industry’s fastest-growing sectors, nature-based tourism (Eagles 2003). Together, the conservation and economic values of protected areas are undoubtedly immense, though they have never been completely quantified. Yet these values are capable of being measured. Conservation values can be expressed monetarily through models of the “ecosystem services” that protected areas provide (free of charge!) to the mar- ketplace economy (see Daily 1997), while there are several economic formulas for estimating the revenue generated by tourism to protected areas (e.g., the U.S. National Park Service’s Money Generation Model II; Stynes and Propst 2000). Nevertheless, important as these presented here is drawn entirely from tangible values are, the reasons why The Full Value of Parks: From people care deeply about protected Economics to the Intangible, which the areas ultimately have little or nothing author co-edited with Allen D. Putney, to do with them. There is another who leads the Task Force on Cultural arena of values, values whose benefits and Spiritual Values of IUCN’s World are difficult or impossible to quantify, Commission on Protected Areas but which lie at the heart of the pro- (Harmon and Putney 2003). The tective impulse that drives the modern book—conceived for the Fifth World conservation movement. These intan- Parks Congress last September in gible values (also referred to as nonma- South Africa—drew on a worldwide terial values) include the intrinsic roster of authors to explore the topic. value of nature as well as “that which For the Forum, I have selected five enriches the intellectual, psychologi- chapters from the book to illustrate the cal, emotional, spiritual, cultural range of intangible values. and/or creative aspects of human exis- What are these values? The WCPA tence and well being” (WCPA 2000). task force has classified eleven major This issue of The George Wright kinds, all of which spring from partic- Forum offers a look into the arena of ular qualities of protected areas (list intangible values. With the exception adapted from Putney 2003): of this overview (a version of which was originally published in the IUCN 1. Recreational values, those qualities journal Policy Matters), the material that interact with humans to Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 9 restore, refresh, or create anew 10. Scientific research and monitor- through stimulation and exercise of ing values, those that contribute the mind, body, and soul (i.e., re- to the function of natural areas as creation). refuges, benchmarks, and base- 2. Therapeutic values, those that cre- lines that provide scientists and ate the potential for healing, and for interested individuals with rela- enhancing physical and psycholog- tively natural sites less influenced ical well-being. by human-induced change or 3. Spiritual values, those that inspire conversion. humans to relate with reverence to 11. Peace values, those that con- the sacredness of nature. tribute to the function of protect- 4. Cultural values, those that are ed areas as a means of fostering ascribed to natural, cultural, and regional peace and stability mixed sites by different social through cooperative management groups, traditions, beliefs, or value across international land or sea systems. These values, whether boundaries (transboundary pro- positive or negative, fulfill tected areas), as “intercultural humankind’s need to understand, spaces” for the development of and connect in meaningful ways, to understanding between distinct the environment of its origin and cultures, or as places of “civic the rest of nature. engagement” where difficult 5. Identity values, those that link peo- moral and political questions can ple to their landscape through be constructively addressed. myth, legend, or history. 6. Existence values, those that There are many other intangible embody the satisfaction, symbolic values of protected areas, but the importance, and even willingness remainder of this overview will focus to pay, derived from knowing that on these. outstanding natural and cultural landscapes have been protected so Recreational Values that they exist as physical and con- It is intuitively obvious that the mil- ceptual spaces where forms of life lions of people who visit protected and culture are valued. areas each year derive benefits from 7. Artistic values, those that inspire the recreational activities they do human imagination in creative there. The challenge for protected expression. area researchers and managers has 8. Aesthetic values, those that carry an been to gain a more precise under- appreciation of the beauty found in standing of the types of benefits recre- nature. ation provides, as well as their cumula- 9. Educational values, those that tive significance. A great deal of social enlighten the careful observer with science research has been conducted respect to humanity’s relationships into all aspects of leisure in outdoor with the natural environment, and settings, and the results of that by extension, humanity’s relation- research are increasingly being used ships with one another, thereby by park managers to guide their deci- creating respect and understand- sions. ing. “Recreation” is simply defined as

10 The George Wright FORUM activities pursued while at leisure. icance is to individuals and society. “Recreational use of protected areas” Nevertheless, “it seems clear that in is defined as visits by local and region- pursuing recreational activities in pro- al residents and by tourists. There are tected areas, park visitors obtain a three distinct components of leisure prodigious range and depth of psy- benefits: (1) gains made by an individ- chological and physiological benefits ual, a group, or society at large (e.g., that manifest themselves throughout the realization of physiological bene- individuals and wider society.” In this fits, skill improvements, the creation of sense, “recreational values are not jobs); (2) the avoidance of losses by ‘intangible’ to park users: the benefits maintaining a desired condition (e.g., of using parks reverberate throughout using backpacking to promote family their lives and have clear significance. cohesion); and (3) the realization of However, these same benefits and val- specific satisfying psychological expe- ues become intangible when park riences, also termed “psychological advocates attempt to bring them into outcomes,” that accrue only to indi- the sociopolitical arena,” precisely viduals (e.g., stress release; Driver and because they are difficult to quantify Bruns 1999). (Shultis 2003). In the beginning of park-based recreation research, benefits were Therapeutic Values largely assessed by the expedient of Whereas recreation values of pro- simply counting visitor numbers, even tected areas derive from non-facilitat- though they are notoriously difficult to ed leisure activities, therapeutic values collect and subject to managerial med- result from intentional, structured dling (Hornback and Eagles 1999). activity designed to ameliorate a spe- More recently, emphasis has been put cific social or personal problem. on the benefits (and possible disad- People have repaired to natural areas vantages) accruing to individuals and to gain healing for thousands of years, society from park-based recreation. but directed therapeutic programs The question of whether park- aimed at producing clinical outcomes based recreation is associated with have been around for only about a cen- specific benefits is difficult to answer tury. The programs date back at least because the necessary research has not to 1901 and the “tent treatment” of yet been undertaken (Roggenbuck psychiatric patients at Manhattan and Driver 2000). However, as Shultis State Hospital East in New York City, (2003) notes, “considerable research and later (in the 1930s) expanded into on the self-reported benefits of recre- camps addressing the psychological ating in protected areas has identified needs of individual adolescents. The a basic, relatively constant range of use of wilderness therapy (which is benefits, including enjoyment of the considered a modified form of group natural environment, escape from psychotherapy) expanded greatly in urban/home/built environments, rest the 1970s, while the 1980s and 1990s and relaxation, achievement/chal- were growth periods for the utilization lenge, and health/fitness.” The prob- of wilderness therapy for youth with lem is that “we still know frustratingly problem behaviors (Ewert et al. 2003). little about what ... these benefit cate- Today, in the United States alone it is gories truly mean” or what their signif- estimated that there are over 500

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 11 organizations offering wilderness pro- around all afternoon rather than set up grams for personal growth and devel- camp, the consequences are felt very opment (Friese 1996). Outward soon thereafter, whereas “in town” (so Bound, an international wilderness to speak) the consequences of irre- adventure program, serves about sponsible behavior are often buffered 40,000 people each year in its world- and delayed. In addition, success in wide programs (Hattie et al. 1997). dealing with outdoor situations usual- As Ewert et al. (2003) point out, ly demands teamwork, which has its “there is considerable debate among own rewards. Combine that with close practitioners and researchers as to contact with the primal forces of what constitutes a ‘therapeutic’ use of nature, and park visitors often take natural areas,” yet “trends in program- home with them a constructive—and ming reflect how the practice is evolv- therapeutic—sense of humility ing given the severity of problems (Hendee and Brown 1987; West and these programs have begun to address Crompton 2001). in treatment.” In the United States, where the majority are found, the Spiritual Values trend is toward “sophisticated thera- Protected areas often encompass peutic programs that are often state specific sites, or even entire land- licensed and employ a medical model scapes, that are considered sacred. In of treatment that includes clinical addition, many people regard certain supervision by licensed therapists.” protected areas themselves as quasi- Numerous well-developed clinical sacred because they have been dedi- models are now in use. cated to high purposes in perpetuity— What makes protected areas thera- rather like the way consecrating a peutic? Research suggests answers building makes it into a church. Thus, that fall into two broad categories. people may engage spiritual values in First, parks and the activities that take protected areas by encountering spe- place in them represent both a sym- cific places of “ultimate meaning and bolic and an actual break with one’s transcendent power” (Chidester “normal life.” Crossing that divide 1987; see Figure 1), or they may expe- produces benefits. Going to parks can rience a spiritually transformative spur an increase in personal aware- experience simply by encountering ness, with the outdoor setting often nature in a place that they know is pro- causing individuals to change patterns tected in perpetuity (Taylor and of self-destructive behavior. This in Geffen 2003; cf. Harmon 2003). turn can result in an increase in social It is another matter for a protected awareness, and a concomitant natural area to be created precisely decrease in anti-social behavior. because it is a sacred site. Pilgrimages Second, the activities one does in pro- to special natural places for personal tected areas—hiking, camping, con- reflection, rites of passage, and spiritu- templating nature, etc.—demand ini- al renewal are a feature of cultures tiative, action, and sustained attention around the world (Ewert et al. 2003). on the part of the individual. This A pioneering effort in Mexico has results in an immediacy of experience. resulted in one of the world’s first pro- For example, if one has hiked into a tected areas designated as a “sacred remote area and decides to lounge natural site,” a category of protected

12 The George Wright FORUM Figure 1. The National Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu in Peru. Inscribed as a World Heritage site for both its cultural and natural values, Machu Picchu’s history as an important Incan city, and the poignancy of its eventual abandonment, combine with a spectacular natural setting to make it a place of “transcendent power” that draws visitors from around the world. Photo courtesy of Allen D. Putney. area that is beginning to receive atten- tially the most contentious. As more tion (Lee and Schaaf 2003). The groups assert (or re-assert) their right Wirikuta Sacred Natural Site in the to use sacred sites within protected state of San Luis Potosi protects areas areas, managers increasingly find of the Chihuahuan Desert that are themselves in the position of being revered by the Huichol (or Wixarika) asked to arbitrate between spiritual people. Each year, a small number of and religious values that conflict with chosen representatives make the trek each other or with other kinds of to Wirikuta, where, after a series of value. Much to the consternation of offerings and rituals, the pilgrims park managers, in such situations ingest peyote, a cactus whose hallu- “there is no way for those vested with cinogenic effects are central to giving management responsibility to fully Huichols access to spiritual insights. accommodate both points of view” In addition to the sacred sites them- (Taylor and Geffen 2003). selves, over 135 kilometers of the traditional pilgrimage route the Huichols Cultural and Identity Values use to reach Wirikuta have now been In many indigenous societies there protected by the San Luis Potosi gov- is no clear division between one’s cul- ernment (Otegui 2003). ture, one’s personal identity,and one’s Of all the intangible values of pro- spirituality. Moreover, these multi- tected areas, spiritual values are poten- faceted cultural–identity values are Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 13 often inscribed (either figuratively or 1998). The construal of what—if any- literally) into an ancestral landscape, thing—constitutes wilderness certain- many of which now fall within ly varies from culture to culture, par- gazetted protected areas. How such ticularly when developed- and devel- landscapes are regarded by local com- oping-country perspectives are communities is now acknowledged as an pared (Barnes 2003). important factor that must be account- A key issue here, as Hay-Edie ed for in protected area management (2003) has made clear, is the difficulty strategies. Agencies are learning that of transferring conservation tech- “it is not possible ... to simply exclude niques (which many conservationists or erase values from an area of land by take for granted as being universally classifying it in a particular way” for applicable, rather than as products of a park management purposes (English particular culture) from one social set- and Lee 2003). Recent changes in the ting to another. In their eagerness to management of Australia’s protected embrace cultural values, he writes, areas in response to Aboriginal rights “conservationists are often at risk of and concerns provide a case in point, picking and choosing taboos, sanc- with activities ranging from co-man- tions, and other supposedly ecologi- agement through to the mapping of cally useful behaviors without meeting “wild resource use places” within pro- a complex culture on its own terms.” tected areas (Weaver 1991; English Yet Hay-Edie feels that a “more gen- 2002). More flexible protected area uine interface of worldviews seems designations, such as IUCN Category possible” through the mechanism of V protected landscapes, are seen as the World Heritage Convention (Hay- one way to better accommodate land- Edie 2003). In recent revisions of its scape-based cultural values (Andrade criteria for inclusion on the World 2003; Sarmiento 2003). Heritage List, the convention has not But in other societies, cultural and only recognized intangible cultural identity values of protected areas may and identity values as important con- be distinguished from spiritual values tributors, but has inscribed “mixed by virtue of their being secular mark- sites” having both natural and cultural ers of distinctiveness. The wilderness components (Rössler 2003). Similar movement, which had its origins in the inclusiveness can also be found in unique history of European coloniza- UNESCO’s biosphere reserve pro- tion of North America, straddles the gram (Schaaf 2003). line between sacred and secular but It is worth emphasizing that cultur- now boasts a strong scientific justifica- al and identity values are perhaps tion. The existence of large areas of strongest in community-run protected wilderness has been claimed as an areas: those protected by customary essential part of the make-up of forms of recognition that are, in terms “American character.” Ironically, des- of effectiveness, equivalent to the force ignated wilderness has itself become a of state-sponsored civil law (Harmon cultural icon whose putative character 2003). Interestingly, these communi- rests at least in part on the dubious ty-level cultural and identity values are claim that these places were historical- by no means incompatible with the ly free of cultural content (for an conservation of biodiversity; in South overview, see Callicott and Nelson Asia (among other places), there are

14 The George Wright FORUM many examples where biodiversity is ernous psychological rift within our- part of the constellation of cultural val- selves. Knowing that protected areas ues (Pathak and Kothari 2003). exist is, therefore, a salve to our con- Similarly, in southwest Cameroon the science: we can take heart in knowing Nyangkpe sacred forests not only that perhaps not all of nature will be serve as de facto protected areas lost, that indeed enough will be pre- important to biodiversity conserva- served to enable ecosystems to contin- tion, but also play an paramount role ue to function. in solidifying cultural identity and reg- This begs the question of whether ulating the general social order such existence values are in fact not a (Kamanda et al. 2003). salve at all, but rather a mere sop to our conscience. Here we are led to Existence Values what is perhaps the largest, most diffi- Existence values—the satisfaction cult uncertainty facing the whole derived from knowing that protected enterprise of protected area conserva- areas exist, that they safeguard out- tion: Are all our efforts really going to standing natural and cultural land- make a difference in the long run? If scapes, even though one might have we are honest with ourselves, we have no prospect whatsoever of actually vis- to admit that it is very much an open iting them—might seem, at first, to be question. Currently, only a small frac- a rather bloodless, abstract category of tion of the world’s lands and waters value, hardly comparable in visceral have protected status under law or force to those that we have discussed custom, and there is no account of so far. In a sense this is true enough. how effective that status is. Still, from a Yet existence values are widely held, practical standpoint, we must go for- adding a dimension of depth to other ward in the belief that protected areas intangible values that, if missing, will make a difference. To do other- would render them far less effective. wise would be to admit certain defeat, We can say that existence values are and that would be far worse than quib- part of a moral foundation underlying bling about whether our hopes for all the other intangible values of pro- success are misplaced or not. tected areas. Why do so many people derive sat- Aesthetic and Artistic Values isfaction from simply knowing that One reason why existence values protected areas exist? Fundamentally, are so deeply held is because they are they are reacting to a profound angst, a rooted in a powerful human need for fear that modern civilization is pro- sensual engagement, and no one can gressively destroying the natural world deny that the world’s protected natu- and hence eroding the biophysical ral areas contain many superlative groundwork that underlies our cher- places that delight the senses. One first ished cultures and human identity. thinks of stunning scenery: snowy This feeling is complicated by the fact mountains and surging waterfalls, that most of us at the same time are immense tundra and teeming rain- grateful for whatever technological forests, sweeping grassland vistas and advantages we enjoy over our ances- stark deserts. But other senses are tors, advantages that we would not involved too, particularly those of want to be without. The result is a cav- touch, smell, and hearing. Parks are

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 15 very tactile places, where one is and Martínez 2003). encouraged to feel nature at an inti- Although closely allied to aesthetic mate scale, to thrust one’s hand into a values, artistic values are distinguished bed of moss, or let beach sand run by the presence of human intentions, through one’s fingers at seaside, or feel the purposeful act of creating objects the rocks beneath one’s feet on a that have their own separate beauty rugged trail. Odors and aromas—pine and value. The link between natural pitch, animal musk, wildflowers, beauty and artistic inspiration is so campfires—add irreplaceable texture, widespread that it hardly needs expla- and, when recollected, often set off a nation. Suffice it to point out that whole succession of memories that artists had a central role in launching make a park experience unforgettable. the modern protected areas move- Combine all this with the sounds of ment. The scenic wonders of nature—birdsong, wind whistling Yellowstone were first made known to down a canyon, lapping waves, the the U.S. Congress and the general dripping of water from a desert seep, public through the efforts of artists, and, perhaps the rarest and most most notably the landscape painter priceless of all, the perfection of Thomas Moran and the photographer silence, of total quiet—and one comes William Henry Jackson (Silliman away with an aesthetic experience that 2003). That link has never since been far surpasses any human contrivance broken, and parks continue to fasci- in terms of variety and complexity. nate visual artists, musicians, writers, Historically, aesthetic or percep- dancers, and artisans, whether directly tion-based values played a key role in as subject matter or indirectly as inspi- determining which natural landscapes ration for collateral ideas. received protection. They still do, despite the increasing emphasis on Educational Values biodiversity protection and ecological Every protected area contains representativeness as keystone criteria. things worth learning about. Not The reason is deep-seated: over the everyone who visits a protected area course of evolutionary time, we devel- comes intent on gaining knowledge, oped an ineradicable complex of emo- but most do. At its best, this expecta- tional responses to sensory stimulation translates into an openness to new tion. We use these responses to ideas on the part of the visitor, an humanize elements of the environ- eagerness to expand one’s worldview. ment and relations between them. It is a subtle but critically important Now, however, thanks to an expanded value that protected areas provide to and enlightened sense of aesthetics people, and is part of why protected informed by scientific understanding, areas are public institutions whose even landscapes traditionally consid- educational potential is on a par with ered to be ugly and inhospitable (e.g., the world’s great museums and zoos. scrubland, steppes, bare dunes) can be Some of that potential is already drawn into the protective fold because being realized through guiding and “landscape perception parameters can interpretive services. Parks that are be successfully used to contrast (and part of well-funded systems have pro- confirm) ecosystem evaluations based fessional educational staff that carry on ecological parameters” (Crespo out these visitor service functions.

16 The George Wright FORUM Staples of protected area education that “parks provide places to learn include guided walks, wildlife discov- from personal experience,” and “per- ery caravans, formal presentations to sonal experience is among the most visitors by park staff, programs aimed powerful and enduring ways for most at schoolchildren and school groups, people to learn.... By giving multiple and many others. In addition, fixed examples of reality,parks connect peo- media, such as interpretive signs and ple to abstract concepts emotionally. audiovisual presentations, are exten- Such place-based learning offers mul- sively used to inform visitors. Most tiple stimuli that enhance opportuni- protected areas have visitor contact ties for diverse learners, clarifies new centers, often housing a museum and insights, and strengthens retention. auditorium, where basic orientation Parks generate passion for learning, and more in-depth education about with deep, personal, emotional con- the park take place. Generally these nections born out of experience, and programs are organized according to a stimulate curiosity that is the bedrock parkwide interpretive plan. foundation of science” (Davis et al. Increasingly, protected areas are 2003). forming partnerships with museums Knowledge of nature begins with and universities as a way to reach out exploration, and exploration leads to to new audiences within the general inventories of the world around us that public and among academics. This is are the hallmarks of any science, an important step because it integrates whether it be an orally transmitted sys- parks with society at large. Part of tem of traditional environmental every protected area’s mission must be knowledge or the classical hypothesis- to address people’s needs and issues driven reasoning of Western scientific rather than simply attempting to pre- inquiry. Inventories inevitably lead to serve nature in isolation from the larg- monitoring, the systematic recording er social context. Consciously framing of how nature changes over time. In a an educational mission as part of a system of traditional environmental protected area’s management scheme knowledge, monitoring knowledge is does this in a positive way. There are transmitted in narratives that describe always social and economic costs how things used to be compared with imposed on local communities when- the present. In Western science,moni- ever a new protected area is estab- toring is carried out according to writ- lished. Some of those costs can be off- ten protocols tracking a set of environ- set by employing local people who mental conditions carefully chosen have an intimate and long-standing because they are thought to signal knowledge of the park’s “educational larger changes in ecosystems. These resources” as educators on the park conditions can be thought of as “envi- staff. ronmental vital signs” (Davis et al. 2003). Monitoring them within pro- Scientific Research tected areas helps makes those areas and Monitoring Values into bellwethers for entire ecosystems. Science itself is connected directly Current scientific research in parks with educational values because it is a has contributed many insights into way of knowing, a process for learning today’s environmental problems, none (Moore 1993). It has been justly said more important than the realization

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 17 that local actions are enmeshed in protected areas show that there are global systems of almost staggering many benefits to be gained, including complexity: increased coordination between park The contemporary conservation authorities, thus eliminating needless movement and scientific ecology duplication of tasks; a greater tenden- have interacted in the past two cy to manage on an ecosystem scale decades to develop a better under- rather than being constrained by artifi- standing of and concern for cial boundaries; and decreased politi- ecosystem-level properties that often function at scales far greater cal tensions among countries. than park or preserve boundaries. Symbolically, too, transboundary pro- The consequence of this has been tected areas are important as concrete that even in the largest and oldest expressions of good will between national parks, we now under- countries (Hamilton et al. 1996; stand that most often the serious ecosystem stressors—the anthro- Sandwith et al. 2001). pogenic forces that lead to a loss Less formalized but no less impor- of an untrammeled ecosystem tant is the idea of protected areas as retaining all of its parts—are not so much from tourism and the inter- intercultural spaces. This does not action of park visitors with nature, mean that people are unwelcome to but represent forces operating at bring distinct values and worldviews regional to global scales (Davis et to parks. Quite the opposite: where al. 2003, citing Graber 1983 and parks are conceived of as intercultural Graber 1995). spaces, the authorities strive to make One could argue that the principal the park a place where people can, if value of scientific research and moni- they wish, express their views and toring in protected areas is to promote have access to other views in a pro- this more far-reaching view of envi- ductive and respectful manner. This ronmental challenges. can be accomplished through sensitive and nuanced interpretive treatments of Peace Values controversial or conflicting subjects Under “peace values” fall three dis- that are associated with the park, and tinct functions of protected areas: fos- by creating an atmosphere of open- tering regional peace and stability ness and transparency within the park through cooperative management of authority itself. transboundary protected areas, pro- Closely related is the idea of civic viding “intercultural spaces” for the engagement, a term borrowed from development of understanding the museum profession. Civic engage- between distinct cultures, and acting ment refers to a public institution, as places of “civic engagement” where such as a museum or a protected area, difficult moral and political questions actively seeking out a role in elucidat- can be constructively addressed. ing controversial issues rather than The number of transboundary pro- simply waiting to be caught up in tected areas has increased rapidly over them. It does not mean that the insti- the past decade. As of 2001, there tution tries to set itself up as a self- were 169 transboundary complexes appointed arbiter of controversy, nor containing 650 individual protected does it simply offer itself as an inter- areas involving 113 countries (Zbicz cultural space for exchanges of differ- 2001). Case studies of transboundary ing viewpoints. Instead, it makes a 18 The George Wright FORUM conscious and sustained effort to seek trast to the getting and spending that out “an active, intentional role in pub- drives so much of modern life. They lic dialogue around the kinds of con- offer harried people a place to reflect temporary issues that provoke multi- and reinvigorate themselves. In this ple viewpoints” (Bacon et al. 1999). It sense parks are a counterweight to is a proactive rather than reactive what might be called “everyday” val- stance. Civic engagement tries to ues. But more than this, the places and shape the process of achieving agree- things in parks carry intrinsic natural ment on controversial issues, although values that exist without regard to any not the outcome itself (Sevcenko form of human usefulness or purpose. 2002). The U.S. National Park Service There is evidently a connection of has embarked on a series of work- some kind between many of the values shops to see how civic engagement can we as humans generate within our var- be applied to sites in the American ious cultures, and the natural values national park system (USNPS 2002). “out there” in the environment, exist- These sketches of the major intan- ing apart from us. To judge from the gible values of protected areas by no ever-increasing popularity of parks, means exhaust the topic. We have left this connection resonates in millions aside consideration of the distinction of people. Here, then, is the ultimate between intrinsic and instrumental source of what we might call the “pro- values and its ramifications for protective impulse”: the motivated desire tected area management (Harmon to safeguard special places. Since 2003), the value of authenticity in parks and other protected areas are nature (Gobster and Hull 2001), the universally recognized as critical com- cultural and spiritual values of biodi- ponents of conservation, the impor- versity (Hamilton 1993; Ramakrish- tance of intangible values is clear: they nan et al. 1998; Posey 1999), gender- are at the heart of the protective related issues on the use and percep- impulse that drives the modern con- tion of public space (e.g., Day 2000)— servation movement. the list goes on. But what has been said is enough to give an idea of the The Papers in This Issue breadth of intangible values and how Let me conclude by summarizing they are often connected with one the papers that follow. “Managing the another. Intangible” is a manager’s-eye view of the practical challenges involved. Why Do Drawing on their experiences in Intangible Values Matter? Australia and Canada, respectively, Tourism to parks is a huge indus- Anthony J. English (New South Wales try, and the economics of protected National Parks & Wildlife Service) area systems has rightly become a crit- and Ellen Lee (Parks Canada) provide ical consideration for governments, some practical guidance on establish- policymakers, and park managers at all ing management regimes for protected levels. But the very success of parks as areas that deal with intangible values. tourist destinations obscures the real Next, three scientist–managers with reasons why people choose to go to the U.S. National Park Service, Gary them. In fact, they are popular precise- E. Davis, David M. Graber, and Steven ly because they offer a clear-cut con- A. Acker, lay out the case for parks as

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 19 indispensable places where the vital and Joel Geffen, both scholars of reli- signs of the planet can be monitored in gion with a special interest in its rela- their paper “National Parks as tionship to environmentalism and sci- Scientific Benchmark Standards for ence, offer several accounts of what the Biosphere; Or, How Are You happens “when worlds collide” in Going to Tell How It Used to Be, protected areas in a paper titled When There’s Nothing Left to See?” “Battling Religions in Parks and This is followed by “Aesthetic Values Forest Reserves: Facing Religion in and Protected Areas: A Story of Conflicts over Protected Places.” Symbol Preservation,” in which Finally, in “Life and the Nature of Eduardo Crespo de Nogueira (of the Life—in Parks,” one of the world’s Organismo Autónomo Parques leading environmental philosophers, Nacionales, Spain’s national park Holmes Rolston III, shows how the agency) and Consuelo Martínez Flores human experience of parks, though it (an artist) recount the ups and downs often begins in recreation, culminates (and ups again) of aesthetics as a force with a “re-creating, deepening experi- behind the creation and development ence of the human spirit.” of protected areas. Then Bron Taylor

Acknowledgments I’d like to acknowledge my debt to the contributors to The Full Value of Parks, all of whom are listed in the references. Special thanks go to my co-editor, Allen Putney, both for his work on the book and for his leadership of the WCPA Task Force on Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas. Thanks also go to Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend and the editors of Policy Matters for their permission to adapt my paper for publication here. References Andrade, G.I. 2003. National parks versus protected landscapes? Legitimacy, values, and the management of the Colombian tropical wildlands. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 169–184. Arsuaga, J.L. 1999. El Collar de Neandertal. En Busca de los Primeros Pensadores. Madrid: Ediciones Temas de Hoy. Bacon, B.S., C. Yuen, and P.Korza. 1999. Animating Democracy: The Artistic Imagination as a Force in Civic Dialogue.Washington, D.C.: Americans for the Arts. Barnes, J.I. 2003. Wilderness as contested ground. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 269–280. Barr, B.W., R. Ehler, and P. Wiley. 2003. Ishmael’s inclinations: non-use values of marine protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 157–168. Callicott, J.B., and M.P. Nelson, eds. 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press. Chidester, D. 1987. Patterns of Action: Religion and Ethics in a Comparative Perspective. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Crespo de Nogueira, E., and C. Martínez Flores. 2003. Aesthetic values and protected areas: a story of symbol preservation. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 115–127. (Reprinted in this issue.) Daily,G.C, ed. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington, D.C., and Covelo, Calif.: Island Press. Danilina, N., and V.Boreyko. 2003. Strictly protected areas: the Russian system of zapovedniks. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 227–238. Davis, G.E., D.M. Graber, and S.A. Acker. 2003. National parks as scientific benchmark standards for the biosphere; or, how are you going to tell how it used to be, when there’s nothing 20 The George Wright FORUM left to see? In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 129–140. (Reprinted in this issue.) Day, K. 2000. The ethic of care and women’s experiences of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology 20, 103–124. Driver, B.L., and D.H. Bruns. 1999. Concepts and uses of the benefits approach to leisure. In Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century. E.L. Jackson and T.L. Burton, eds. State College, Penna.: Venture Publishing, 349–369. Eagles, P.F.J. 2003. International trends in park tourism: the emerging role of finance. The George Wright Forum 20:1, 25–57. English, A.J. 2002. The Sea and the Rock Gives Us a Feed: Mapping and Managing Gumbaingirr Wild Resource Use Places. Hurstville, N.S.W.: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. English, A.J., and E. Lee. 2003. Managing the intangible. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 43–55. (Reprinted in this issue.) Ewert, A., S.J. Hollenhorst, L. McAvoy, and K. Russell. 2003. Therapeutic values of parks and protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 141–153. Friese, G.T.1996. Inventory and classification of wilderness experience programs. Master’s the- sis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. Gobster, P.H., and R.B. Hull, eds. 2000. Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Washington, D.C., and Covelo, Calif.: Island Press. Graber, D.M. 1983. Rationalizing management of natural areas in national parks. The George Wright Forum 3:4, 48–56. Graber, D.M. 1995. Resolute biocentrism: the dilemma of wilderness in national parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction.M.E. Soulé and G. Lease, eds. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 123–135. Hamilton, L.S., ed. 1993. Ethics, Religion, and Biodiversity: Relations Between Conservation and Cultural Values. Cambridge, U.K.: The White Horse Press. Hamilton, L.S., J.C. McKay, G.L. Worboys, R.A. Jones, and G.B. Manson. 1996. Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra: Australian Alps Liaison Committee and IUCN. Harmon, D. 2003. The source and significance of values in protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 13–25. Harmon, D., and A.D. Putney, eds. 2003. The Full Value of Parks: From Economics to the Intangible. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Hattie, J., H.W. Marsh, J.T.Neill, and G.E. Richards. 1997. Adventure education and Outward Bound: out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research 67:1, 43–87. Hay-Edie, T. 2003. The cultural values of protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 91–102. Hendee, J.C., and M.H. Brown. 1987. How wilderness experience programs work for personal growth, therapy and education: an explanatory model. Paper presented at the 4th World Wilderness Congress, Estes Park, Colorado. Hornback, K.E., and P.F.J. Eagles. 1999. Guidelines for Public Use Measurement and Reporting at Parks and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Kamanda, B., A.K. Angu, and J-C Nguinguiri. 2003. The social value of the Nyangkpe sacred forests of South West Province of Cameroon. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 77–89. Kothari, A. 2003. Protected areas and social justice: the view from South Asia. The George Wright Forum 20:1, 4–17. Lee, C., and T. Schaaf, eds. 2003. The Importance of Sacred Natural Sites for Biodiversity Conservation. (Proceedings of an international workshop, Kunming, China, February 2003.) Paris: UNESCO. Moore, J.A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Otegui Acha, M. 2003. Wirikuta: The Wixarika/Huichol Sacred Natural Site in the Chihuahuan Desert, San Luis Potosi, Mexico. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 295–307. Pathak, N., and A. Kothari. 2003. Community-conserved biodiverse areas: lessons from South Asia. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 211–226. Posey, D.A., ed. 1999. Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 21 Putney, A.D. 2003. Introduction: perspectives on the values of protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 3–11. Putney, A.D., and D. Harmon. 2003. Intangible values and protected areas: towards a more holistic approach to management. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 311–326. Ramakrishnan, P.S. 2003. Conserving the sacred: the protective impulse and the origins of modern protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 27–41. Ramakrishnan, P.S.,K.G. Saxena, and U.M. Chandrashekara, eds. 1998. Conserving the Sacred: For Biodiversity Management. New Delhi: UNESCO and Oxford and IBH Publishers. Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton, and D. Sheppard. 2001. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series no. 7. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN. Roggenbuck, J.W., and B.L. Driver. 2000. Benefits of non-facilitated uses of wilderness. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference. Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. S.F. McCool, D.M. Cole, W.T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin, comps. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, Ut.: U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 33–49. Rolston, H., III. 2003. Life and the nature of life—in parks. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 103–113. (Reprinted in this issue.) Rössler, M. 2003. World Heritage Sites: towards linking the tangible and the intangible. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 197–210. Sarmiento, F.O. 2003. Protected landscapes in the Andean context: worshipping the sacred in nature and culture. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 239–249. Schaaf, T. 2003. Biosphere reserves: tangible and intangible values. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 185–196. Sevcenko, L. 2002. Activating the past for civic action: The International Coalition of Historic Site Museums of Conscience. The George Wright Forum 19:4, 55–64. Shultis, J. 2003. Recreational values of protected areas. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 59–75. Silliman, E.L. 2003. Yellowstone Lake as seen by artists. In Yellowstone Lake: Hotbed of Chaos or Reservoir of Resilience? Proceedings of the 6th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. R.J. Anderson and D. Harmon, eds. Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., and Hancock, Mich.: Yellowstone Center for Resources and The George Wright Society, 242–255. Stynes, D., and D. Propst. 2000. Money Generation Model II. On line at: http://planning.nps.gov/mgm/mgm2.htm. Taylor, B., and J. Geffen. 2003. Battling religions in parks and forest reserves: facing religion in conflicts over protected places. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 281–293. (Reprinted in this issue.) Tranel, M.J., and A. Hall. 2003. Parks as battlegrounds: managing conflicting values. In Harmon and Putney 2003, pp. 253–267. USNPS [U.S. National Park Service]. 2002. The National Park Service and Civic Engagement. Philadelphia: USNPS Northeast Regional Office. WCPA [IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas]. 2000. Internal report. Unpublished report. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, Task Force on the Non-Material Values of Protected Areas. Weaver, S.M. 1991. The role of Aboriginals in the management of Australia’s Cobourg (Gurig) and Kakadu national parks. In Resident Peoples and National Parks: Social Dilemmas and Strategies in International Conservation. P.C. West and S.R. Brechin, eds. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 311–333. West, S., and J. Crompton. 2001. A review of the impact of adventure programs on at-risk youth. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 19:2, 113–140. Zbicz, D.C. 2001. Crossing international boundaries in park management—a survey of transboundary cooperation. In Crossing Boundaries in Park Management: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. D. Harmon, ed. Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright Society, 197–203.

22 The George Wright FORUM Anthony J. English Ellen Lee Managing the Intangible Sanctuaries of Dreams hen many of us think about parks and protected areas, we envisage landscapes that are associated with concepts such as beauty,space, and “getting away from it all.” For some, these areas are sanctuar- Wies, not just for fauna and flora but for the dreams we hold for our future quality of life (Hales 1989: 144). This seems a large burden to place on protected areas, but many would subscribe to it. Clearly, the aim of “conserving nature” does not encompass all of the values that are associated with protected areas. This is evident in even a cursory glance at the history of the park movement. Political forces linked to nationalism and Romantic concepts about well-being played a guiding role in the emergence of parks and continue to influence their establishment (e.g., Everhardt 1983). Indeed, many scientists would argue that until recently, biodiversity conservation has never been the primary force behind park creation (e.g., Nix 1997). In reality, all protected areas are linked to complex intangible values that can be difficult to define or even to reconcile with the core aims of park management agencies. Some of these values, such as the nature lover’s desire to experience quiet or the firsthand sighting of a rare bird, are often easily accommodated. In contrast, others may have a historical, political, or cultural dimension that generate significant emotion and debate. Such values may derive from people’s life history or sense of their own identity and may lead them to question the wisdom of agency actions. This chapter considers whether management can in fact recognize and provide for the multitude of intangible values that are tied to park landscapes. Defining the Intangible an urban person places on the intrin- Intangible values are by their sic existence of a park. This person nature difficult to measure or define. may feel that the park adds somehow Recognizing them presents a chal- to the quality of the world in which lenge, as park management is com- she lives, as well as satisfying her belief monly focused on tangible outcomes. in the protection of areas, places, and Goals associated with infrastructure, species from development. At another law enforcement, income generation, level, an intangible value may be char- fire, and pest species are perhaps more acterized by a group’s desire to see an easily articulated and translated into event or person commemorated management action. Because of this, through the protection of a landscape the values held by a park agency can and its associated built heritage. sometimes overshadow the intangible Battlefields, historic sites, or what have ones at the heart of a society’s attach- been termed “places of shame” where ment to place. indigenous people have been massa- Intangible values are highly varied. cred by colonizers may encapsulate They may include the importance that these values. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 23 The concept of nonmaterial values plex ties that bind Aboriginal people intersects with physical places as well to “country” may seem too great to as activities undertaken by people, allow us to include them in the same either singly or in groups. These val- paragraph. This seeming disjunction, ues may be manifest in indigenous however, encapsulates the fact that people’s attachment to a cultural site park management intersects with or a nonindigenous family’s memory intangible values on many levels. of returning each year to the same campsite for holidays. Intangible val- Can Intangible Values ues may be expressed in these cases by Be Managed? visiting and using these places, there- Ever since the declaration of the by bringing people into direct contact first formal national park at with the rules and regulations govern- Yellowstone, approaches to managing ing a park. protected areas have evolved in complex ways. This can be seen in the Underlying this chapter is the key development of park management point that protected area boundaries agencies around the globe. Today, are overlain on environments that have many combine specialists in disci- a history of human presence and in plines including ecology, law, history, many cases a recent or existing human archaeology, and public education. It use. This means they cannot be neatly would appear that this evolution is a excised from human memory or cul- response to a number of key factors turally defined ways of perceiving and that reflect our changing understand- valuing landscapes. Parks are embed- ing of parks. Chief among these in ded in social, economic, and political many countries is our growing under- systems that ensure the values we standing of ecosystem complexity and place on them are linked to ongoing the need to integrate protected areas debates about our place in the world. into the management of surrounding To some extent, the different class- tenures and land uses. es of protected areas recognize the This shift in understanding has presence of diverse values and the been matched by increased attention need for parks to cater to a wide range to the intangible values of parks. of activities or functions. It is not pos- Despite this, there is a danger that pro- sible, however, simply to exclude or tected area managers encourage or erase values from an area of land by even adopt the myth that their role is classifying it in a particular way. The to deal primarily with the conservation ongoing debate about “wilderness” in of biodiversity and ecosystem health. countries like Australia illustrates this Such a view, while attractive, is belied well. This concept is opposed by by the day-to-day uses of parks and indigenous groups who see these areas the continued expression of complex as having a human history and mean- attachments to their landscapes. ing. Equally, those who wish to light a Such a view has come under pres- fire as part of their bush-camping sure as parks have been established in experience may question the rules of developing countries where the luxury wilderness area managers that forbid of setting aside areas of land for “con- such an activity. servation” simply does not exist. Here, The difference in scale between the park management has come face-to- embers of a camper’s fire and the com- face with the need to encompass con- 24 The George Wright FORUM cepts such as resident communities, The growth of the environment move- consumptive uses of wildlife, and the ment is a central part of this shift and recognition of cultural obligations and encapsulates the presence of increased interests on land management. The community scrutiny of decision mak- management of an iconic park such as ing. This has resulted in active combat Royal Chitwan in Nepal is a good in the courts and on the picket line example (Nepal and Weber 1993). that has influenced the outcome of In developed countries, similar elections. It is no surprise that there issues have arisen in the face of land has been a burgeoning literature on claims and the expression of native concepts such as collaborative man- title interests by indigenous people. In agement and community involvement some cases, this has prompted the (e.g., Hunt and Haider 2001). Land emergence of jointly managed parks management agencies around the where attempts are being made to world have had to confront and develop collaborative approaches that respond to these concepts. This, too, satisfy Western agendas and those of has brought intangible values some local people. Australia in particular visibility as engagement with commu- has attempted to tackle this issue in a nity members automatically exposes range of parks, including Uluru-Kata- managers to complex values-based juta and Kakadu in the Northern issues. Territory (DeLacy and Lawson 1997) The management of intangible val- and Mutawintji in New South Wales. ues is brought into relief when we con- This has forced park agencies to sider interaction between indigenous actively consider complex intangible people and parks. The Western ap- values and their relationship to practi- proach is to describe, categorize, and cal management activities such as the split into different categories. The tra- control of fire and pest species and the ditional indigenous approach is often messages that are conveyed to visitors. allegorical—to tell a story that illus- In the same way, the concept of trates a value, rather than to clearly “protected landscapes” has emerged describe the value itself. A place will to challenge the view that parks can, or often be significant because of many should, be divorced from the historic, overlapping values, illustrated through economic, and cultural systems in both stories and repetitive activities— which they are embedded. Lucas “It has everything we need to live,” or (1992) points to the protected land- “It is where we come together each scapes of England, Wales, and France year.” But often the place is felt/seen to as examples where management must have an intrinsic value in and of itself. accommodate and value modified “We come there every year because it lands with mixed uses. The same con- is a special place” (not “It is a special cept is applied in the Annapurna place because we come there every Conservation Area in Nepal (Stevens year”). To describe a place in this way 1997). is to see oneself within the place, as Overlying these developments is part of it. the fact that the last few decades have The act of “defining” intangible witnessed significant change in the values is itself not culturally neutral—it relationship between the community comes from the Western scientific tra- and government in many countries. dition. Nonetheless, if we do not de-

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 25 fine intangible values in some way, it values seems to rarely surface in the will be virtually impossible for them to mission statements or policies of park influence management practices. management agencies. Understanding An implicit assumption in protect- of what this concept means and how it ed area management has been that by interacts with park landscapes is still managing the physical, we can avoid overshadowed by agency attention to cultural or subjective biases. This is issues that, while inseparable from based on a Western, scientific intangible values, are more easily approach to management. That is, if clothed in the language of science or we can understand the physical prop- bureaucracy. erties and relationships of natural resources, we can manage them sus- Nuts and Bolts tainably.The assumption lying behind Numerous activities that can be this approach is that the values of defined as core business by park agen- these resources lie purely in their cies, such as fire and pest species man- physical nature. This also implies that agement, can be conducted collabora- we can understand the complex relatively with local people in a way that tionships between resources and the affirms cultural knowledge and peo- forces of nature by understanding ple’s intangible values. An obvious their physical nature alone. In its example of this is the adoption of extreme form, this is also an approach Aboriginal firing practices in park that effectively removes human beings management programs in some parts and their actions from the ecosystem of Australia (Parks Australia 1997). in order to make it “pure.” The This activates nonmaterial values assumption in this case is that if we associated with Aboriginal people’s can just remove all traces of human custodial interests in country and the influence from a protected area (e.g., desire to ensure that their culture is through environmental cleanup), it applied and alive. will be pure, self-regulating, self-per- Local people can possess an inti- petuating wilderness. mate knowledge of fauna, flora, land Some of the weaknesses of this use history, fire, and ecosystem approach are obvious. If tangible/ processes that has developed through physical values are articulated sepa- long-standing interaction with a land- rately from intangible values, it will be scape. Often this knowledge has harder to develop management prac- crossed generations through story and tices that respect both kinds of values practical experience. This knowledge in an integrated fashion. Human can be ignored or discarded by park beings are part of nature, and there are managers who are trained to see parks virtually no places on Earth that have as tools to redress past human effects not had human beings as part of their on the landscape. At one extreme, “natural” history. One person’s parks can be viewed as “wilderness” wilderness is another person’s home- and in a sense devoid of human values, land. Each has its own intangible val- except for those that champion the ues in terms of symbolism, aesthetics, preservation of “nature.” cultural meaning, and identity. Many other activities, such as the Despite growing awareness of this provision of educational tours and challenge, the concept of intangible information, can actually foster a

26 The George Wright FORUM response among park visitors that is definitive list, but it reveals the com- enriching and significant. People may plexity of this issue. choose to return to a park where they have had such an experience and, in a Imagining Country: sense, weave these visits into their life Intangible Values and the New and personal history. People may also South Wales Experience seek to gain understanding of other The experience of the New South cultures or ways of life by visiting Wales National Parks and Wildlife parks. In Australia, the concept of rec- Service (NPWS), Australia, in coming onciliation is seen as an important goal to grips with intangible values in proof many parks, especially those where tected areas can be used to illustrate visitors can learn from Aboriginal peo- common issues and opportunities. ple about how they view the land- Over the last five years, the agency has scape. invested significant resources in To be effective, nonmaterial values research and planning that seek to need to be explicitly acknowledged by engage the diverse intangible values park managers, even where they are linked to parks. While the effects of seen to conflict with the agency’s view this work on park management are still of why a park exists and how it should to be properly realized, it reveals some be cared for. This can be as simple as of the steps that an agency must pur- using the indigenous names for fauna sue if it is to achieve this aim. and flora or significant landscape fea- During this time, NPWS’s Cultural tures. It can be as complex as main- Heritage Division (CHD) has assessed taining evidence of human-modified intangible values in a range of con- landscapes through ongoing interven- texts. These include exploration of the tion or finding resources and strate- values that Aboriginal people attach to gies to maintain historic structures. biodiversity and environmental health Table 1 attempts to explain how some (English 2000, 2002) as well as the nonmaterial values can be addressed ties that bind Europeans to structures by management actions. This is not a and landscapes that have been encom-

Table 1. Some examples of how management can address nonmaterial values.

Nonmaterial value Management action Psychological benefit or well- Provision of access and infrastructure to support activities such as bush being generated by visiting a walking, camping, and education in ways that respond to the needs of park landscape different groups and provide them with a valued experience Protection of cultural Active assessment of the social and cultural meaning and significance of park landscapes and valued cultural landscapes. This might combine active conservation of particular places, places research into an area’s land use history, and recognition of people’s knowledge about the land and of the continued importance of interaction with, and use of, valued places. Reconciliation between Joint management, cultural tourism, and education programs cultures Education and learning A blend of experiences for park visitors that reflect the multiple values of a protected area Cultural values and Continued access for indigenous people to carry out cultural practices and community health recording of people’s history and memory Intrinsic value of landscape Management of ecosystem health processes Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 27 passed within park boundaries (Veale adjustments to include important 1997, 2001). Attention has also been archaeological sites, and once the nat- given to the values placed on parks in ural area is identified, its cultural val- the Australia’s multicultural society by ues are then determined. Thus, cultur- looking at how Australians of al values are still seen as secondary in Macedonian (Thomas 2001) and this process. Vietnamese backgrounds perceive and On the other side of the coin, most use park landscapes. cultural heritage legislation, with its For many decades, intangible val- background in Western historical ues were largely ignored or else not thinking, focuses on the identification explicitly addressed by the NPWS in and designation of cultural heritage its approach to management. The sites and is particularly suited to deal- work of the CHD has changed this, ing with built heritage, such as build- primarily because it has shifted itself ings, and archaeological sites. from an emphasis on archaeological Intangible cultural values are consid- investigations to those that engage liv- ered significant, but natural values are ing people and their connections to rarely considered in the initial identifi- place. This research has raised impor- cation stages, and then only as being tant issues that articulate intangible complementary to or a subset of the values. At its core has been the attempt cultural values. Most natural parks are to “imagine country”—that is, to pic- large geographical areas. Most cultural ture the complex social and cultural heritage sites are small geographical links between people and landscapes areas. In both cases, the legislative and that reside in memory, feelings, and policy process for the establishment beliefs. and management of these parks and sites reflect this reality.When we iden- Protected Areas tify places with both cultural and natu- and First Nations in Canada ral values, giving their cultural and In Canada, most legislation provid- natural elements equal attention, we ing for the establishment of protected must move to a more integrative con- areas focuses on natural values. In fact, cept of protected areas, such as cultur- natural parks are seen by many as al landscapes. Cultural landscapes, wilderness areas, with as little human some of which are quite large by tradi- impact as possible. However, in the tional historic site standards, have last decade or so, partly as a result of characteristics that do not fit very well the influence of northern Aboriginal with the sets of legislative and policy groups in the settlement of land processes and mechanisms for either claims, this view has begun to change, natural parks or cultural heritage sites. and the cultural values of natural parks They do, however, provide the inte- are beginning to be recognized. gration of intangible and tangible, and However, it is still the case that the natural and cultural, values. identification of areas for considera- Table 2 compares and contrasts tion of natural parks uses natural crite- protected areas, historic sites, and cul- ria identified by Euro-Canadian scien- tural landscapes in terms of evaluation tists for determining what areas criteria, size of geographical area, should be protected. Minor consider- whether subsurface protection is ation may be given to boundary needed, and whether natural and cul-

28 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. Comparison of protected natural areas, historic sites, and cultural landscapes.

Protected Natural Historic Sites Cultural Landscapes Area (e.g., National Park)

Evaluation Natural values Cultural or historic Cultural and natural criteria values values

Size of Large geographical Small geographical Large geographical geographical area areas to protect areas to protect areas to encompass all ecosystems, buildings, building values watersheds complexes, and archaeological sites

Subsurface Statutory protection No protection of Subsurface protection protection of subsurface subsurface may be needed

Tangible or Tangible and Tangible and Tangible and intangible values intangible values intangible values intangible values for relating to natural relating to both natural and features historic/cultural cultural features and features the landscape as a whole

Balance of natural Cultural or historical Natural values Cultural and natural and cultural values secondary secondary values integrated values in area management tural values are balanced in the man- hand. agement of the area. This is made worse in a situation The use of traditional natural parks where Aboriginal communities do not or cultural heritage site designations have adequate land tenure to protect can put considerable stress on com- these places themselves. On the other munities who would like to have their hand, governments who have land special places recognized and protect- management responsibilities must ed from inappropriate development, answer to many constituencies, and bureaucrats who are faced with including the heritage and environ- trying to force-fit park or site propos- mental lobbies, as well as development als into legislative or policy molds that and industrial sectors whose main are not really meant for the purpose at interest is resource extraction, such as

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 29 lumbering and mining or hydroelec- 2001b). tric development. Park management plans have to Parks, protected areas, protected deal with the conflicting values of all landscapes, cultural landscapes, and such interested parties. Since the mid- working landscapes are terms that 1980s in Canada, with a renewed fed- describe a range of places with lesser eral government policy on the settling or greater amounts of human interven- of comprehensive land claims with tion. The term used in any particular Aboriginal peoples, management case generally relates to the reasons for regimes for national parks have which the place is “set aside” and how evolved considerably. Pressure from it is used. All of these places have Aboriginal peoples for recognition of intangible values ascribed to them by their cultural, natural, and economic both local and nonlocal people and interests in protected areas has meant groups—beauty is in the eye of the that the objectives for protected area beholder. creation have broadened to include Clashes of values can occur cultural and intangible values, as well between the intangible values of differ- as natural values. In some parts of ent cultural groups or between differ- Canada (in the North in particular), ent interest groups—they simply limited land entitlements combined reflect the different values these with the opportunity for involvement groups place on the protected area in in cooperative protected area manage- question. There are various ways of ment regimes have led some dealing with these differences. Often, Aboriginal groups to view the estab- in the Canadian situation, protected lishment of protected areas in a posi- area planners work for government tive light. In such cases, the creation of (federal, provincial, or territorial) and protected areas provides an expanded are expected to reflect broad societal area of influence and traditional use values in the regimes established. For for Aboriginal peoples. Of the forty- example, national parks are set aside one national parks and reserves in “to protect for all time representative Canada, more than one-third have natural areas of Canadian significance advisory boards of some sort, with sig- in a system of national parks, and to nificant Aboriginal, and in some cases encourage public understanding, local non-Aboriginal, representation. appreciation, and enjoyment of this However, there are also examples natural heritage so as to leave it unim- where the concept of a protected area paired for future generations” (Parks is an alien one to cultural groups who Canada 2001a). have a holistic view of the landscape “Most lands have some kind of and who have difficulty in setting part interest or commitment for uses such of the landscape aside and treating it as oil and gas development, mining, differently from other areas. In a hydro-electricity, forestry, agriculture national system of protected area man- and private recreation. Land-use con- agement, a monolithic approach to the flicts and jurisdictional issues will have management of protected areas will to be resolved in cooperation with the make it difficult to incorporate intangi- provinces, territories, Aboriginal peo- ble values into management practices. ples, and all interested parties includ- In fact, the question has been asked, ing local residents” (Parks Canada “By creating guidelines and giving

30 The George Wright FORUM certain areas an international designa- tices is the challenge. In many cases, tion, are we adding to the homoge- the recording of place names and the nization of landscapes and cultures?” associated stories can lead toward (IUCN 1999: 41). determining what management regimes or actions would be appropri- Values-Based Management/ ate. This is because the stories often Knowledge-Based Management carry implicit or explicit advice on Values-based management has how people should behave toward the recently become a popular term, par- land, the animals, plants, and each ticularly in the field of the conserva- other. The landscape is alive with tion of cultural heritage. Here, in theo- meaning, and to be able to read it and ry,the evaluation of a protected area or understand it, people must interact of a cultural resource will help deter- with it. Place name studies and oral mine the nature of its value, which will history projects are an excellent way to in turn be used to determine how it begin to articulate the intangible val- should be managed and what about it ues of a local Aboriginal community should be protected and respected. related to a protected area , as well as Knowledge-based management is a to begin to understand at least one term frequently used to describe a sci- perspective on how the landscape has entifically based management regime. evolved to become what it is today. While the values- and knowledge- Sustainability is a concept useful in based management concepts are not defining objectives for protected area identical, neither are they contradicto- management. We can speak of the sus- ry or mutually exclusive. A merging of tainability of values, the sustainability these two concepts might go a long of landscape(s), and the sustainability way toward dealing appropriately with of management practices. One way to intangible values from different cultur- examine management practices is to al perspectives. try to determine what needs to be If we wish to manage protected done to ensure the sustainability of areas in a way that respects and sus- intangible values. We should not tains intangible values, we must do it underestimate the challenge implied collaboratively and be conscious of by trying to understand change and our thought processes and our cultur- evolution when it comes to dealing al biases. In addition, often the way to with protected areas and intangible elicit traditional knowledge or values values. We all know that landscapes is not at brainstorming sessions in evolve over time, as do ecosystems and meeting rooms or through scientific cultural systems. We are beginning to analysis. The landscape is the book in approach an understanding of how which the values are written, and landscapes and ecosystems have being on and in the land is far more become what they are today, but our likely to elicit intangible values view is limited with regard to under- through experience, reminiscence, standing how much and what kind of and storytelling. How to capture these change is desirable or acceptable for values in such a way that respects their the future. In other words, what are intangible nature but still allows them the limits of acceptable change? We to be analyzed and understood and will need to determine measures of transmitted into management prac- health or sustainability and establish

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 31 regular monitoring programs to deter- essential to achieving sustainable mine the effects of our management protected landscapes. practices. • It is important to define a moving scale of limits of acceptable change Conclusion to reflect natural and cultural evolu- To sum up, these are some princi- tion and changing values. ples to follow to establish management regimes for protected landscapes that The management of nonmaterial or deal with intangible values: intangible values presents many challenges. It requires park agencies to rec- • The determination of values and ognize previous, and continuing, asso- the resulting management deci- ciations between people and parks sions must be participatory and that have been generated through involve local people in a significant community and family history,person- way. al aspirations, and diverse ways of per- •A thorough recording of communi- ceiving the meaning or significance of ty knowledge, oral histories, and landscapes. place names is a good way to artic- Much has been said of the need to ulate intangible values. manage parks not as islands in a sea of •A cookie cutter approach cannot be development but as part of a patch- used. Management decisions must work of land tenures and uses (e.g., flow from an understanding of all of Nix 1997). Managing and understand- the values of the protected land- ing nonmaterial values involves a simi- scape, both tangible and intangible. lar philosophy. The “core” aims of •Values that appear to be in conflict park creation and “nature” conserva- must be carefully examined and tion must be set within a social and reconstructed to determine cultural context, and this requires us whether there is really a conflict to understand the dynamic interac- and, if so, exactly what it is. tions between people and place that • Once values are clearly articulated are embedded in the very fabric of and the appropriate management protected areas. Conservation itself actions are determined, ways of needs to be understood as a culturally measuring success and change defined activity, one that is open to must be identified and adopted. biases that reflect the distribution of Monitoring and follow-up are power within human societies.

References DeLacy, T., and B. Lawson, B. 1997. The Uluru-Kakadu model: joint management of Aboriginal-owned national parks in Australia. In Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas, ed. S. Stevens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 155–189. English, A. J. 2000. An emu in the hole: exploring the link between biodiversity and Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales, Australia. Parks 10:2, 13–25. ———. 2002. The Sea and the Rock Gives Us a Feed: Mapping and Managing Gumbaingirr Wild Resource Use Places. Hurstville, NSW: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. English, A. J., J. Erskine, and S. Veale. 1997. Cultural heritage assessment of Goobang National Park, central western NSW.Unpublished report by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Wellington and Peak Hill Local Aboriginal Land Councils. Everhardt, W. C. 1983. The National Park Service. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 32 The George Wright FORUM Hales, D. 1989. Changing concepts of national parks. In Conservation for the Twenty-first Century, ed. D. Western and M. Pearl. New York: Oxford University Press, 139–144. Hunt, L., and W. Haider. 2001. Fair and effective decision making in forest management planning. Society and Natural Resources 14: 873–887. IUCN. 1999. Landscape Conservation: An International Working Session on the Stewardship of Protected Landscapes. 15–17 June. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Lucas, P. H. C. 1992. Protected Landscapes: A Guide for Policy-makers and Planners. London: Chapman & Hall. Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1993. Struggle for Existence: Park–People Conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. Nix, H. A. 1997. Management of parks and reserves for the conservation of biological diversity. In National Parks and Protected Areas: Selection, Delimitation and Management, ed. J. J. Pigram and R. C. Sundell. Armindale, N.S.W.: Centre for Water Policy and Research, University of New England, 11–36. Parks Australia. 1997. Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. Canberra: Australian Government Printer. Parks Canada. 2001. Canada National Parks Act. On-line at parkscanada/Library/acts/ acts_ehtm. ———. 2001b. National Parks System Plan. On-line at parkscanada/np/np_ehtm. Ponte, F., M. Marsh, and R. Jackson. 1991. Indigenous hunting rights: ecological sustainability and the reconciliation process in Queensland. Search 25: 258–61. Stevens, S. 1997. Annapurna Conservation Area: empowerment, conservation and development in Nepal. In Conservation through Cultural Survival: Indigenous People and Protected Areas, ed. S. Stevens. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 237–262. Thomas, M. 2001. A Multicultural Landscape: National Parks and the Macedonian Experience. Sydney: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service and Pluto Press. Veale, S. 1997. Land use history of Culgoa National Park, north west New South Wales. Unpublished report by the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service to the Muruwari Tribal Council. ———. 2001. Remembering Country: History and Memories of Towarri National Park. Sydney: New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Anthony J. English, Research Unit, Cultural Heritage Division, New South Wales National Parks & Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville, New South Wales 2220 Australia; [email protected] Ellen Lee, Archaeological Services Branch, National Historic Sites Directorate, Parks Canada Agency, 25 rue Eddy, 6e étage 25-6-W, Pièce 173, Hull, Québec K1A 0M5 Canada; [email protected] 1

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 33 Gary E. Davis David M. Graber Steven A. Acker National Parks as Scientific Benchmark Standards for the Biosphere; Or, How are You Going to Tell How It Used to Be, When There’s Nothing Left to See? How are you going to tell how it used to be, when there’s nothing left to see? t first, national parks were hard to see because there was so little difference between resource conditions in the parks and in the wild areas around them. Now some parks can be recognized from outer space Abecause humans dominate the land around them so completely. Examples bracket the United States from Olympic National Park on the northwest coast of Washington to Everglades National Park in southeastern Florida. Nevertheless, many national parks are becoming hard to see again because they are small pieces of fragmented landscapes, overrun by invasive alien species, and just as stressed by altered air, water, and soil as the adjacent lands (Grumbine 1990; Vitousek et al. 1997). In the ocean, so-called marine protected areas pro- claim “protection” in their titles (e.g., park, refuge, reserve, and sanctuary), but fishing in them is managed virtually the same as it is everywhere else so there are no discernable differences between fish populations in or out of parks (Jackson et al. 2001; Beets and Rogers 2001). Even in the parks, only the ancient hunter- gatherer’s strategy of serial depletion based on endless sources of new species and territories sustains ocean fisheries, while exploited populations collapse and ecosystems decay into simplified remnants filled with ghosts (Dayton et al. 1998; Diamond 1997; Jackson et al. 2001). The U.S. National Park System contains special places saved by the American people so that all may experience the nation’s heritage—yet even in these most special places unimpaired nature is rapidly disappearing. In this chapter, we will describe potential values of national parks and equivalent protected areas to science and society, discuss forces that threaten those values, and suggest how monitoring ecological vital signs (Figure 1) could help mitigate the effects of those forces. National parks and equivalent pro- value of national parks is to provide tected areas potentially hold many val- human happiness. In a utilitarian ues for people. An early twentieth-cen- sense, the persistence of nature in tury champion of utilitarian conserva- parks administered to “conserve the tion, President Theodore Roosevelt, scenery and the natural and historic declared, “There is nothing more objects and the wild life therein and to practical in the end than the preserva- provide for the enjoyment of the same tion of beauty,” upon seeing coastal in such manner and by such means as redwoods for the first time (Morris will leave them unimpaired for the 2001). Arguably, the most important enjoyment of future generations” 34 The George Wright FORUM Figure 1. Environmental monitoring, such as collecting hydrology and weather data, is part of the management routine at Everglades National Park, Florida. National Park Service photo. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 35 should yield the greatest happiness for treated differently in them than in the greatest number of people. If ade- other places. In the United States, at quately protected, national parks also first people thought they could protect have great potential value for scientific parks by building virtual walls around investigations of the biosphere—the them (Sellars 1997). Early park man- life support system of Earth. Protected agers based their actions on beliefs of places can serve as environmental what park visitors wanted and how benchmark standards for comparisons they thought ecosystems functioned with more altered parts of nature, and (Davis and Halvorson 1996). They they can help scientists differentiate believed that physical environmental anthropogenic from other environ- factors, not biological interactions, mental changes. Parks can be reser- largely determined ecosystem struc- voirs of wild genetic diversity and refu- ture and that people came to parks to gia that rebuild populations of endan- see the forests and wildlife and to gered species and restore the integrity catch fish. Since fires burned the and resiliency of disarticulated ecosys- forests, predators ate the elk and deer tems. They are special places in which that visitors came to see, and pelicans scientists can unravel the mysteries of ate the trout people sought to catch, it natural and human history, evolution- seemed clear that park stewardship ary adaptation, ecosystem dynamics, called for fire suppression and preda- and other natural processes (National tor control. So to protect the parks, Research Council 1992). park stewards killed wolves and coy- Parks provide truly unique oppor- otes, crushed white pelican eggs, and tunities. They combine the power of did their best to put out forest fires place with the last, best remnants of (Varley and Schullery 1996). Today nature least dominated by humans. these actions seem naive at best. These Science is a way of knowing, a process early perceptions changed as scientists for learning (Moore 1993). Personal discovered the often counterintuitive experience is among the most power- ways in which ecosystems function. It ful and enduring ways for most people is now clear that infrequent, extreme to learn. Parks provide places to learn natural events, such as hurricanes, from personal experience, thereby hundred-year freezes, and “cata- rendering the abstract real. By giving strophic” forest fires, do not destroy multiple examples of reality, parks ecosystems but are essential to sustain connect people to abstract concepts coral reefs, coniferous forests, and emotionally. Such place-based learn- other ecosystems (Dayton and Tegner ing offers multiple stimuli that 1984). Ecologists also found that enhance opportunities for diverse predators, far from eliminating prey learners, clarifies new insights, and populations, were essential for sus- strengthens retention. Parks generate taining diverse communities (Paine passion for learning, with deep, per- 1994). Removing predators from sonal, emotional connections born out ecosystems, either experimentally or of experience, and stimulate curiosity accidentally, triggered cascades of that is the bedrock foundation of sci- unanticipated consequences in parks ence. that threatened the very resources and National parks can be special values that the stewards sought to pre- places for science only if nature is serve.

36 The George Wright FORUM What changed? Knowledge of has likewise evolved—not only as a place changed. Scientific knowledge consequence of improving scientific and understanding of place are the knowledge or demonstrably altered cornerstones of park stewardship. circumstances within and surround- Effective park stewardship depends ing the parks themselves but also on continuing improvements of because of their evolving context. In knowledge and understanding of the United States, this has been strik- parks from scientific iterations of mon- ingly illustrated by the changes over itoring and experimentation (manage- the past half-century in what are com- ment actions) that frame, test, and fal- monly called “threats”—or “stressors” sify myriad hypotheses. Only with this in modern ecosystem vernacular. improved understanding of ecosystem During the time when what largely structure and functioning can park distinguished the classic large western stewards hope to restore the integrity national parks from their landscape and resilience of impaired parks, to matrix was the presence of a recreation protect nature unimpaired in parks infrastructure (i.e., roads, visitor cen- and to mitigate internal and trans- ters, signs, and rangers), those threats boundary threats, or to connect peo- were largely identified as the local, ple to their heritage with sufficient particular attributes that interfered impact to engender the public com- with the enjoyment of visitors as they mitment needed to preserve parks recreated and enjoyed nature on their unimpaired for the enjoyment of increasingly civilized terms. As indi- future generations. This knowledge of cated earlier, in the early decades of nature begins with curiosity, explo- the twentieth century those might ration, and inventories of the world include predators (or poachers) prey- around us that are the hallmarks of sci- ing on desirable viewing species such ence. Static inventories inevitably lead as deer, birds consuming catchable to monitoring to discover, describe, fish, or the very absence of infrastruc- and understand how nature changes in ture needed to visit and comfortably time and space. Monitoring environ- enjoy what the parks had to offer. mental vital signs of parks is the begin- By the 1950s, those same American ning of scientific stewardship that will parks had begun to differ strikingly determine the success or failure of from rapidly changing surrounding conservation in the twenty-first centu- lands—even those lands as yet unde- ry and the survival or demise of nature veloped but dedicated to resource as the Earth’s biodiversity is threat- extraction. There was a growing senti- ened by human domination. ment among conservation writers that national parks should represent some Changing sort of “vignette of primitive Management Approaches America.”This was reflected in a com- As cultural constructs existing missioned report by a senior commit- within the matrix of their time and tee of wildlife biologists (Leopold et place, the purposes and values of al. 1963) to the U.S. secretary of the national parks and protected areas interior. Moreover, the science of the vary from one place to another and time reflected the assumption that nat- have evolved over time. The percep- ural, wild ecosystems tended to be tion of what jeopardizes those values homeostatic and thus would persist in

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 37 a relatively constant state over time if roadless and lacking all mechanized they were not compromised. Thus, it transport, as a sanctuary for the would be possible, through intelligent, human soul and a place where primi- restrained management, to provide tive enjoyment could be pursued, they park visitors and society with frag- also believed that the unimpeded ments of a wild, American past that interactions of natural ecosystems provided not only conservation but were of critical scientific value, as well the romance of history. Interestingly, as possessing innate value to and of the unraveling of this paradigm of nat- themselves. There is nothing in the ural stability, and its replacement by Wilderness Act, however, that one of dynamism and even periodic acknowledges the possibility of distur- catastrophe, was presaged in one of bance from outside wilderness that several scientific reports to the U.S. could lead to a compromise or loss of National Park Service as early as 1963 those values. (NRC 1963). Both of these reports The scientific reports to the U.S. notably emphasized the preeminent National Park Service of the 1960s, as value of national parks as preserves of well as the changing cultural matrix in wild nature that retained all of its orig- which they occurred—which pro- inal parts over their value as “pleasur- duced Earth Day and far broader (if ing grounds” for tourist recreation. less personally intimate) interest in The wilderness movement in nature conservation—ultimately con- America, which began with a small tributed to a significantly greater con- group of scientists in the 1930s and cern for preserving all “nature” in culminated in the passage of the American national parks. For the first Wilderness Act in 1964 (establishing a time, this explicitly included nature new, stringent standard of protection that did not necessarily offer scenic on now more than forty million splendor or recreational opportuni- hectares of public lands, including ties. But the science that supported many national parks, in the United such conservation was largely auteco- States), was a distinctive cultural logical and confined within park thread that was ultimately to have pro- boundaries. Contemporaneously, val- found and continuing interactions ues emerging from some of the same with the perceived values of parks and springs as the wilderness movement preserves. The founders of this move- led American parks to seek to elimi- ment — Robert Marshall, Aldo Leo- nate traces of artifice and anthro- pold, and Olaus Murie—were all pogenic influence on park landscapes. trained field scientists who had come This has included the removal of to recognize that “untrammeled structures, the naturalization of camp- nature” was fast disappearing from our ing sites, and regulations to protect planet (Leopold 1925, 1949; Marshall fragile features and to reduce crowd- 1930), and at great cost—they ing and social conflicts in park “back- believed—to the human spirit and the country” areas. web of living things with which we The contemporary conservation share the planet. Although in their movement and scientific ecology have exhortative and popular writings they interacted in the past two decades to emphasized the critical importance of develop a better understanding of and large blocks of completely wild lands, concern for ecosystem-level proper-

38 The George Wright FORUM ties that often function at scales far Intensive research over the past greater than park or preserve bound- three decades, especially in the aries. The consequence of this has national parks, has demonstrated been that even in the largest and oldest that the frequency, intensity, and national parks, we now understand extent of fire has been radically that most often the serious ecosystem altered by fire suppression, chang- stressors—the anthropogenic forces ing land use, the loss of customary that lead to a loss of an untrammeled aboriginal ignitions, the introduc- ecosystem retaining all of its parts— tion of alien plant species and con- are not so much from tourism and the sequent changes in system flamma- interaction of park visitors with nature bility, and sometimes the introduc- but represent forces operating at tion of new sources of ignition, regional to global scales (Graber 1983, such as automobiles and cigarettes. 1995). • Climate change. Rapid changes in For example, in many of the nation- seasonal temperatures, in the tim- al parks in the American Southwest, ing and extent of precipitation, and these “Four Horsemen of the even in the chemical composition Apocalypse” typically include: of the atmosphere are expected to • Insularization and habitat frag- induce profound changes in bio- mentation. Land use changes out- logical communities over much of side park boundaries have led to the planet within this century. As incomplete home ranges for some parks and preserves have come to animal populations, or populations increasingly resemble islands in an too small to sustain themselves alien sea, they will be less able to genetically within a park—resulting function as reservoirs of biodiversi- in genetic impoverishment or extir- ty when native biota no longer find pations. It has also led to the inva- appropriate environmental niche, sions of alien plants and animals, and they introduced cosmopolitan sometimes outcompeting native species of broad tolerance arrive to organisms or leading to fundamen- compete with them. tal changes in ecosystem processes. A decision of utmost importance •Atmospheric contamination. Re- will be facing preserve managers, their search on the presence and effects scientific advisers, and the public who of acid precipitation, ozone, supports parks in the near future: To nitrates, and sulfates, in particular, what extent will parks and preserves has demonstrated that these can be intentionally managed to mitigate significantly alter the competitive against these grand stressors and to balance within an ecosystem, fre- protect native biodiversity to the quently reducing system produc- extent feasible? Or will we apply a tivity and often favoring “weedy” wildness standard that accepts change species. Air pollution can also have and loss in exchange for a minimum of a significant aesthetic effect on visi- visible anthropogenic intrusion into tor enjoyment in national parks. these last remaining bits of wild nature •Loss of native fire regimes. In xeric (Graber 1985, 1995)? western shrublands, woodlands, Monitoring: and forests, fire has often been the Species or Ecosystems? principal ecosystem architect. Intact ecosystems are more than the Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 39 sum of their parts. Processes and old-growth forest, a strategy based on forces that bind the parts into a system the owl would leave out many key produce synergies and properties that components of biological diversity in the individual parts do not possess the region. Thus, there is a need for a when simply collected together. conservation strategy emphasizing a Conservation strategies based on a few broad array of taxa and habitats (Noss parts of systems, such as endangered 1993; Franklin 1995). For a variety of species, may be effective. As a result, political and scientific reasons, moni- conservation strategies can be tested toring of protected areas may include in national parks that protect whole both high-profile species and basic ecosystems, but they cannot be tested ecosystem measurements (Woodward in disarticulated, stressed, or frag- et al. 1999). Thus, in addition to the mented systems or on isolated individ- critical role of documenting normal ual parts of systems. variation of natural systems that are Although stewardship goals for still nearly pristine (Schindler 1987; federal lands are increasingly focused Noss 1993), monitoring and research on the status of entire ecosystems in protected areas may help us under- rather than individual species (Noss stand how single species versus 1993; Franklin 1995; Woodward et al. ecosystem approaches compare in 1999), management and monitoring providing the information needed for are likely to continue to focus on both stewardship. individual species and more integrative parameters. Woodward et al. Vital Signs Monitoring (1999) discuss three types of species The primary applied uses of eco- often included in monitoring efforts: logical monitoring are to guide and “target species” of social and/or politi- evaluate stewardship activities, to pro- cal significance, “bioassay species” vide early warnings of abnormal con- that are responsive to particular types ditions, to identify possible causes of of contamination or other stresses, and abnormal conditions, and to help “indicator species” that shed light on frame research questions to resolve basic ecological processes. Fleishman conservation issues (Davis 1993). In et al. (2001) review the utility of places such as Channel Islands “umbrella species” in conservation National Park in California, monitor- (i.e., species whose protection is ing demographics of selected species intended to extend to a much broader and related physical environmental group of species). They conclude that factors as surrogates for the vital func- umbrella species mostly pertain to tions of ecosystems over twenty years fairly narrow taxonomic bounds (e.g., has helped a conservation strategy based on an •control and eliminate invasive alien umbrella bird species is not likely to species; protect many butterfly species). • detect and mitigate effects of chem- Efforts to develop a conservation strat- ical pollution; egy for forests of the Pacific Northwest •recognize and change unsustain- illustrate the point. Although the able uses, including fishery man- endangered northern spotted owl agement policies; and (Strix occidentalis caurina) occupies • develop and evaluate population large home ranges primarily within and ecosystem restoration method-

40 The George Wright FORUM ologies. Signs program indicates clearly that Let’s consider some specific exam- DDT is still a problem in coastal ples of applications of environmental ecosystems, as evidenced in continu- vital signs monitoring information to ing reproductive difficulties experi- park stewardship issues. enced by peregrine falcons and bald Alien species constitute an ever- eagles (Detrich and Garcelon 1986). increasing threat to the park. Stewards The Vital Signs program also indi- of the California Channel Islands have cates that progress is being made, used an environmental “Vital Signs” which thereby encourages people monitoring program to direct and (society) to continue abatement activi- evaluate removal of several alien ties. species, including burros on San Vital Signs programs also help Miguel Island, European hares on decide when human intervention in Santa Barbara Island, feral pigs on park ecosystem dynamics is appropri- Santa Rosa Island, and South African ate, such as when to suppress forest iceplant on Anacapa Island. Before fires or let them burn. The Channel instituting monitoring programs, erad- Islands National Park rocky intertidal ication efforts were sporadic and inef- monitoring protocol was modified and fective. Numerous efforts were made applied to Cabrillo National Mon- to remove feral rabbits from Santa ument, in San Diego, California, in Barbara Island in the 1950s and 1960s 1989. In 1992, when the San Diego by hunting and spreading poison bait, municipal sewage treatment effluent but none was successful until the Vital discharge pipe broke and dumped six- Signs program provided specific teen billion gallons of treated effluent information about the effectiveness of into the sea less than a kilometer from various population control methods the monument’s monitored tide pools (trapping vs. hunting), rabbit popula- over a two-month period, many peo- tion trends, and reliable cost and time ple were rightfully concerned about estimates for complete eradication. By marine life in the tide pools and adja- reducing the uncertainly of success cent kelp forests (Tegner et al. 1995). through monitoring, the eradication Objective information from prespill program gained enough support to monitoring established clearly that the sustain the effort long enough to suc- effluent had no immediate negative ceed. effect on the fifteen vital sign taxa Even before the Vital Signs pro- monitored. Closing the tide pool area gram began, monitoring wildlife pop- to visitation during those two months, ulations in the park provided an early in order to protect visitors from poten- warning of regional pollution with tial health hazards in the effluent, actu- global consequences. Monitoring ally relieved trampling and other visi- reproduction and recruitment in tor-related disturbances, which was California brown pelican rookeries on reflected by increased abundance in Anacapa Island identified pesticide most vital sign taxa. (DDT) pollution in the Southern The Vital Signs program in this California Bight and provided suffi- case saved unnecessary expensive liti- cient time to ban DDT and restore gation that often occurs without actual pelican productivity (Anderson and knowledge and with a belief that dam- Gress 1983). Today, the park’s Vital age is self-evident in such situations.

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 41 The two-month closure associated abalone population status. The with the effluent spill constituted a California Fish and Game Commis- large environmental experiment sion and the state legislature closed unlikely to be conducted intentionally. five abalone fisheries to prevent loss of Since the Vital Signs program was in critical brood stock and to facilitate place, it was possible to measure the and reduce the costs of rebuilding effects of the event and separate the depleted populations statewide only longer-term trends in populations after Vital Signs data confirmed immi- associated with regional environmen- nent abalone population collapses— tal events, such as El Niño. For exam- collapses that were implied by declin- ple, the chronic loss of California mus- ing fishery landings but contested by sels (Mytilus californicus) and feather fishing interests. boa kelp (Egregia menzesii) that had Vital Signs methodologies are cur- been recorded for three years before rently being used to test a variety of the effluent spill continued at the same different abalone population restora- rate during and after the spill, while tion techniques at the California ground cover of ephemeral algae and Channel Islands (Davis 2000). sea grass (Phyllospadix spp.) in- Ecological monitoring also provided creased dramatically (Engle and Davis early warning of a black abalone (H. 2001). cracherodii) population collapse Many fisheries are managed and (Richards and Davis 1995). The ulti- evaluated largely on the basis of fish- mate population collapse was appar- ery-dependent landings data that may ently caused by infectious disease in not be related to changes in fished small, dense, but fragmented popula- populations. Fishery-independent tions. Monitoring provided sufficient monitoring provides essential corrob- information, early enough, to protect orative information for fishery man- disease-resistant individuals from fish- agers (Botsford et al. 1997). Serial ery harvest and to ensure survival of depletion of five species of abalone another generation. (Haliotis spp.) and then a sea urchin The Channel Islands National Park (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) to Vital Signs program has become a support a commercial diving fleet was prototype for many other national obscured by ambiguous landings data parks and other agencies, and it cat- in southern California before monitor- alyzed a national Vital Signs program ing data were available (Dugan and for the U.S. National Park System. Davis 1993). As a result, fishing This approach has been used success- exhausted abalone populations before fully in a wide variety of ecological set- fishery management policies could be tings with many Delphi experts, changed and drove at least one species including deserts (Organ Pipe Cactus to the verge of extinction (Davis et al. National Park and Lake Mead 1996). National Recreation Area), mountains Political systems are frequently (Great Basin, Lassen Volcanic, and frozen into inaction by uncertainty North Cascades national parks), and (Wurman 1990). Reliable fishery- the New England coast (Acadia independent data from Vital Signs National Park). Other U.S. national allowed the political process to work park units emulating the Channel by reducing uncertainty regarding Islands model include Virgin Islands

42 The George Wright FORUM (U.S. Virgin Islands), Dry Tortugas 32 networks covering 270 national (Florida), Denali (Alaska), Great park system areas with significant nat- Smoky Mountains (Tennessee–North ural resources. Only with the informa- Carolina), Shenandoah (Virginia), tion acquired by Vital Signs programs Olympic (Washington), a cluster of can national parks be adequately small prairie parks in the Midwest, and understood, restored, maintained, and a cluster of parks on the Colorado protected so that current and future Plateau. Based on the experience generations can enjoy their wonders, gained in prototype park programs, receive their inspiration, and reap the the U.S. National Park Service plans values of their unimpaired ecosys- to implement Vital Signs programs in tems.

References Anderson, D. W., and F. Gress. 1983. Status of a northern population of California brown pelicans. Condor 85:1, 79–88. Botsford L. W., J. C. Castilla, and C. H. Peterson. 1997. The management of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Science 277, 509–515. Davis, G. E. 1993. Design elements of monitoring programs: the necessary ingredients of success. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26, 99–105. Davis, G. E., and W. L. Halvorson. 1996. Long-term research in national parks: from beliefs to knowledge. In Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks, ed. W.L. Halvorson and G. E. Davis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 3–10. Davis, G. E., P. L. Haaker, and D. V. Richards. 1996. Status and trends of white abalone at the California Channel Islands. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125, 42–48. Dayton, P.K., and M. J. Tegner. 1984. The importance of scale in community ecology: a kelp forest example with terrestrial analogs. In Novel Approaches to Interactive Systems, ed. P. W. Price, C. N. Slobodchikoff, and W. S. Gaud. New York: Wiley, 457–482. Dayton, P. K., M. J. Tegner, P. B. Edwards, and K. L. Riser. 1998. Sliding baselines, ghosts, and reduced expectations in kelp forest communities. Ecological Applications 8:2, 309–322. Detrich, P. J., and D. K. Garcelon. 1986. Criteria and Habitat Evaluation for Bald Eagle Reintroduction in Coastal California. Final Report to California Department of Fish and Game C-1307. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game. Diamond, J. 1997. Guns, Germs, and Steel. New York: Norton. Dugan, J. E., and G. E. Davis. 1993. Applications of marine refugia to coastal fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50, 2029–2042. Engle, J. M., and G. E. Davis. 2000. Ecological Condition and Public Use of the Cabrillo National Monument Intertidal Zone 1990–1995. U. S. Geological Survey Open File Report 00-98. Ventura, Calif.: U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division. Fleishman, E., D. D. Murphy, and R. B. Blair. 2001. Selecting effective umbrella species. Conservation Biology in Practice 2:2, 17–23. Franklin, J. F. 1995. Why link species conservation, environmental protection, and resource management? In Linking Species and Ecosystems, ed. C. G. Jones and J. H. Lawton. New York: Chapman & Hall, 326–335. Graber, D. M. 1983. Rationalizing management of natural areas in national parks. The George Wright Forum 3:4, 48–56. ———. 1985. Managing for uncertainty: national parks as ecological reserves. The George Wright Forum 4:3, 4–7. ———. 1995. Resolute biocentrism: the dilemma of wilderness in national parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, ed. M. E. Soulé and G. Lease. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 123–335. Grumbine, R. E. 1990. Viable populations, reserve size, and federal lands management: A cri- tique. Conservation Biology 4:2, 127–134. Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby,W.H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W.Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H.

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 43 Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan, J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629–638. Leopold, A. 1925. The last stand of wilderness. American Forests and Forest Life 31, 602. ———. 1949. A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press. Leopold, A. S., S. A. Cain, C. M. Cottam, I. M. Gabrielson, and T. L. Kimball. 1963. Wildlife management in the national parks. Transactions of the Twenty-eighth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 28, 28–45. Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of wilderness. The Scientific Monthly 30, 141–148. Moore, J. A. 1993. Science as a Way of Knowing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Morris, E. 2001. Theodore Rex. New York: Random House. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. 1963. A Report: Advisory Committee to the National Park Service on Research, ed. W. J. Robbins, E. A. Ackerman, M. Bates, S. A. Cain, F. F. Darling, J. M. Fogg Jr., T. Gill, J. M. Gillson, E. R. Hall, and C. L. Hubbs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. ———. 1992. Science and the National Parks. Committee on Improving the Science and Technology Programs of the National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Noss, R. F. 1993. A conservation plan for the Oregon Coast Range: some preliminary sugges- tions. Natural Areas Journal 13, 276–290. Paine, R. T. 1994. Marine rocky shores and community ecology: an experimentalist’s perspective. Excellence in Ecology 4, 1–152. Richards, D. V., and G. E. Davis. 1993. Early warnings of modern population collapse of black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii Leach 1814, on the California Channel Islands. Journal of Shellfish Research 12:2, 189–194. Schindler, D. W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 44 (Suppl. 1), 625. Sellars, R. W.1997. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Tegner, M. J., P. K. Dayton, P. B. Edwards, K. L. Riser, D. B. Chadwick, T. A. Dean, and L. Deysher. 1995. Effects of a large scale sewage spill on a kelp forest community. Marine Environmental Research 40, 181–224. Varley, J. D., and P. Schullery. 1996. Yellowstone lake and its cutthroat trout. In Science and Ecosystem Management in the National Parks, ed. W.L. Halvorson and G. E. Davis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 49–73. Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenko, and J. M. Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science 277, 494–499. Woodward, A., K. J. Jenkins, and E. G. Schreiner. 1999. The role of ecological theory in long- term ecological monitoring: report on a workshop. Natural Areas Journal 19, 223–233. Wurman, R. S. 1990. Information Anxiety. New York: Bantam.

Gary E. Davis, Channel Islands National Park, 1901 Spinnaker Drive, Ventura, California 93001; [email protected] David M. Graber, Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, 47050 Generals Highway, Three Rivers, California; [email protected] Steven A. Acker, National Park Service Columbia-Cascades Support Office, 909 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104; [email protected] 1

44 The George Wright FORUM Eduardo Crespo de Nogueira Consuelo Martínez Flores Aesthetic Values and Protected Areas: A Story of Symbol Preservation

No place is a place until it has had a poet. —Wallace Stegner Stay on this good fire-mountain and spend the night among the stars. Watch their glorious bloom until the dawn, and get one more baptism of light. Then, with fresh heart, go down to your work, and whatever your fate, under whatever ignorance or knowledge you may afterward chance to suffer, you will remember these fine, wild views, and look back with joy to your wanderings in the blessed old Yellowstone Wonderland. —John Muir A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. —Aldo Leopold ❖ here seems to be agreement that aesthetic factors have been of basic importance in the historical processes of land protection. These factors have had a decisive influence on the selection process itself and subse- Tquently have oriented criteria for management. In the words of Múgica and De Lucio (1996: 229): “Among the traditional reasons for protecting natural areas, landscape features have undoubtedly played a major role. Landscape evokes deep emotions and strong attitudes towards conservation.” Perception- based criteria became so dominant during the initial stages of protection that, in many cases, aesthetic appreciation came to be considered equivalent to the existence of conservation-worthy values, so that places considered aesthetically unattractive were understood as valueless areas not worthy of protection (Múgica and De Lucio 1996). In some cases, even, the social pressure of aesthetics has become so strong as to be included in self-justifying destructive behavior. As Araújo (1996: 230) says, “Nature presents us with spectacles that we often deny ourselves when we cut out that which is natural, not without first devaluing the loss by minimizing the aesthetic value of what we see.” Because of the importance assigned influence has been reduced in more to them in many countries, aesthetic recent times. Spain, for instance, is an values have been reflected in federal example of the chronological evolu- laws and other legal instruments for tion of this phenomenon. It was one of the protection of nature, though their the first countries to establish national

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 45 parks, with two areas legally declared from its utilitarian, recreational begin- by 1918. The specific law of 1916 nings, but its philosophical founda- defines national parks as “those exceptions remain shaky. If ... we seem to tionally picturesque places or sites.” stray from the goals of naturalness and Similar words can be found in promi- conservation of biological wholeness, nent positions in all the laws, orders, it is because we are still torn by the two and decrees passed between 1920 and powerful and opposing drives of the 1960. On the other hand, the 1975 Park Service mandate—to use and yet law, the last one signed by General preserve.” Francisco Franco, mentions the beauty of the landscapes in the last place of The Debate the list of reasons for declaring pro- Internationally, the supposedly tected areas. Current legislation, the more scientific criterion of representa- law of 1989, partially modified in tiveness seems to have prevailed. 1997, endorses the establishment of a Protected areas are now selected and national park for each one of the coun- managed from an ecological point of try’s most representative ecosystems view that assigns greatest value to pro- and defines national parks as “natural tecting the biological diversity of areas of high ecological and cultural regions or countries. No doubt this value” that are designated as such change could be interpreted from the because of “the beauty of their land- standpoint of aesthetics, as a sort of scapes” and “the representativeness of “maturity” in which perception is their ecosystems.” Seemingly, aesthet- modulated by a larger number of other ics returns to the position of greatest factors and abstractions, including the importance, but the context is now dif- awareness of belonging to a state. In ferent. Ecological representativeness is any event, it is a fact that, thanks to the systematically considered in selecting appreciation born from deeper knowl- and planning new areas. edge, previously unappreciated land- At a global level, during the 1970s scapes, such as dunes, steppes, or and 1980s, a certain conceptual confu- scrubs, have become objects of protec- sion arises, even in countries where tion under categories that consider protected areas were first created, such both their value in ecosystem protec- as the United States. This is due to the tion and their emotional connection coincidence of two factors: the great with the observer. As Crespo (1992) geographical expansion and increas- verified, landscape perception param- ing number of protected areas (and eters can be successfully used to con- diverse processes of local adaptation) trast (and confirm) ecosystem evalua- and the “ecologization” of scientific tions based on ecological parameters. thought. The de-emphasis of aesthet- Nevertheless, little by little, without ics seems to derive from its supposed explicitly giving up aesthetic consider- role in stimulating over-visitation to ations, the conservation objectives of the areas. This is in contrast to the protected area systems have focused much stricter preservation theoretical- primarily on representation of ecolog- ly guaranteed by the ecological ical diversity. Categories of protected approach. As Ackerman (1989: 40) areas have multiplied and diversified noted with reference to America, “The around the world, but, save for limit- national park idea has moved away ed, older exceptions, they all tend to

46 The George Wright FORUM focus on biological diversity and the cate the real importance of the far- relations between the components of reaching values of landscape. Again, such diversity. The human species is Kimber (1999: 68) shares this point of considered, in many cases, an integral view in an illustrative way when he part of the system, but always in an says, “[M]y sense is that what matters operational sense, and not as an exter- far more than any wonder drug sci- nal observer, capable of perceiving and ence may yet discover in the jungles of of making decisions based on such Borneo are those aesthetic and spiritu- perception. al values we choose to exclude from In spite of the powerful influence public debate.” On the other hand, that pure attraction continues to exert, expert voices endure in the realms of there is great reluctance today to pub- artistic analysis that continue to advo- licly defend the protection of an area cate an aesthetic approach to natural on aesthetic grounds. As Kimber areas. Such is the case of Alonso (1999: 68) puts it: (1988: 8) when she says: [T]hese expressions of value, emo- We recognize the limits of perception and delight do crop up occa- tion, but the fact that it has limits sionally in even the most sober does not mean that it is not the and hard-headed gatherings, but best tool we have available. We they register as little more than are well qualified to correctly per- road bumps. They lurk on the ceive structural and formal rela- periphery of the discussion. The tions, and even to know intuitively communal response is essentially, and to find the underlying order in “Well, yes, that’s all very nice but the seeming chaos of natural now let’s get back to business.” forms. Consequently, I have con- And business is the reductionist sidered cultivating perception, and task of asking science to tell us basing the study of characters how little land we need to set upon it, an adequate approach, aside to preserve existing native and a correct starting point, to species and communities. take on the study of natural areas. This phenomenon has become evi- What, then, is happening? Why dent enough for the World have aesthetic values moved from pri- Commission for Protected Areas mary to marginal importance, and ([WCPA] 2001) to take it up and state then back toward primary importance in its Web site: “At the international once again? What does it mean today level there has been a reluctance to to speak of aesthetic values, to use make explicit, and promote the man- them in connection with protected agement of protected areas for, non- areas to which society entrusts more material values. This is due, perhaps, and more complex functions, increas- to growing globalization of the west- ingly linked to bioregional planning? ern way of looking at the world that In what follows, we intend to attaches singular importance to the approach these questions, starting scientific and technical, at the expense from a geohistoric review of the con- of the human, cultural, and spiritual.” cept of landscape aesthetics and its Conscious efforts continue, never- connections to protected area theory. theless, to reverse this trend and vindi-

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 47 The Beginnings were interpreted to have human quali- It appears reasonable to suppose ties. High cliffs and storm clouds start- that the earliest form of conscious per- ed sending out the same menacing ception of a given portion of territory message as a person standing up (thus for the first time turned into straight, arms in the air, while the calm “landscape”) was probably built on mouths of rivers spoke of loving wel- the abstraction born from shared come and pleasure. This peculiar way knowledge of different environments of treating nonhuman entities as with their differing climatic, geomor- human, and involving them in stories, phological, and ecological elements. served as a useful mechanism to Such knowledge would have been understand natural phenomena but very important to the everyday sur- also, and above all, as a vehicle to cre- vival of a still-nomadic human group ate active sets, perceived systems, in an unpredictable environment. geographies, and landscapes. Moun- Bernáldez (1981: vii) expresses it this tains and other formations (frequently, way: and not by chance, protected) that bear names of human characters are Man and his predecessors have still plentiful today. been immersed for thousands of Certain kinds and combinations of years in the flow of information these mental constructs were especial- which landscape is. We should not ly effective in giving impressions of wonder at the presence of numer- safety,abundance, or well-being. They ous adaptive responses. Among began to be transmitted and embel- them, the emotional, sentimental lished through generations, and they aspects of landscape should be turned into cultural artifacts, evocative recognized. Are we aware of the myths. And once primal needs were importance of the reactions we satisfied, the impulse continued to call “aesthetic,” of their adaptive protect those areas that exhibited background, of the role they these qualities symbolic of welfare. At played in survival? the same time, of course, other combi- Arsuaga (1999) is probably also nations that transmitted impressions right when he links the origin of such of sterility, helplessness, or aggression emotional responses to the enormous were consolidated as inhospitable analytical capacity of the human brain landscapes from which it was wise to and to the subsequent “humaniza- stay away. This kind of process must tion” of elements of the environment have happened in similar ways in dif- and of the relations between them, ferent bioclimatic zones of the world, which was already present in prehis- giving birth to the different aesthetic toric times. The permanent attention conceptions that would much later to the movements, facial expressions, confront each other. Consequently, and other signals coming from the these twin perceptional processes, other members of human society generated in different territories by probably resulted in abstractions that human communities adapted to them, led to the assignment of “personali- would have resulted in equivalent but ties,” of souls, to elements of nature. divergent systems of values. These Geomorphic and topographical char- value systems were then reflected in acteristics and atmospheric dynamics the criteria used for the identification 48 The George Wright FORUM and prioritization of protected areas. ic character can vary according to each The inclination to protect certain individual or collective “user” of the kinds of areas would thus be a result of landscape and hence evolve over time the building of the concept of land- with divergent results. Thus, today’s scape itself. Throughout modern and research on the aesthetic preferences contemporary history, this inclination of visitors to protected areas confirms has resulted in the protection of less that the degree of direct experience subtle landscapes that are readily and intellectual knowledge of an area appreciated, such as mountain areas clearly influences the appreciation of with plentiful vegetation and different its aesthetic values. De Lucio and varieties of still and running water Múgica (1994: 156) arrived at the (Figure 1), that respond to what has empirical conclusion that “visitors to been called the “Alpine Model” the national parks also differ in their (Múgica and De Lucio 1996). This landscape preferences depending on line of thought has been called the their attitudes and environmental “eco-ethological theory of landscape behaviour. The more casual and gen- aesthetics” by Bernáldez (1981: 246), eralist visitors more often choose the with the statement that “aesthetic pref- prototype landscape, rejecting those erences for (or rejection of) certain of the parks that have other character- landscapes appear to be instinctive istics. Certain more specialised groups reactions to the symbolic character of tend to choose more often the land- certain elements of the scene.” scape of the park that they are in, such Obviously,the idea itself of symbol- as wild challenging landscapes. The

Figure 1. The “Alpine Model”: easily decipherable landscapes have been a frequent object of protection in modern history. Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Tennessee. National Park Service photo. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 49 subjects with more experience of the sciously, but carefully, separated from park also choose landscapes with a their theoretically optimum locations lower degree of legibility.” to avoid trampling on (and competing with) places that were frequently The Early and Middle Ages sacred (i.e., geomorphologically, The psychological process under- hence aesthetically powerful) in lying the origin of aesthetics seems to ancient pagan traditions. Temples be initially connected to the phenome- would then serve as specific instru- non of religious experience. The first ments of their day. Placed within a unmistakably funerary behaviors dis- time frame that surpassed them, they covered by current archaeology would act as dissuasive peripheral (Arsuaga 1999) are connected to the attractors, comparable in this sense to careful choosing of a place. Later on, present-day protected area visitor cen- the great civilizations of antiquity ters. In some coastal regions of west- (e.g., the Mayas in Tikal; the Aztecs in ern Europe, for example, a sort of pro- Tenochtitlán; the Quechuas, or Incas, portion can be detected between the in Machu Picchu; or the Egyptians in physical and artistic magnitude of the the Valley of the Kings) repeatedly churches, and the ancestral “impor- revealed the linkage between the tance” of the cape landforms as sacred establishment of important religious sites, which inspired people with awe centers and the perception and appre- based on the force of sea and wind ciation of “promising” landscapes. In against the rocks. The paradigmatic the origin itself of Western civilization, example is the cathedral of Saint the Acropolis of Athens embodies the James, in Compostela, Spain, the west- paradigm of synergy between topo- ernmost goal for millions of European graphic site and human action to pilgrims throughout the centuries in establish a sense of place, of identifica- spite of its not being located exactly on tion, over time creating the need for the Cape of Fisterra (literally, “the end preservation and protection. Bloomer of the world”), but somewhat with- and Moore (1979: 120) recognize it in drawn, at a distance from it, which is their analysis, when they state, also a sign of its more than geographi- “Among all places in the world, this is cal value. In any case, what greater with no doubt the one that makes any protection for a site can be found than western man tremble the most.... Let that emanating from the concentrated us begin saying that the site itself is presence of God in it? magnificent to start with.... The buildings of the Acropolis continue to serve Modern Times as models of exquisite care.” Nevertheless, the clearest reference This synergy of place, siting, and to the “ higher powers” is paradoxical- architecture was passed down to the ly furnished at the turning point when Middle Ages in Europe, but greater medieval theocracy is left behind, and importance was progressively ac- the Modern Age is consolidated. quired by the architectural compo- Again, Bernáldez (1981: 181) illus- nent, which, from a Christian point of trates this accurately when he states view, is justified because the human that “the awe, the mixture of terror being is seen as God’s obedient agent. and exultation, that was previously Sacred buildings were also uncon- reserved for God, was transferred dur-

50 The George Wright FORUM ing the seventeenth century to a wider considered worthy of preservation as cosmos ... and to its great objects: shared heritage. Even though the ini- mountains, oceans, deserts. The aes- tial encounters between civilizations thetics of Infinity was founded by trav- took place in a wide range of settings, elers who felt amazed, but at the same over time colonization focused basi- time captivated, by infinite space.” cally on places that confirm the validi- The age of the great European ty of the eco-ethological theory of explorations and colonization began. landscape aesthetics—that is, familiar The expeditions took place largely environments. An accurate descrip- because of their value in geopolitical tion of the process is offered by terms where the acquisition of large Crosby (1988: 3–7): “European emi- virgin territories served as testimonies grants and their descendants are all to the power of the State. Neverthe- over the place.... They also compose less, the scientific component (and the great majority in the populations through it the aesthetic questions that of what I shall call the Neo-Europes.... filtered into the intellectual discourse) But what was the nature of the Neo- played a remarkable role during this European pull? The attractions were period of expansion. This happened, many, of course.... But underlying for instance, through the influence of them all ... were factors perhaps best figures as outstanding as Alexander described as biogeographical.” von Humboldt, author and spreader The so-called Neo-Europes are of the concept of the “scenes of geographically scattered but occupy Nature.” In a farewell letter written similar latitudes. They therefore enjoy before leaving for his famous journey similar, basically temperate, climates and quoted, among others, by Botting and offer opportunities for the exis- (1995: 57), Humboldt confesses his tence of vicarious species and ecosys- great philosophical (and aesthetical) tems, and hence the development of goal: “I will collect plants and fossils, twin “families” of observed land- and will carry out astronomical obser- scapes. Obvious cases appear, for vations. But this is not the main objec- example, through comparison of tive of my expedition. I will try to dis- Norway, Germany, or Spain with the cover how the forces of Nature interact corresponding regions of Chile or among each other, and how the geo- New Zealand. Consequently, destina- graphic environment influences ani- tions chosen for reasons of landscape mal and plant life. In other words, I similarity regenerate the same kind of shall search for the unity of Nature.” emotional links to the sites, the same The end result of this fundamental- kind of what has been called “sense of ly transformative expansion was the place,” and hence parallel paths in nat- generally violent meeting of civiliza- ural area preservation concepts. tions, of cultures, and of aesthetics. European expansion strongly modi- The tug-of-war began that later affect- fied and unified people’s territorial ed something as crucial as the selec- perception, and preservation priori- tion of the lands to be preserved (or to ties, all over the world. This line of be kept protected as they were by the protection lasted as long as the nine- first residents); in other words, the teenth-century concepts of state and fight to get symbols of one’s own tra- international relations held. The dition included in the small final set process of general review of Western

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 51 precepts initiated after World War II, in the 1980s. It was then a widespread and which deepened from the 1960s opinion, even though, in many parts of on, has also influenced the selection the world, it still coexisted with a and management of protected areas. A strong consideration of scenic beauty shift took place, which was in tune as a criterion for selecting protected with what the new society demanded areas. At the international level, the from protected areas, and the need to importance of both perspectives was assert new values. Actually, it has clarified and balanced by the estab- always been that way, both in the peri- lishment of a standard set of defini- ods during which aesthetic reasons tions for comparable categories of pro- were embedded in other arguments tected areas, and the later fine-tuning and in those when they have prevailed of these (IUCN 1994), in correspon- explicitly. This is clearly perceived by dence with management objectives. Smith (2000: 233) in his historical The functional focus of territories is review of developments in the United thus stressed, all of which is consistent States, when he observes that with the modern aesthetic trend of parks are also one of the most eclectic but harmonious integration. honest reflections of our culture ... Too little time has gone by for the of what each generation of eco-ethological principle to have Americans has considered impor- changed radically. What has changed tant. As sites are added to the sys- are the elements of landscape and the tem, as chaotic and unpredictable reality they symbolize. Aesthetic pref- as the process may seem, they are erences operate today as they did dur- reflections of the people’s will, an ing the Stone Age, but now they relate indication of what the majority considers significant at the to much more sophisticated objects. moment of the park’s establish- Thus, the messages of security or ment.... Our natural parks were comfort, those that can produce aes- primarily established for reasons thetic pleasure, include institutional that cannot be considered ecologi- components, as well as other complex cal. Everglades ... was our first abstractions. And this modern com- national park that did not contain plexity is, of course, applicable to the the tallest trees, the deepest selection, planning, and management canyons, the highest waterfalls.... of protected areas as well. Modern This tendency has been character- societies demand reciprocal linkages ized by environmental historian between their protected areas and the Alfred Runte (1982) as ‘monumen- talism,’ putting extraordinary dis- regions of which they are a part. These plays of nature inside national linkages facilitate effective and partici- park boundaries. These bound- pative management, local inputs into aries were almost never designed regional planning, and transboundary to follow ecological or topographi- cooperation. In short, societies today cal features.... Significant compo- seek protected areas that serve as an nents, then, that were absolutely important input toward sustainability critical to the environments in that ensures both services and values, which these features existed, were not only in terms of a continuous left outside the park. stream of material benefits, but also in Smith’s discourse reflects the terms of local pride, and identification rational, scientific argument dominant with the region. Actually, integrative

52 The George Wright FORUM sustainability, as an exponent of eco- we want to keep imagination alive, if logical and social health, is today the we want to remain fully human.” ultimate object of protection. Perhaps, then, one of the important In terms of regional planning, this principles on which the agreement for implies the preservation of untouched the new protection should be built is core areas around which gradients of recognition of the integral nature of human presence are established, inter- the realities to be managed. Aesthetics, connected by corridors, the whole once identified with areas locked up matrix being managed with conserva- under a glass bell, pleads today to tion-consistent criteria. Under this escape through the cracks. Here, too, concept, protected area systems can there is design: Beauty results from be designed to surpass mere ecologi- optimizing use (including its absence, cal representativeness and take into when fitting). The urgent need to gen- account other properties such as eralize this perspective is acutely adaptability and connectivity. Awe, pointed out by Berger (1999: 112): onomatopoeic awe, continues to influ- “Yellowstone is a British Museum of ence our relationship with the core natural anomalies. The Tetons are areas, but the sensation of functional composed as The Last Supper. The health around them, linked with the Grand Canyon is water’s consummate protection of ecosystem processes, can sculpture. Our parks provide essen- also be interpreted in new aesthetic tially a ceremonial experience, terms. The mutual protection agree- through which an informed public ment between people and landscape is passes properly awed, and exiled from being re-edited in a wider context. As its own feelings. Park custodians have Araújo says (1996: 249), “If Nature the same weakness as the rest of us: has nourished Culture, the time seems they love to name, to isolate, to point to have come for reciprocity, for out, and to enshrine.” Culture to begin nourishing Nature: The proper common ground, then, that is the essence of ecological for a balanced approach is that of an thought.” enriched sense of place, the concept The signals sent out by the differ- capable of linking aesthetics, culture, ent cultural sources contribute to the peace, and survival through sustain- new definition of the symbols to be able protection of natural areas. In the preserved. This new definition corre- words of Lewis (1996: 21, 24, 27): sponds to a landscape understood “Identifying and protecting critical wholly, as an integration of stage, natural and cultural resources is the scenery, and resource. It is not easy to crux ... to [sic] sustainability. These reach an agreement on this definition, resources are not only the basis of our but new proposals are beginning to be life-support system and our economic articulated, with ideas capable of well-being, but are also the basis for bringing together both scientific and quality of life, sense of place, diversity, emotional inputs. According to and options of choice.... Too often ... Kimber (1999: 69), “The questions survival is not regarded as dependent we need to ask are not just how much on the land remaining intact, both eco- land do we need ... to preserve repre- logically and aesthetically.” sentative biotic communities, but how Finally, none of this can be much do we need to leave alone ... if achieved without social understand-

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 53 ing and participation. It is people who acteristically contribute to the visu- have defined the role of aesthetics in al quality of the community and landscape protection since the begin- area and provide a sense of place ning, and this will be even more the and image. case in the future. As Rollins (1993:1, Human beings will continue to 3) puts it: evolve together with the landscape Residents of a community have they inhabit, use, modify, and admire. thoughts and ideas about what We will continue to respond to the makes their surroundings and symbolic power of scenic elements, community visually important and whatever those happen to be at any attractive.... Citizens should be given time. Protecting areas today, and asked to prioritize each visual resource they identify. This will tomorrow,will mean ensuring the con- help in identifying sites; [and in] tinuity of what is essential, materially establish[ing] a ranking or priority and emotionally,in that relationship. It list ... of special or distinctive will always be a story of preserving the views—[namely,] those that char- sense of place.

References Ackerman, J.G. 1989. An idea unfolds. In Nature’s Wonderlands. National Parks of the World, ed. R. M. Poole. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Society, 19–41. Alonso, R. 1988. Doñana Vegetación y Paisaje. Seville: AMA-Junta de Andalucía and DGMA- MOPU. Araújo, J. 1996. XXI: Siglo de la Ecología.Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Arsuaga, J. L. 1999. El Collar de Neandertal: En Busca de los Primeros Pensadores. Madrid: Temas de Hoy. Berger, B. 1999. The stone gallery. In Unmanaged Landscapes, ed. B. Willers. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, 112–113. Bernáldez, F. G. 1981. Ecología y Paisaje. Barcelona: Blume. Bloomer, K. C., and C. W. Moore. 1983 [1977]. Cuerpo, Memoria y Arquitectura: Introducción al Diseño Arquitectónico.Madrid: Blume. Translated as Body, Memory, and Architecture, trans. M. T.Muñoz Jiménez. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Botting, D. 1995 [1973]. Humboldt y El Cosmos: Vida, Obra y Viajes de un Hombre Universal (1769–1859). Barcelona: del Serbal. Translated as Humboldt and the Cosmos,trans. M. Crespo. London: Rainbird. Crespo, E. 1992. Aportaciones al Uso Integrado de Parámetros Etológicos y Paisajísticos en la Determinación de la Calidad de los Ecosistemas Terrestres: Aplicación a la Gestión del Sistema de Dunas Móviles del Parque Nacional de Doñana. Ph.D. diss. ETSIM— Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Crosby, A. W. 1988 [1986]. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Lucio, J. V., and M. Múgica. 1994. Landscape preferences and behaviour of visitors to Spanish national parks. Landscape and Urban Planning 29, 145–160. IUCN. 1994. Guidelines For Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Kemmis, D. 2001. This Sovereign Land. [Quoting Wallace Stegner.] Covelo, Calif.: Island Press. Kimber, R. 1999. What do we really want from the woods? In Unmanaged Landscapes, ed. B. Willers. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, 67–69. Leopold, A. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, P. H., Jr. 1996. Tomorrow by Design: A Regional Design Process for Sustainability. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Múgica, M., and J.V. De Lucio. 1996. The role of on-site experience on landscape preferences: a case study at Doñana National Park (Spain). Journal of Environmental Management 47, 229–239. Muir, J. 1985 [1980]. Wilderness Essays. 4th ed. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith. 54 The George Wright FORUM Rollins, J. H. 1993. Preservation of Scenic Areas and Viewsheds. OSP Technical Bulletin no. 10. Concord: New Hampshire Office of State Planning. On-line at www.state.nh.us/osp/planning/guide/docs. Runte, A. 1982. National Parks: The American Experience. 2nd ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Smith, R. B. 2000. Saving all the parts. In National Parks and Rural Development, ed. G. E. Machlis and D. R. Field. Covelo, Calif.: Island Press, 231–241. WCPA [IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas]. 2001. Non-material Values of Protected Areas. On-line at wcpa.iucn.org/networks/values.

Eduardo Crespo de Nogueira,Navamonjas 11—Las Jaras, 28260 Galapagar (Madrid), Spain; [email protected] Consuelo Martínez Flores,Navamonjas 11—Las Jaras, 28260 Galapagar (Madrid), Spain 1

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 55 Bron Taylor Joel Geffen

Battling Religions in Parks and Forest Reserves: Facing Religion in Conflicts over Protected Places ublic servants responsible for protected areas face many pressures. Caught in battles between representatives of competing and often incompatible interests, land managers understandably strive for clear Pguidelines to simplify decision-making. So do jurists dragged in afterward. In the United States, the Forest Service’s “multiple use” mandates to facilitate commodity extraction and recreation while maintaining ecosystem integrity, as well as the National Park Service’s mission to preserve native ecosystems for future generations, provide benchmarks for decision-making. Calls for cost–benefit analysis or for the “best available science” to shape decisions also reflect a desire to find solid ground for land-use or legal decisions. The last thing those responsible for protected areas may want is to find themselves wedged between competing and incompatible religious claims over what constitutes proper behavior there. Their jobs are already difficult enough, they might justifiably feel, and few of them are equipped to deal with the religious dimensions of the conflicts over which they must preside. There is no escaping religion, how- contemporary progeny. But it is also ever, which enters into such conflicts true for many European Americans, whenever people perceive places to be for whom perceptions of the sublime sacred or believe that sacred values are in nature, often influenced by Jewish at stake in place-based behavior. This and Christian sources and diverse is, arguably, most of the time. As reli- streams of European and American gion scholar David Chidester asserts, Romanticism, are also deeply rooted. what people hold to be sacred has to Today, nature-based spiritualities do with experiences of “ultimate seem as strong as ever in America. meaning and transcendent power” Although great diversity exists, nature (Chidester 1987: 4). We would add to religion practitioners speak in kindred this definition of sacredness experi- ways of belonging to, and feeling con- ences of transformative power,to nected within, a sacred, natural world underscore that an encounter with (Taylor 2001a, 2001b). We should something holy is not always about not, therefore, be surprised by calls to something otherworldly and to protect the places where people find remind that transformational religious spiritual meaning, nor should we be experiences often take place in natural surprised by hostility or indifference places such as mountains, forests, to such calls by those who do not deserts, and wildernesses. This has share such spiritual perceptions. certainly been true for America’s abo- Some of the difficulties that differ- riginal inhabitants and many of their ing spiritual perceptions present to

56 The George Wright FORUM those attempting to resolve land dis- [Desecrating] Mt. Graham ... is like putes will be illustrated by examining cutting off an arm or a leg of the battles over the construction of tele- Apache people” (in Taylor 1995: scopes on a mountain in Arizona, log- 146). ging in Minnesota, and rock-climbing Environmental activists helped in Wyoming. These cases provide form the Apache Survival Coalition, common ground for summarizing the subsequently filing lawsuits and ways governmental officials respond to mounting a public relations offensive. land conflicts and their religious Many of these environmentalists, and dimensions and for suggesting which the coalition’s most radical partici- approaches are most likely to protect pants, were members of the radical both ecological and cultural diversity. environmental Earth First! movement, which asserts that all life forms have an The Battle for Mount Graham intrinsic value, a right to exist, even Mount Graham, Dzil nchaa si an to when they are not obviously useful to the region’s Apache Indians, is located humans. These activists shared in the Coronado National Forest of Franklin’s belief that the mountain southeastern Arizona. Many Apache was sacred, although they seemed to consider it sacred: as a place to pro- understand this differently. Relying on cure medicinal plants, a burial a relatively new theory,island biogeog- grounds for their medicine people, a raphy, which endeavors to explain pilgrimage and ceremonial site, and why unique flora and fauna tends to the home of spiritual beings known as evolve on islands, they contended that Gaahn, Lightning People or Crown Mount Graham’s isolation by the sur- Dancers, to whom prayers are offered rounding desert made it much like an for life-giving water (Basso 1992). island, and they complained that the A fierce conflict erupted over telescopes might well destroy this Mount Graham in the mid-1980s, unique and fragile “sacred island when members of the San Carlos ecosystem” (Taylor 1995: 119). Apache initiated a campaign to halt Consequently, the environmental the construction of the Mount radicals, animated by such spiritual Graham International Observatory. perceptions, tried to thwart the con- An international group of researchers struction through “direct action,” ini- led by University of Arizona astron- tiating illegal road blockades on the omers envisioned a complex of fifteen mountain, and through rowdy inva- advanced-technology telescopes, sions of university offices. Never including one sponsored by the apprehended were activist saboteurs Vatican Observatory. Apache medi- who stole or destroyed equipment cine man Franklin Stanley character- intended for the scopes. At some of ized the telescopes as a desecration the protests, Indians from the region that would block his people’s prayers (and a number of American Indian from traveling to the heavens via Movement activists known in the Mount Graham. He considered the United States for their militant defense project to be a form of cultural geno- of Native American interests since the cide: “The mountain is holy,” he 1960s) joined the direct action resist- asserted. “If you take Mt. Graham ance. from us, you will take our culture.... It was difficult to build coalitions of

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 57 resistance, however. Even though they “authentic Apache” proving the tele- shared a conviction that Mount scopes would violate Apache religious Graham was sacred, there were dis- freedom. And Coyne and Polzer regu- agreements over what this meant, and larly spoke in ways revealing the corresponding disputes arose regard- worldview differences underlying the ing what constituted appropriate, ven- dispute. They asserted, for example, erating behavior. Disputes erupted that because no shrines had been between American Indian Movement found on the mountain, that it could members and some radical environ- not have been an important ceremoni- mentalists—for example, during strat- al site, and they concluded as a result egy sessions on Mount Graham. that Apache religious practice must These activists, despite their desire to not be dependent on access to the mutually defend Mount Graham, mountain or precluded by telescopes could not all agree about whether it upon it. was permissible to consume alcohol or Moreover, both Coyne and Polzer engage in sweat lodge ceremonies bor- expressed antipathy to the religious rowed from Native American cultures perceptions animating their oppo- (Taylor 1997). nents. Coyne’s comments were espe- Despite internal disagreements, the cially noteworthy. Although he once coalition’s resistance put the universi- stated, “We wish ... to preserve the ty and the Vatican Observatory on the sacred character of Mt. Graham by defensive. The university responded assuring that ... the Observatory will by highlighting the divisions within not contribute to the degradation of the Apache communities, arguing that the mountain,” he declared on another not all of them considered the moun- occasion that neither the Earth nor tain sacred and that some of those who non-human life can be sacred because, did believed that the telescopes could unlike human beings, neither have be constructed in a way that would be souls or are eternal. But his most compatible with their religion. The ardent opponents viewed all life as university employed anthropologists intrinsically valuable and Mount and public relations firms to help it Graham as sacred. Coyne knew this make its case. and urged his religious peers to recog- The Vatican Observatory’s astron- nize that his opponents were promot- omers faced a special conundrum. ing an environmentalism and pagan They would either have to withdraw religion that is pernicious and “must from the project or reject claims they be suppressed with all the force that were promoting cultural genocide. we can muster.” For Coyne, the sacred The observatory’s response was led is beyond this world and the Vatican’s by two Jesuits, George V. Coyne, the telescope is part of an otherworldly director, and Charles W. Polzer, cura- religious mission to help humans to tor of ethnohistory at the Arizona “know where ... civilization came State Museum in Tucson, Arizona. from” and to find God, or at least to Both stated that they respected Native deepen human understanding of American religion and acknowledged God’s creation and character. For that some Apache consider the moun- Coyne, the proposed observatories tain to be sacred. But they argued were also justifiable because the evan- there was no “credible evidence” from gelical mission of the Church could be

58 The George Wright FORUM enhanced through the sub-millimeter cantly the number of planned tele- radio frequency technology being scopes. built on Mount Graham. It might enable earthly Christians to communi- Establishing Green Religion cate and evangelize extraterrestrials In October 1999, an association of (Taylor 1995: 126). loggers filed a civil lawsuit, Associated This brief case study (for details, Contract Loggers v. United States see Taylor 1995) reveals that differ- Forest Service.Ironically, the lawsuit ences regarding where the sacred is was filed not just against the Forest located—above the world somewhere, Service but also against two environ- or specifically here or there on Earth— mental groups who had regularly filed can lead to irreconcilable disagree- lawsuits against the Forest Service in ments over what constitutes one’s reli- their efforts to prevent logging. The gious obligations here (or there) and plaintiffs alleged that the environmen- now. For the present purpose, we talists were inspired by “deep ecology should note that the Forest Service religion” that, like Native American strongly supported the telescope proj- religions and various forms of ect, and in most ways so did the courts Paganism, considers nature sacred that took up the environmental and and environmental destruction a dese- religious liberty-based lawsuits oppos- crating act. It moreover contended ing it, sometimes aided by timely that these environmentalists, with the exemptions to existing environmental complicity of the Forest Service, had laws provided by the U.S. Congress. violated the First Amendment of the By 2002, the first three of the original- United States Constitution and its ly envisioned 15 telescopes were com- establishment clause, which enjoins pleted (Figures 1 and 2), but the resist- the government from “establishing” ance had succeeded in paring signifi- (privileging and supporting) one reli-

Figure 1. An aerial view of the telescope complex on Mount Graham, July 1999. Photo by Rick Teachout courtesy of Large Binocular Telescope Project. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 59 Figure 2. An aerial view of the LBT (Large Binocular Telescope) enclosure erected on Mount Graham during December 1999. As of April 2004, construction was continuing on the telescope itself. Photo by Stephen Criswell courtesy of Large Binocular Telescope Project. gion over another. The logger plain- claimed that their own lawsuits against tiffs claimed that the Forest Service the Forest Service were based on sci- and the defendant environmentalists ence and law and that their legal victo- had privileged deep ecology religion ries demonstrate a valid, secular basis through management decisions reduc- for their litigation. They concluded ing logging, while insisting that their that, given their adversarial relation- own concern was to overturn govern- ship with the Forest Service, it was ment-supported religion, not to sup- absurd to contend they were in press any particular religion. cahoots with it to establish deep ecol- The environmentalist defendants ogy religion. The Forest Service and their supporters (including the agreed and denied being influenced environmental activist Julia Butterfly by any religious interest group. Hill and leaders of various deep ecolo- A U.S. District Court judge dis- gy institutes) responded that deep missed the lawsuit in February 2000, ecology was not a religion but a phi- holding that the environmentalist losophy or, alternately, that they were defendants had not taken state action, not motivated by deep ecology reli- a prerequisite to finding a constitu- gion. The defendants also argued that tional violation. He also held that even if they were so motivated, the there was no compelling evidence that First Amendment guarantees the right the Forest Service had been influenced of citizens to petition the government. by the environmental activists who The defendant environmentalists also were, in any case, entitled to try to 60 The George Wright FORUM influence government forest practices, Muir, Marshall, and Leopold, see also whatever their religious motivations. Taylor 1995). Given the case law and facts pre- Leopold’s nature spirituality is sented, this was an appropriate ruling. especially important, for many consid- The concerns expressed by the logger er him to be the twentieth century’s lawsuit, however, were not implausi- most influential ecologist. Certainly, ble, for the religiosity of their adver- his views are influential within the saries is obvious to any who know Forest Service. And they permeate a them, read their literature, or are aware recently published book produced by of scholarly studies about their reli- scholars affiliated with it, entitled gious dimensions (see, e.g., Taylor Nature and the Human Spirit (Driver 1994, 1995, 2001a, 2001b). Despite et al. 1996). Jack Ward Thomas, chief defensive disclaimers by some move- of the Forest Service during much of ment participants, deep ecology and the 1990s, wrote its foreword. In it, he kindred movements certainly qualify describes and endorses what Dan as religion (Taylor 1994, 1996, 1999, Deudney calls “civic earth religion” 2000, 2001a, 2001b). The loggers (Deudney 1995, 1996) while trying to could have made a stronger argument delicately avoid the constitutional than they did, however, that the Forest problem of how to deal with religion Service, or at least some of its employ- in managing public lands: ees, are motivated by deep ecology or The introductory chapter cautions kindred nature spiritualities. readers against assigning a nar- Indeed, many Forest Service (and row, sectarian, religious, or mysti- cal meaning to the words ‘spirit’ Park Service) luminaries have been and ‘spiritual’ because the words motivated by nature-based religion. are used in a much broader sense John Muir, whose preservationist throughout the text. Much care is ethics live on as an important part of taken not to imply actions or ideas the Park Service’s mission, was moti- that would violate the doctrine of the separation of church and vated by both pantheistic and ani- state.... [Jennifer] Friesen [one of mistic perceptions of the holy in the authors in the book] proposes nature (Fox 1981; Cohen 1984). Bob that purposeful management of Marshall, a pantheist and mountaineer the public lands, in part to renew who served in several important interi- the human spirit as the concept is developed in the text, has nothing or department posts, was the driving to do with the causes of the First force behind the establishment of the Amendment to the Constitution.... Forest Service’s first wilderness Friesen’s position is that nature- reserves (Fox 1981: 208; see also based spiritual beliefs are generic Graber 1976). Aldo Leopold, who to all users, whether holders or nonholders of sectarian religious with Marshall helped create the beliefs. Friesen’s position is sup- Wilderness Society, also championed ported strongly in the Describing wilderness during his own Forest Diverse Perspectives section of Service career. In his writings, the text, [which] clearly shows that Leopold eloquently fused science with the types of nature-based spirit- renewing benefits defined by the nature spirituality, while expressing editors ... are common across all privately his pantheistic spirituality types of users, whether a timber (Fox 1981: 367; Meine 1988: cutter, a hunter, a member of an 506–507; Callicott 1994: 42–43; on environmental organization, a hiker, or a Native American. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 61 Indeed, the purpose of this text is proper emerges from a rocky promi- to articulate clearly these com- nence located above the floodplain, monly held values and to explore extending 867 feet further skyward how they can be integrated into the practice of multiple-use sus- (Beaumont 1981: 27). Many Native tainable ecosystems manage- Americans consider it sacred. Its strik- ment. This is in line with the Policy ing features led to its designation in of the ... Forest Service that ‘... 1906 as America’s first national mon- ecosystem management must ument. Today it is considered one of include consideration of the physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, the world’s premier rock-climbing social, and economic well-being of sites. Known to the region’s native people and communities’.... This peoples as Mato Tipila or Bear’s text is timely because it is clear Lodge (McLeod and Maynor 2001), that a growing number of people the tower has long figured significant- recognize and deliberately seek the spiritual benefits the public ly in Plains Indian religion. Lakota, lands can provide ... to renew their Eastern Shoshone, Kiowa, Kiowa- spirit away from the city, and to Apache, Comanche, Crow, Cheyenne, learn about natural processes. and Arapaho peoples have all lived This text should help elected offi- near it, but between 1860 and 1910, cials and administrators and managers of natural areas better the federal government made it diffi- understand the complex intangi- cult for them to use the site (Hanson ble benefits those areas provide and Moore 1999: 53). and how they enrich the lives of all In 1893, two local ranchers made Americans (Thomas 1996: the first recorded ascent, a pastime xxiii–xxiv; emphasis added). that subsequently increased in popu- Such sentiments may not be equiv- larity. Ten groups ascended to the alent to deep ecology spirituality, but summit between 1938 and 1950. neither are they religiously neutral. Ascents increased nearly five-fold over They may not prove that the Forest the following twenty years, and by the Service decision-making has been end of the 1970s, about 500 parties shaped by “civic earth religion,” but annually made the climb (Hanson and they do suggest that nature spirituality Moore 1999: 54). is finding fertile ground in the agency In 1978, changing course after gen- and that the loggers’ perceptions that erations during which hostility to such religion may influence its deci- American Indian cultures and reli- sion-making are not irrational. Again, gions was usually (but not always) offi- it seems difficult to escape religion cial policy, the federal government when exploring contested, protected passed the American Indian Religious lands. Freedom Act. It did not establish new rights or mandate access to or protec- Devils Tower/Mato Tipila tions of sacred sites, for the act was a Perhaps best known from the procedural one with no enforcement motion picture Close Encounters of the mechanisms (Linge 2000: 320). It did, Third Kind, Devils Tower is a granitic however, require government agencies column rising roughly 1,300 feet to evaluate and reduce the negative above the lowlands of the Belle impacts of their activities on American Fourche River floodplain in northeast- Indian religion. At Mato Tipila, native ern Wyoming (Figure 3). The tower peoples responded to the act by infus-

62 The George Wright FORUM Figure 3. Devils Tower (Mato Tipila) in northeastern Wyoming. The national monument includes over 1,300 acres around the monolith. National Park Service photo.

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 63 ing a new energy into their rituals, sites ... and [to] avoid adversely affect- leading to a flourishing and revival of ing the physical integrity of such sun dances and vision quests, among sacred sites” (Latimer 2000: 117). other cultural practices (Latimer The Park Service invited Native 2000: 116). Americans, climbers, environmental- Meanwhile, by the early 1990s, ists, and local citizens to work togeth- 5,000 people were climbing there er with Park Service representatives. A each year (Hanson and Moore 1999: final climbing management plan was 54), precipitating increased religion- produced in 1995. Its key provision related tensions between Indians and was a voluntary ban on climbing dur- climbers. Many Indians took offense at ing June, the most important month the behavior of climbers who left on the Indian ceremonial calendar. If climbing hardware in the rock, dis- the voluntary approach failed, the plan turbed ceremonies by yelling, or even indicated, a mandatory ban would be removed Indian prayer bundles considered (Dussias 1999: para. (Koehl and Van Boven 1996). Such 26–29). behavior was seen as a threat to the About 85% of the climbers com- efficacy of the ceremonies (McLeod plied willingly. But in a lawsuit known and Maynor 2001). as Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association Some climbers were unsympathetic v. Babbitt,a user’s group representing to such complaints. “As far as I’m con- several climbers, including commer- cerned,” one contended, “prayer bun- cial climbing guide Andy Petefish, dles are ... trash, and I’m very offend- sued the government, arguing that any ed to have them hanging around the ban violated the U.S. Constitution’s monument.... [T]he Indians don’t establishment clause (Hamilton 1996; climb that rock which I own as an see Bear Lodge v. Babbitt 1996). American citizen” (Dustin and Petefish opposed special considera- Schneider 2001: 82). “I don’t care tion for Native American religion, how many taxes anybody pays,” said arguing that the tower was a sacred an Arapaho Indian in a typical place for him, too, for “rock climbing response, noting that climbing upon a is my spiritual activity” (Coates 1996). Christian church would never be tol- Other climbers agreed. Responding to erated, asserting neither should it be criticism that he was desecrating here, for “this place was dedicated somebody’s church, Frank Sanders when the ancient people found it ... stated, “I don’t mean to offend any- and since then it’s been a sacred body, but if there’s a climbing ban ... place” (Hanson and Moore 1999: then I’m locked out of my church. I 57–58). think the church ought to be open” Hoping to prevent the dispute from (McLeod and Maynor 2001). boiling over into violence, the In 1996, the U.S. District Court National Park Service began drafting a judge hearing the case ruled that a climbing management plan in 1992 to mandatory ban would raise constitu- cohere with the newly amended tional problems, but that the Park National Historic Preservation Act, Service could avoid improper entan- which for the first time required feder- glement with religion if the ban were al agencies to “accommodate access to completely voluntary (Bear Lodge v. and ceremonial use of Indian sacred Babbitt 1996). The plaintiffs appealed

64 The George Wright FORUM this ruling even though the ban was tected areas, ignore religion at their made unambiguously voluntary in the peril. Those who do will be less likely subsequently amended plan. The to succeed, whether in their environ- judge rejected this appeal in 1998. mental protection efforts or in amelio- The Park Service’s judicially rating conflicts over livelihoods or cul- endorsed compromise has not satis- tural values that such efforts may pre- fied some of the protagonists, who say cipitate. it violates their religious freedom. Another lesson of the preceding Charlotte Black Elk of the Oglala cases (which, with more space, could Lakota, for example, still opposes any be multiplied with many other exam- climbing as a desecration. Some ples) is that principles or laws affirm- climbers insist that even a voluntary ing religious freedom do not magically ban is disrespectful of their religious liberate officials from taking sides in practice and unduly privileges Indian religion-related disputes. There are no religion. Climber Paul Piana asserts, easy answers and there is no way to for example, that he gets as much spir- avoid making controversial decisions. itual satisfaction from climbing as Officials must face religion forthright- Indians do from their rituals: “All of ly and strive to reduce religion-related the things you are supposed to divine conflicts over protected places. The from religion, I get from climbing.... preceding cases signal three alterna- There is this awe that is there, and this tive governmental responses that are respect that is there, all of these mushy, available when incompatible religious groovy emotions you might come up claims are asserted over lands desig- with to describe the better parts of nated or slated for protection. spirituality” (Hughes 1998). Clearly at Thinking critically about these Mato Tipila/Devils Tower, there is no responses may provide guidance for way for those vested with management dealing with such cases. responsibility to fully accommodate On Mount Graham, for example, both points of view. despite the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, governmental, universi- Conclusion ty, and church officials did little to As the world’s wilder places anticipate or seriously consider the become scarcer and thus more pre- religious objections to the envisioned cious, efforts to protect them are inten- telescopes, responding defensively sifying. But such efforts can precipi- and aggressively when these objec- tate conflict as stakeholders fight over tions did emerge. From the Forest place-dependent resources, liveli- Service to the Congress, government hoods, and lifeways. As an important officials acted not as neutral arbiters element of human culture, religious between the competing secular and perceptions and practices often religious interests but rather as tele- become intertwined within such dis- scope champions. Indeed, the reli- putes. Perhaps especially when religious sensibilities of the Indians and gious feelings are strong, such con- environmentalists seemed to remain flicts can become violent (Taylor incomprehensible, if not distasteful, to 1998). One lesson from all of this is the telescope’s key proponents. The that government officials, who increas- possibility of accommodation was not ingly must manage disputes over pro- seriously explored or undertaken.

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 65 The Contract Loggers’ lawsuit rais- but thus far it seems that the majority es another possibility: Government of Indians and climbers are willing to decision-makers could capitulate or live with the compromise now convert to a nature-revering spirituali- endorsed by the court. ty of one sort or another. Under such a The best possible outcomes in dif- scenario, they might well privilege ficult cases such as these will probably environmental preservation or place- begin with an approach that most dependent ceremony and reject, for resembles the third one, with dialogue example, the preferences of those who among contending parties. If solid consider it a sacred duty to extract majorities of the contending parties do God-given resources to benefit not support the outcome, it is unlikely humans who were created in God’s that any land protection scheme will image and who alone have souls. U.S. succeed. It is equally unlikely that the resource agencies have not, of course, decision will guarantee free religious embraced nature religion with a corre- practice or promote tolerance or sponding intrinsic value theory,imple- respect for religious diversity. menting exclusively the prescriptions Nevertheless, it is also clear that of those who consider nature sacred. there is no avoiding controversy, so As this case study and the emergence careful deliberation over the values of organizations such as the Forest that will guide decisions in difficult Service Employees for Environmental cases is indispensable. Put simply: Ethics suggest, there is, despite the What values are decisive? Put differ- strong utilitarian ethos that tends to ently: Which values are trumps? guide American resource agencies Although this is no place for a detailed (Geffen 2002), a struggle for their argument, a foundation for one can be hearts and minds. It is possible to articulated: Decision-making now imagine that these agencies (or, more ought not foreclose the opportunity to likely, various employees within them) pursue and protect morally important will increasingly ground their pre- values later. This expresses the prescriptions on a reverence for nature, cautionary principle, which is increas- rather than relying primarily on utili- ingly recognized as a cornerstone for tarian premises. any environmental ethics. Indeed, the A third way is suggested by the precautionary principle is a pillar of conflict over Devils Tower/Mato the “Earth Charter,” which claims that Tipila. Here, with recent statutes preventing harm is “the best method encouraging respect for American of environmental protection” and Indian religion well in mind, govern- insists that “when knowledge is limit- ment officials took seriously the ed” we should “apply a precautionary nature-related religious perceptions of approach.” The Earth Charter, which the region’s American Indian commu- also lists the protection of biological nities. They also arranged for and diversity and cultural diversity,and the encouraged dialogue among people quest for economic justice and demo- with competing religious perceptions cratic decision-making, as its core val- regarding proper behavior at this site, ues, was submitted for ratification by and educated the wider public with the United Nations General Assembly what they learned. The resulting man- on the occasion of the Earth Summit agement plan did not satisfy everyone, in Johannesburg in 2002, and will no

66 The George Wright FORUM doubt be passionately promoted, and values of the Earth Charter, which perhaps even ratified, sometime in the moreover urges “special attention to future (see Earth Charter Initiative the rights of indigenous peoples and 2002). minorities.” In the case of both biolog- Applied to the present and similar ical and cultural diversity, when such cases, such principles place a moral diversity is gone, all too often it is gone burden of proof on those who would forever. This underscores the impor- dramatically alter ecosystems when tance of applying the precautionary the available evidence indicates that principle when considering and con- doing so could seriously erode biolog- testing whether a place, or place-based ical or cultural diversity,including reli- practice, might merit protection. gious diversity. All of these are core References Basso, K. 1992. Declaration, Apache Survival Coalition, et al. v. U.S., et al., University of Arizona, Intervenor, CIV. NO. 91-1350-PHX-WPC (testimony given 31 March). Beaumont, G. 1981. Taking a closer look: Devils Tower. In Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming. Division of Publications, National Park Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 20–65. Bear Lodge. 1996. Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association v. Babbitt, F. Supp. United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. 96-CV-063-D. Callicott, J.B. 1994. Earth’s Insights: A Survey of Ecological Ethics from the Mediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Chidester, D. 1987. Patterns of Action: Religion and Ethics in a Comparative Perspective. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth. Coates, K. 1996. Stairway to heaven. Sierra 81:6, 27. Cohen, M.P.1984. The Pathless Way: John Muir and American Wilderness. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Deudney,D. 1995. In search of Gaian politics: Earth religion’s challenge to modern Western civilization. In Ecological Resistance Movements: The Global Emergence of Radical and Popular Environmentalism.B.Taylor, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 282–299. ———. 1996. Ground identity: nature, place, and space in nationalism. In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR [International Relations] Theory. Y. Lapid, and F. Kratochwil, eds. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 129–145. Driver, B.L., D. Dustin, T.Baltic, G. Elsner, and G. Peterson, eds. 1996. Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. State College, Penna.: Venture Publishing. Dussias, A.M. 1999. Cultural conflicts regarding land use: The conflict between recreational users at Devils Tower and Native American ceremonial users. Vermont’s Journal of the Environment 1. On-line journal: http://www.vje.org/issue1/art1a.html, accessed December 2001. Dustin, D.L., and I.E. Schneider. 2001. Collaborative conflict resolution at Devils Tower National Monument. Parks and Recreation 36:7, 80–85. The Earth Charter Initiative. 2002. On-line at http://www.earthcharter.org. Fox, S. 1981. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Geffen, J. 2002. Heart for the land: science and religion in the work of fish and wildlife biologists. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Graber, L. 1976. Wilderness as Sacred Space.Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers. Hamilton, C. 1996. One man’s rock is another’s holy site. Christian Science Monitor 88:138, 4. Hanson, J.R., and D. Moore. 1999. Applied anthropology at Devils Tower National Monument. Plains Anthropologist 44:170, 53–60. Hughes, J. 1998. Devils Tower a monument to clash of cultures: Indians resent climbers at site Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 67 shrouded in myth. Denver Post,5 July, B5. Koehl, C., and S. Van Boven. 1996. Separation of rock and state. Newsweek 127:21, 8. Latimer, K. 2000. Tenth Circuit denies rock climbers standing to sue over Devils Tower voluntary ban on climbing. Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law 20, 114–124. Linge, G. 2000. Ensuring the full freedom of religion on public lands: Devils Tower and the protection of Indian sacred sites. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 27, 307–339. McLeod, C., and M. Maynor, co-producers. 2001. In the Light of Reverence. Film. Washington, D.C.: Public Broadcasting Service. Meine, C. 1988. Aldo Leopold: His Life and Work. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Taylor, B. 1994 . Earth First!’s religious radicalism. In Ecological Prospects: Scientific, Religious, and Aesthetic Perspectives. C. K. Chapple, ed. Albany: State University of New York Press, 185–209. ———. 1995. Resacralizing Earth: pagan environmentalism and the restoration of Turtle Island. In American Sacred Space.D.Chidester and E. T. Linenthal, eds. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 97–151. ———. 1996. Ecological resistance movements; not always deep but if deep, religious: reply to Devall. The Trumpeter 13:2, 98–103. ———. 1997. Earthen spirituality or cultural genocide: radical environmentalism’s appropria- tion of Native American spirituality. Religion 17:2, 183–215. ———. 1998. Religion, violence, and radical environmentalism: from Earth First! to the Unabomber to the Earth Liberation Front. Terrorism and Political Violence 10:4, 10–42. ———. 1999. Green apocalypticism: understanding disaster in the radical environmental worldview. Society and Natural Resources 12:4, 377–386. ———. 2000. Bioregionalism: an ethics of loyalty to place. Landscape Journal 19:1/2, 50–72. ———. 2001a. Earth and nature-based spirituality (Part I): from deep ecology to radical environmentalism. Religion 31:2, 175–193. ———. 2001b. Earth and nature-based spirituality (Part II): from deep ecology to scientific paganism. Religion 31:3, 225–245. Thomas, J.W. 1996 Foreword. In Nature and the Human Spirit: Toward an Expanded Land Management Ethic. B.L. Driver, D. Dustin, T. Baltic, G. Elsner, and G. Peterson, eds. State College, Penna.: Venture Publishing, xxiii-xxiv.

Bron Taylor, University of Florida, Department of Religion. P.O. Box 117410, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7410; [email protected] Joel Geffen, 3023 Fernwood Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90039; geffen- [email protected] 1

68 The George Wright FORUM Holmes Rolston III Life and the Nature of Life—in Parks arks are places for recreation, and that suggests play, leisure, sport. Many parks are of exactly that kind, and fortunately so; we need our city parks for softball games, our state parks for a family reunion. Recreation Pre-creates, rejuvenates people when they are worn from work. But outdoor, natural parks are much more, and more fortunately so. These grander parks in the greater outdoors provide dimensions of depth belied by their vaca- tional and recreational settings. Parks are places so protected that we can simul- taneously get “away from it all,” away from the workaday week, from the labors of town, factory, farm, and “back to it all,” encountering the park-protected reserves of elemental nature. This is recreation, if you like, but wrong about learning nothing in this recreation is set within creation. nature. We correct him: “Life in an Some of the recreation is relaxation, unexamined world is not worthy liv- unwinding from daily labors; deeper ing, either.” Socrates could have used down the re-creation is restoration of visits to national parks, to wilderness perspective on the nature of life, reen- areas, and that would have protected counter with the creation. Parks recre- him from such error. He missed too ation preserves human life by re-creat- much of value; missing what parks ing it. We figure out who we are and have to offer, he did not have life as where we are. The last part of that fully figured out as he thought. To question must be answered in culture, know himself, he needed, a biologist for human life is “by nature” cultural. would say, a better adapted fit. A But the first part, the fundamental philosopher might say: a more inclu- ground, is answered in nature. “By sive identity. nature,” too, we are embodied crea- tures, residents on landscapes, earth- Life and Death lings, placed in a more inclusive, more Life and death is serious business. comprehensive community of life and Living and dying is the business of life; life support. In that sense, parks pro- and now, in contrast with the daily tect a full answer to the question of business workplace, in parks one is human identity. immediately confronted with life per- Parks are philosophical places; let’s sisting in the midst of its perpetual play with that idea. “Know thyself.” perishing. True, one is on vacation; Socrates insisted: “An unexamined life one doesn’t want to be too somber. is not worth living” (Plato, Apology: But the seasons are evident: spring 38). On that score he was quite right. with its flowering, fall with its dieback. Socrates also said, “You see,I am fond I am at leisure, but the struggle out of learning. Now the country places there is perennial—eating and being and trees won’t teach me anything, eaten, survival through adapted fit. and the people in the city do” (Plato, That is the ultimate “dialectic,” if we Phaedrus: 230d). So he loved his may use Socrates’ philosophical word: Athens, and we indeed ought to be Life is a search with opposites in con- good citizens. But Socrates was quite flict becoming complements in resolu- Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 69 tion. Wild nature is a vast scene of these are superimposed on sponta- sprouting, budding, flowering, fruit- neous natural values, some kinds of ing, passing away, passing life on. which are not experiential. After all, Birth, death, rebirth, life forever regen- the life-supporting ecosystems and the erated—that is the law, the nature of genetic information coding the know- life. how organisms in their species lines Of course—especially if this is ulti- use to cope in these ecosystems oper- mately the way the world is made—we ate in the wild regardless of whether cannot escape this in town. There also humans are present or aware of these people age and perish, and reproduce things. The life and death and life and prosper, generation after genera- renewed were already going on, before tion. But something about taking we came as visitors. The trees were “time out” on vacation or the weekend photosynthesizing, capturing solar and immersing oneself in a “nature energy, and the birds were feeding reserve” confronts us more directly their nestlings, capturing caterpillars. and intensely than usual with this life Forests and soil, sunshine and rain, struggle and life support in primordial rivers and sky, the everlasting hills, the nature. This is baseline nature. The rolling prairies, the cycling seasons— trip starts out social, even political: We these are superficially just pleasant head for the park shown on the map as scenes in which to recreate. At depth a legally mandated, legally designated they are the surrounding creation that area for preserving original nature. We supports life. If one insists on the pass the gate and pay the admission word,they are resources, but now it fee; we are inside the park’s official seems inadequate to call them recre- boundaries. But politics and society ational resources. They are the sources soon fade, and the natural history that define life. They are the life sup- commands the scene. And the first port system, the ecosystems that commandment is: Survive. Adapt. Eat humans inhabit. Here is life close to its or be eaten. Life or death. Our first origins. observation is: Life goes on—protect- Humans depend on air flow, water ed in the parks but on its own, wild cycles, sunshine, photosynthesis, and free. nitrogen fixation, decomposition bac- teria, fungi, the ozone layer, food Sources and Resources chains, insect pollination, soils, earth- Parks are for recreation. Strip away worms, climates, oceans, and genetic the human presence, and there is no materials. These ecological values recreation in the wilderness. So it contribute positively to human experi- might seem that any associated value ences. But they also seem to be there lies entirely in these human recreation- apart from humans being here. Nature al experiences, no matter how greatly is an evolutionary ecosystem, with natural features in the park contribute humans a late addon. to them. Perspectives shift, however, True, the back-to nature ritual is when the recreation turns to re- largely symbolic: A camper’s groceries encounter the creation. Perhaps peo- still come from the supermarket. But ple in parks generate new levels of val- for precisely that reason many need at ued experiences—enjoying the sunset, least the symbolism of the cook-out, for example, or bird watching—but the fish fry from the day’s catch, the

70 The George Wright FORUM drink of water dipped from the spring, old forests protected in parks. The for- the dried bones strewn beside the est is both presence and symbol of trail, the warmth of a campfire, an eye forces in natural systems that tran- on the growing twilight, possibly a scend human powers and human util- thunderstorm, even swatting mosqui- ity. Like the sea or the sky, the forest is toes—all of which immerse persons in a kind of archetype of the foundations the natural order. We know the gutsy of the world. The central “goods” of feeling that comes with returning to the biosphere—forests and sky, sun- the basics, even if we stutter when we shine and rain, rivers and earth, the try to put it in words. Life support by everlasting hills, the cycling seasons, the greater outdoors is not symbolism fauna and flora, hydrologic cycles, at all but literal and real. The park set- photosynthesis, soil fertility, food ting accentuates these touchstones, chains, genetic codes, speciation and symbols set off from the everyday life reproduction, succession and its reset- of town and commerce, but quite gen- ting, life and death and life renewed— uine and authentic, primordially natu- were in place long before humans ral. arrived, though they have lately In that sense parks put people in become human economic and social their place. They take us out of culture resources. into nature; we leave the city behind Maybe this is a “national” forest, and go out into the country. The maybe a “state” forest. But the forests tourist’s first impression is that this is were here before the United States was not where I live; the whole idea of a nation, before California was a state, being a tourist is being somewhere before there ever was such a thing as a else from where you live. And a tourist national or state park—and yes, in in wild nature is even farther from ancient forests even some of the trees home in the city. But a second, and were here before. Yes, we need to set deeper impression, is that this is aside these parkland forests, and peo- where we do live, our cultures super- ple ought to visit “their” parks. But the imposed on natural systems. First dynamics and structures organizing impressions may be that we have gone the forest do not come out of the rustic, gone “back to” something past; human mind; a wild forest is some- we take the weekend off in a world that thing wholly other than civilization. It is unreal. But second impressions run is presence and symbol of the timeless deeper. We have not gotten away from natural givens that support everything it all; we have gotten back to it all. else. “Back to” metaphors, however, are A pristine forest is prime natural always a little worrisome. We’d better history, a relic of the way the world say: “down to” it all. We reach a was for almost forever. The forest as a dimension of depth. We recontact the tangible preserve in the midst of a cul- natural certainties. ture contributes to the human sense of We come to see forests, for exam- duration, antiquity, continuity, and ple, as a characteristic expression of identity. A visit there regenerates the the creative process. In a forest, as on a sense of human novelty. We were lis- desert or the tundra, the realities of tening to the latest news on the radio nature cannot be ignored. This is true on the way in, but now that we are in all forests, but intensely true in big, here, we are rather less convinced that

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 71 we need to concern ourselves only partly because of the leisure, partly with what we human beings have said because we are taken out of our sur- and done. Although park managers roundings of artifacts, we confront this commonly think of nature as “natural elemental nature. resource,” we can soon go astray with But there is a polar value. In the this category, if we see nature as mere- park, yes, there are park managers, ly resource. A forest, a mountain, a supervising the visitors, also looking prairie is more than resource, instru- out after the integrity of the park. But mental to civilization. It is primeval, these managers are not managing the wild, creative source—resource for the fauna and flora; this is not a botanical whole creation, we could say. Such or zoological garden. Life is on its values may be soft. They are also own, wild and free. Or if there is man- deep. agement, it is hands-off, in deliberate effort to let these animals be wild, to let Order and the Wild nature take its course. The signs at the In parks, we recontact the natural trailhead urge us not to feed the chip- certainties? Yes, but, almost paradoxi- munks, beg though they do at the pic- cally, we recontact both certainty and nic rock below the waterfall. They uncertainty, the permanent and the need to do their thing, get their own changing, the stable and the sponta- food—if they can. Only if on their own neous, the predictable and the novel. can they preserve their own integrity. More philosophically put: We con- Nature in the wild is ever the same front order and chaos. We go wild; we and never the same. True,there are the go where the Earth is still wild. True, perennial natural givens, even when order and chaos could be found had they are ever-changing. The day we stayed back in town—but order of a moves from dawn to dusk, the seasons different order, so to speak, and chaos pass, plants grow, rivers flow, winds different from that in the wild. The blow, even the rocks erode; change is meaning of wild in culture is different pervasive. On the scale of deep time, from the meaning of wild in nature. some processes continue on and on, The waterfall will still be there, where almost forever. Mountains are reliably we had the picnic five years ago on my there generation after generation. The birthday, and probably still some water cycles back, always moving. Parry’s primrose. But the coyote that Parks give us this encounter, more made off with the leftovers, while we intensely than we are likely to find it in were lingering by the rocks below the town. falls—he will be gone. Maybe, if we are But it is equally true that parks give lucky, we will see an ouzel again. us nature in its spontaneous novelty. The natural processes, confronted The mountains, reliably there, are just in the park, are regular, dependable: as reliably different in Yosemite and in Gravity holds, the rains come, and Yellowstone. By making each location oaks breed in kind. Nature is unified different, wildness makes a favorable and intelligible, constant enough for difference. It makes each ecosystem life support, including our own. This historic, the more excellent because no geomorphological, meteorological, two are alike. Landscapes are never biochemical, ecological constancy is of twice the same; indeed, even the aspen great value, indeed vital. In the park, leaves in Yellowstone are never twice

72 The George Wright FORUM the same. In the laboratory, science because he had better genes; good abstracts out the regularly recurring genetic luck, should we say? Maybe he components to attain predictive con- was just lucky when the old one stum- trol. On the farm, in agricultural fields, bled in the den hole. Maybe the oak science is applied to ensure (so we got hit because it was a little taller than hope, at least) the farmer a predictable the others. Or maybe not, since there harvest. But in the park, “out in the is another one that is taller still. Maybe field” (as we say), nature remains it was just unlucky; but lucky for the unique and particular, wild. What osprey.Parks are proof that nature ele- happens there is always something of a vates law into history, natural history; surprise, as whether it will rain before that life, as it persists in the midst of its the picnic is over, or the way the perpetual perishing, is always an ground squirrel evades the coyote, or adventure. just when the last of the aspen leaves Wildness requires this creative will be gone. mixing of the stable and the sponta- The seasons come and go and aver- neous or, technically put, the idio- age out. The conflict and resolution is graphic and the nomothetic. Parks statistically regular, we may say; over give us direct experience with both the years about one-third of the elk these dimensions of nature. Wild will not survive the winter. But this is refers to nature outside human con- rutting season now, and did you see trol. Within that domain, the reference that fight last night, when the new bull continues to nature outside simple took over the harem? I wonder if the lawlike patterns. The park managers old bull had already bred the cows. do not control these events; neither Probably not, it is still early in the rut. are they completely controlled natu- I’ll bet that next year the calves will be rally. A “wild” place needs life on its his. own, each life defending its own self, Yes, acorns make oaks, and oaks its own kind, with order enough for breed in kind. And that old giant must the support of life, but also turbulence have made a million acorns. What a and ferment enough to make each life pity that a bolt of lightning destroyed autonomous and particular. it last summer; it must have been a dry Many processes may be determi- storm, because the old oak burned nate, but there will be the intersection badly—the bark is off all around the of causally unrelated lines, producing trunk. But the fire didn’t spread far. novelty and unpredicted events. That osprey’s nest over there, not Individual events rattle around in the forty yards away, doesn’t seem to have statistics. Stability is always a dynamic been disturbed at all. stability that leads to innovative If we wish to be philosophical change. The statistical trends develop about this: There are natural possibil- into ongoing stories. Recent science ities in excess of what actually comes accentuates genuine contingency, to pass, and the possible event that openness mixed with determinate does happen can be selected by laws. The result, on landscape scales, chance or by animal choice or by some is idiographic places, beyond lawlike intermediate, partial autonomy for regularity. Yellowstone is not celebrat- which we hardly yet have an adequate ed as a place where the laws of gravity model. Maybe the new bull took over are obeyed without exception or

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 73 because meiosis, mitosis, and photo- and we cultural animals know we are synthesis take place predictably there, momentary “stand outs” in the world. as they do everywhere else. We switch systems, from culture to Yellowstone is celebrated because it is nature. But then in dialectic we search like no place else on Earth, no place for nested hierarchy, culture in nature, else in the universe. the nature in culture. Everything sur- Parks give us nature with a proper vives only with adapted fit—so the name, nature in its uniqueness. Yes, biologists insist. But the park visitor the waterfall will be reliably there has a puzzling “fitness problem” (so to again this year; but that waterfall is speak): how to fit one’s civilized being especially good in June when the to this wild nature. Not only does the primroses are flowering, tucked in park visitor witness the dialectic of those rocks on the far side. An early conflict and resolution in nature, the settler named Copeland loved these park per se has dialectical value. The falls, and they are named for him. I park puts cultured humans in have been here half a dozen times; the encounter with spontaneous wild first time was with Daddy before he nature. That, too, requires of the visi- died. Parks locate us with embodied tor conflict and resolution: How am I presence, mixing our own personal over against this wild nature? How am stories with these unique places. I in harmony with these elemental sources? Parks, we promised, confront Nature and Culture us with the vital question of human It is difficult to visit a large national identity. park and not have a strong sense of Half of the answer lies in life sup- “externality,” of my subject self being port, culture superimposed on nature. here, encountering an objective world Culture remains tethered to the out there. Yes,the trees were not green biosystem and the options within built until I arrived, nor will they be after I environments, however expanded, am gone. But yes, more certainly,those provide no release from nature. An trees were there (and photosynthesiz- ecology always lies in the background ing) before I came and will continue to of culture, natural givens that support do so after I am gone. It is difficult to everything else. Some sort of inclusive be in a large modern city and not have environmental fitness is required of a strong sense of “internality,” of even the most advanced culture. myself emplaced in a world that Whatever their options, however their humans have built—surrounded by environments are rebuilt, humans artifacts, not here before humans remain residents in ecosystems. This came, and which would not long sur- is a truth for rural and urban people, vive, were we gone. Visiting parks, one but what better place to learn it than in goes “outside.” One senses how much parks, where we turn aside from our in the world was put in place without labors and take this wider, more eco- any human activity. In that sense, logical perspective? When we cross parks are the most “outlandish” of our the park boundary, we cross over from recreational opportunities, or we the cultured environment to baseline could even say our most “outstand- nature, to the natural history on which ing” opportunity. There the world human life is always founded. “stands out,” over against us, different; The second half of the answer

74 The George Wright FORUM seems to require a human discontinu- engineered, financed jets and the ways ity with spontaneous wild nature. geese fly with their genetically con- Hiking back from the waterfall, I did structed, metabolically powered spot an ouzel, admiring her skill dip- wings. Most of their information is ping in and out of the cold water and genetically coded and transmitted. So also, beside the stream, a candy wrap- much of what I am is by acquired per, which I packed out. The ouzel is information, culturally transmitted. natural; the wrapper is an artifact and Figuring this out is all the more force- doesn’t belong here. But then my tent ful a demand because I am building is artifact, too, and my cooking pots, those Boeings within a hundred miles and do I belong here? The critical dis- of old-growth forest that I as an envi- tinguishing factor is the deliberated ronmentalist am concerned about sav- modification of nature that separates ing. humans in their cultures from wild Especially our moral life does not nature. seem to get any authorizing in nature. Expanding such examples into a Be just. Be charitable. Save the spotted metaphor, the whole of civilization is owls, even if loggers lose their jobs— producing artifacts in contrast to the but is this either just or charitable? products of wild spontaneous nature. Also, those loggers cut the timbers for “Man is by nature a political animal” my suburban home—and was I not (Aristotle, Politics, I: 2.1253a). People just thinking that humans by nature are animals who build themselves a build their cities? One moment I seem polis,a city. “Man is the animal for part of nature and the next I seem whom it is natural to be artificial” apart from it. This question doesn’t (Garvin 1953: 378). Homo sapiens is bother me in town, but in the park I “the natural alien” (Evernden 1993). cannot escape it. And maybe I should The really natural thing for humans to bother about this question in town, do is not to go natural but to build a when I return, because I do want a cul- culture differentiating (alienating) our- ture in harmony with the nature from selves from nature. which it has also made exodus. Wild animals do not form cumula- tive, transmissible cultures. The deter- Nature and Spirit minants of animal and plant activity The park is demanding a dialogue are never anthropological, political, between nature and spirit. Parks economic, technological, scientific, refresh our contact with life animated philosophical, ethical, or religious. and rising up from the ground. That is Any transmissible culture, and espe- the perennial “giving birth” at the ety- cially a high-technology culture, does mological root of the word nature (in need to be discriminated from nature. our word native, also in the cognate The workday week, I sit in an engi- pregnant). Parks preserve opportunity neering office for Boeing, behind a for people to reconnect with this ani- computer. Boeings fly, as wild geese mating earth. Biologists, especially fly, using the laws of aerodynamics. field biologists such as the park natu- The flight of wild geese is impressive. ralists, are never too comfortable with But, thinking it over by the campfire, I the phenomenon of life viewed reduc- need insight into the differences tively as nothing but matter in motion. between the ways humans fly in their There is vitality, animation (recalling

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 75 the Latin anima: breath, spirit). this is in parks. This spiritedness is evident in the Roger DiSilvestro finds something animals. Animals hunt and howl, find radically novel about humans setting shelter, seek out their habitats and aside their wildland parks: mates, care for their young, flee from Territorial boundaries are ancient; threats, grow hungry, thirsty, hot, they are artifacts dating from a pri- tired, excited, sleepy. Our gaze is mordial world. They are, in essence, established for the returned by an animal that itself has a exploitation of the earth.... Only in concerned outlook. We enjoy organic the past century has humanity form in spontaneous locomotion, on begun to set the protection of wild- the loose. There is a never-ceasing lands as a broad social goal, cre- hunt through the environment for ating national parks, national forests, wildlife refuges, even pro- food, an ever-alert hiding from preda- tected wilderness areas. This is tors. Human emotions are stimulated something truly new under the by animal bodily motions and drawn sun, and every protected wild through these into animal emotions, place is a monument to humani- invited to empathize with “somebody ty’s uniqueness. The greatest qual- itative difference between us and there” behind the fur and feathers. nonhuman animals is not that we Television wildlife programs, art, and can change and modify our envi- photography are hardly substitutes for ronment. Practically every living the real thing. The autonomy and sur- creature does that.... But we are prise, the spirit is gone. the first living things, as far as we know, to make a choice about the But the most challenging spirited- extent to which we will apply our ness here is right behind my own eyes, abilities to influence the environ- my subjective self confronting this ment. We not only can do, but we world from which I have evolved. I can choose not to do. Thus, what must figure out how and why I belong is unique about the boundaries we place around parks and other here; and now it seems that, self that I sanctuaries is that these bound- am, with my inwardness, maybe more aries are created to protect a intense than that in the animals, I am region from our own actions.... No also some kind of overseer, looking out longer can we think of ourselves and maybe further out than the ani- as masters of the natural world. Rather, we are partners with it mals. Humans are cognate with the (DiSilvestro 1993: xiv–xv). humus, made of dust, yet unique in their capacity to view the world they So the park experience, though it inhabit. They rise up from the earth starts recreational, culminates with and look over their world (Greek: this re-creating, deepening experience anthropos,to rise up, look up). of the human spirit, at once setting Animals have the capacity to see only ourselves apart from the park, posting from their niche; humans can take a these unprecedented territorial view from no niche; they can look over boundaries where we resolve to let life the whole. Skeptics and relativists may be in its spontaneous naturalness, and say that humans just see from another in so doing become what we uniquely niche; and certainly when humans are: Homo sapiens, the wise species, appraise soil or timber as resources, knowing ourselves (if we may say so) they see from within their niche. But as “spectacular” (outstanding over- humans can do more, and the proof of seers) in this spectacular world we

76 The George Wright FORUM inhabit. We are free in this world, free creation. In that sense, parks are out- to celebrate it, and glad to be embod- standing opportunities to keep life ied and resident in this wonder-full wonderful.

References DiSilvestro, R. L. 1993. Reclaiming the Last Wild Places: A New Agenda for Biodiversity. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Evernden, N. 1993. The Natural Alien: Humankind and Environment.Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Garvin, L. 1953. A Modern Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin.

Holmes Rolston III, Department of Philosophy,Colorado State University,Fort Collins, Colorado 80523; [email protected] 1

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 77 Guy S. Swinnerton Susan Buggey

Protected Landscapes in Canada: Current Practice and Future Significance anada’s network of protected areas encompasses the complete spec- trum of protected area management categories recognized by the IUCN. Although category V areas, protected landscapes/seascapes, comprise nearly 15% of Canada’s protected areas as recorded in the Cofficial 1997 United Nations List, this designation and approach to protected area management is not widely known or its relevance fully recognized by many of the country’s protected area agencies or Canadians in general. The article reviews the status of category V areas in Canada by providing a national overview that illustrates the diversity of designations included within category V. Notwithstanding some inconsistency in the use of category V in Canada, there is a growing appreciation of the significance of the protected landscape/seascape approach as evidenced through the adoption of bioregional conservation landscape models that involve connected networks and conservation stewardship by local people within working landscapes. In addition, there is increasing recognition of the interdependence of nature and human activity, and specifically the similarities that are found in the management approaches for protected landscapes/seascapes and cultural landscapes. Canada’s network of protected expansion of Canada’s protected area, areas originated with the establish- less than 10% of the country is cur- ment of Banff National Park in 1885. rently protected (see Boyd 2002; Since then, a complex array of protect- Dearden and Rollins 2002). Second, ed areas has evolved that reflects the progress towards completing a repre- involvement of federal government sentative system of protected areas agencies and territorial, provincial, varies considerably between the and regional levels of government. respective provinces and territories. These commitments have been aug- Third, for the greater part of the histo- mented by more limited participation ry of protected areas in Canada, the by local levels of government but a prevailing approach has focused on growing involvement by non-govern- the protection of pristine environmental organizations (see Dearden ments, wilderness, and wildlife. and Rollins 2002; Turner, Wiken, and Canada’s continuing commitment to Lopoukhine 1999). the protection of its biodiversity and A number of observations can be ecosystems reflects this perspective made about Canada’s protected areas and together with the emphasis on that are relevant to the role of category public lands shows many similarities V areas. First, despite considerable to the national park tradition of the progress during the 1990s in the United States. A fourth characteristic, 78 The George Wright FORUM and one which is also similar to the vides evidence of this broadening situation that has existed in the United approach in Canada (see Munro and States, is the dilemma demonstrated Willison 1998). However, Searle’s by national and provincial park agen- (2000) subsequent observation that cies in dealing with local people and Adrian Phillips’ presentation on work- their imprint on the landscape within ing landscapes and protected areas at protected areas (see Allen 1993; the conference was an “intriguing Swinnerton 1999). Finally, there is a idea” provides a cogent reminder of recent growing recognition of the need the relative lack of awareness of the to complement the more traditional category V concept in Canada. More approaches to protected area designa- recently, the 2001 Annual General tion and management with what Meeting and Workshop of the Beresford and Phillips (2000) have Canadian Council on Ecological referred to as “a new paradigm for Areas focused its attention on the protected areas” (see Dearden and IUCN classification of terrestrial and Rollins 2002; Swinnerton 2001). marine protected areas within Canada, Illustrative of this new paradigm are and specifically on the application of many of the distinguishing character- category V protected landscapes/ istics of the IUCN protected area man- seascapes and category VI managed agement category V, the protected resource protected areas. landscape/seascape. Protected landscapes are manifes- Protected Landscapes within tations of the symbiotic relationship Canada’s Protected Area between natural and cultural heritage System: A National Overview (see Mitchell and Buggey 2000). In As a result of the diversity of agen- these areas, biodiversity protection cies and functions that protected areas coincides with sustaining and enhanc- serve in Canada, it is not surprising ing the social and economic stability of that consistent and comparable infor- an area and the quality of life of its res- mation on Canada’s protected areas is idents. As such, category V areas are difficult to obtain. Despite this limita- lived-in landscapes that demonstrate tion, a number of sources do provide the on-going interaction between peo- data on Canada’s protected areas in ple and their means of livelihood that terms of the six IUCN protected area is primarily dependent on the basic management categories. The Canad- resources (natural and cultural) of the ian Council on Ecological Areas spon- area. The protected landscape con- sors the Canadian Conservation Areas cept refers not only to a product but Database (CCAD) that provides the also to a landscape management most comprehensive record of pro- process that accommodates and tected areas in Canada (see Turner, guides change. Wiken, and Lopoukhine 1999). More “Linking Protected Areas with limited in scope is the Parks and Working Landscapes Conserving Protected Areas Land Base Inventory Biodiversity” was the theme of the that is compiled by the former Third Science and Management of Federal–Provincial Parks Council Protected Areas Association (now the Canadian Parks Council). To (SAMPA) Conference, that was held varying degrees, these organizations, in Calgary, Alberta in 1997, and pro- as well as individual park and protect-

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 79 ed area agencies, provide the basic the largest number of areas occurs in data that are compiled in the United Ontario (59.5%), whereas Québec Nations List of Protected Areas and accounts for a very substantial amount the World Conservation Monitoring of the total area recorded as category V Centre’s (WCMC) Protected Area in Canada (83.1%). The large number Database. of sites recorded for Ontario is largely The following overview of category the result of considering conservation V areas in Canada is based on infor- authority areas as protected land- mation taken from the WCMC scapes. In the case of Québec, the Protected Area Database for 1997. large area recorded as category V is Table 1 illustrates the relative impor- primarily due to wildlife management tance of category V areas within areas and wildlife sanctuaries being Canada’s total protected area network. included under this category. An indi-

Table 1. Canada’s protected areas network. IUCN category Number of sites % Area (km2) % Ia/1b 630 19.5 32,964 3.5 II 1,046 32.5 400,233 41.9 III 70 2.2 217 <0.1 IV 563 17.5 398,592 41.8 V 772 23.9 93,056 9.8 VI 143 4.4 28,041 2.9 Total 3,224 100.0 953,103 99.9 Source: WCMC Protected Area Database (1997) Protected areas in Canada record- cation of the diversity of different pro- ed as category V protected land- tected area designations within scapes/seascapes account for less than Canada that are recorded as category one-quarter of the total number of V is provided in Table 2.Based on the protected areas in the country and less WCMC database, the 772 individual than 10% in terms of the total area sites have been assigned to the desig- protected. By comparison, the 1997 nations used by the respective agen- United Nations List, which is restrict- cies and authorities. Conservation ed to protected areas of at least 1,000 authority areas account for the largest ha, records 127 category V protected number of sites (42.2%), followed by areas for Canada with a total area of regional district parks (11.3%), 9,217 km2. This represents 14.8% of wildlife management areas (8.8%), and the 861 protected areas and 9.7% of recreation sites (8.5%). In terms of the the 949,005 km2 that comprise the actual area within respective designa- total protected area of Canada (IUCN tions, wildlife sanctuaries comprise by 1998). far the largest area (82.5% of the total) If the 1997 WCMC category V data followed by provincial parks (5.5%) are broken down on the basis of and wildlife management areas provincial and territorial distribution, (4.9%).

80 The George Wright FORUM Table 2. Category V areas in Canada and their protected area designations. Designation/Description Number of areas Agreement Forest 28 Canadian Heritage River 3 Conservation Area 64 Conservation Authority 326 Crown Reserve 1 Ecological Reserve 4 Game Preserve 1 Heritage Area 1 Heritage River 1 National Capital Commission Area 13 National Historic Park 3 National Park 1 National Wildlife Area 1 Natural Area 1 Nature Park 27 Nature Reserve 1 Provincial Historic Site 1 Provincial Park 43 Recreation Area 2 Recreation Site 66 Regional District Park 87 Wilderness Area 1 Wildlife Area 1 Wildlife Management Area 68 Wildlife Protection Area 1 Wildlife Sanctuary 26 Total 772 Source: WCMC Database 1997 Although the numerical data pre- least because individual agencies sented in Table 1 and 2 provide an include different protected area desig- overview of the relative importance nations under category V. For exam- and composition of category V areas ple, although Québec accounts for in Canada, caution should be exer- 83.1% of the total area of category V cised in assigning too much signifi- protected lands in Canada, a more cance to specific figures. Some incon- recent analysis of the province’s pro- sistency and discrepancies exist, not tected areas system indicated that

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 81 there were no designations used with- adequate consideration for the protec- in the province that currently equate tion of biodiversity is not the intent. to category V (Québec Ministry of the Environment 2000). Examples of On-going research by Swinnerton Category V Protected Areas (2001) involving field verification of Many of the protected areas across selected category V sites across Canada that are recognized as catego- Canada and discussions with relevant ry V on the CCAD and WCMC lists agency personnel suggests that more provide very good working examples careful attention needs to be given to of the different circumstances within identifying protected areas as category which the category V approach to pro- V. Such an undertaking will inevitably tected area management is appropriate enhance the accuracy and credibility (Swinnerton 2001). of the resultant data that are assem- The Cooking Lake–Blackfoot bled, but more importantly, the Grazing, Wildlife and Provincial process should result in a clearer artic- Recreation Area in Alberta is a 97-km2 ulation of the relevance of the category area that is managed in an integrated V to protected areas in Canada. A sub- fashion to accommodate cattle graz- stantial number of the areas that are ing, wildlife management, trapping, currently recorded under category V natural gas extraction, and a wide would likely be assigned to a more range of year-round recreation pur- appropriate IUCN protected area suits (Figure 1). Limited-season recre- management category or in some ational hunting and year-round instances deleted from the list where Aboriginal hunting also occurs. Cattle

Figure 1. One of the improved meadows for cattle grazing in the Cooking Lake–Blackfoot Grazing, Wildlife and Provincial Recreation Area. This picture was taken soon after seed- ing of the meadows. Photo by Guy S. Swinnerton. 82 The George Wright FORUM grazing within the area demonstrates Through this approach, it is intended the interdependence between the pro- to protect the significant natural and tected area and the adjacent agricul- cultural resources of the area, safe- tural landscape. One of the key fea- guard the working rural landscape tures of this category V area is the found within the greenbelt, and pro- importance of the multi-stakeholder vide opportunities for outdoor recre- process that was followed in the ation. preparation of the management plan Hecla/Grindstone Provincial Park and its subsequent successful imple- is located on Lake Winnipeg in mentation. Manitoba. Approximately 2% (2,200 A very different type of category V ha) of the park is assigned to a heritage area is represented by the National land use category. This designation Capital (Ottawa) Greenbelt. This area applies to sites that are of significance comprises 20,000 ha of green space to Icelandic and Aboriginal cultures. and rural landscape that surrounds The Icelandic village of Hecla is expe- Canada’s capital to the south of the riencing a period of revitalization with Ottawa River (Figure 2). The green- descendents of the original Icelandic belt is publicly owned, and a master settlers returning to the village to live. plan outlines a commitment to main- An advisory committee comprising taining the natural environment and former landowners and provincial supporting a vibrant rural community. parks staff has established guidelines In practice, this commitment requires to ensure that any development fits in partnerships between the National with the essential character of the orig- Capital Commission, other levels and inal Icelandic fishing village. The har- departments of government, local bor at Hecla Village (Figure 3) contin- communities, and tenant farmers. ues to support commercial fishing,

Figure 2. Productive agricultural land and woodland within the National Capital Greenbelt. Photo by Guy S. Swinnerton. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 83 Figure 3. The harbor at Hecla on Lake Winnipeg with the Icelandic Village in the background. Photo by Guy S. Swinnerton. and bed-and-breakfast accommoda- ewan, Mount Arrowsmith in British tion has been established in a number Columbia, Charlevoix in Québec, of homes. Riding Mountain in Manitoba, and the Niagara Escarpment in Ontario. Potential for Expanding Relevance of the category V concept the Application of the to coastal and marine protected areas Category V Concept should not be dismissed either. The The potential exists for justifiably Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park adding a variety of areas to the catego- and the proposed Lake Superior ry V list. The Great Sand Hills in Marine Conservation Areas are just Saskatchewan provide just one exam- two examples. ple. This area includes the largest There is also evidence that the cat- native prairie remaining in the egory V concept will become increas- province and the current land use plan ingly relevant if completion of repre- provides for both habitat protection sentative protected area systems and and sustainable use within the work- protection of their associated biodi- ing landscape. Other examples versity are to be achieved. In Alberta include appropriate sections of a num- for example, the inclusion of a “her- ber of the rivers in the Canadian itage rangeland” category within the Heritage Rivers System such as the proposed new Parks and Protected Grand, the Humber, and the Thames Areas Act has been necessary in order in Ontario. The buffer zones of some to provide the legislative basis for proof Canada’s biosphere reserves exhib- tecting representative areas of the it many of the characteristics and plan- province’s Grassland Natural Region ning and management approaches that (see Swinnerton 1999). are associated with category V areas Another situation where the cate- (see Swinnerton 1999). Examples gory V approach is relevant to biodi- include Redberry Lake in Saskatch- versity protection involves establish- 84 The George Wright FORUM ing connecting corridors between core itage. The recent emergence of pro- protected areas. The Algonquin– tected landscapes/seascapes in the Adirondack corridor along the natural heritage protection movement, Frontenac Axis and the Thousand and of cultural landscapes in the his- Islands–Frontenac Arch Biosphere toric preservation movement, has built Reserve will require the continuation awareness of mutual interest: places of small-scale agriculture and wood- where human interaction with the land management together with environment over time has shaped the appropriate forms of rural-based sus- distinctive character of the landscape. tainable tourism. This approach will The sphere of protection differs for reflect many of the underlying princi- protected landscapes/seascapes and ples of protected landscapes. The cultural landscapes: protected land- applicability of the biosphere reserve scapes/seascapes focus primarily on a concept and the category V approach harmonious relationship between to protecting the landscape of the human activity and nature, biological Beaver Hills–Cooking Lake Moraine diversity, and ecosystem integrity, Area in Alberta has been suggested while cultural landscapes emphasize a (Burak and Swinnerton 1998). At the societal interaction with nature, con- present time, a “Beaver Hills Sustain- tinuing historical processes, and cul- able Community Initiative” is being tural meaning. Nonetheless, protected actively pursued in order to protect landscapes/seascapes and cultural this disjunct portion of the Dry landscapes often have much in com- Mixedwood Subregion of the Boreal mon, particularly the involvement of Forest Natural Region of Alberta while local people and communities in safe- supporting a high quality of life for guarding social and cultural continu- local residents and adjacent communi- ity related to place. ties. The initiative involves Parks Like protected landscapes/sea- Canada, provincial agencies, munici- scapes, cultural landscapes center on palities, industry, non-government human interrelationships with the nat- organizations, and landowners. ural environment, “a diversity of man- Finally, there are numerous opportu- ifestations of the interaction between nities in Canada to demonstrate the humankind and its natural environ- relationship between the category V ment,” to use UNESCO’s language in concept and cultural landscapes. the World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines. Cultural Cultural Landscapes landscapes often encompass evolved and Protected techniques of sustainable land use, Landscapes/Seascapes which have been developed in Conventionally, natural and cultur- response to the characteristics and al heritage have been widely separated limitations of the natural environment in North American society. Rooted in and which support biological diversi- distinct academic spheres of the sci- ty; many embody a specific spiritual ences and the arts, the divide has been relation to nature. Many protected reinforced by many program adminis- landscapes/seascapes are character- trative structures. This disjunction has ized by elements similar to those iden- long obscured the common ground tifying evolved, continuing cultural shared by natural and cultural her- landscapes: they “exhibit significant

Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 85 material evidence of ... evolution over Britain’s strategy for the defence of the time,” they “retain an active social role Canadas, the canal joined the water- in contemporary society closely asso- sheds of two major river systems and ciated with the traditional way of life,” opened the Rideau corridor to settle- and “the evolutionary process is still ment and economic development. It in progress.” In other protected land- utilizes a series of excavated channels, scapes/seascapes, the material evi- masonry locks, dams, weirs, and dence is much more limited, likening embankments to link existing natural these areas more closely to associative wetlands into a through waterway. cultural landscapes, where “powerful Extensive drowned lands resulted religious, artistic or cultural associa- from the slack water system that engi- tions of the natural element rather than neers used to raise shallow waters to material cultural evidence” define the navigable levels and to regulate water essential character (UNESCO 1999, flow. While this activity significantly cl. 37–39; Mitchell and Buggey 2000). altered the regional ecosystem, it also The cultural processes of these land- created new wetlands, including new scapes, whether hunting and gather- or substantially enlarged lakes (Parks ing, agricultural, or maritime, are Canada 2000). Along the corridor, steeped in knowledge and under- agricultural settlements, strategically standing of the natural environment. sited villages, mills located to capital- They have evolved over centuries in ize on water power resources, and field response to its opportunities and con- and circulation patterns that shaped straints as well as a society’s experi- the 19th-century rural landscape all ences. Scenic quality, diverse habitats, have evolved economically, socially, traditional land use patterns, and local and technologically in response to the customs, livelihoods, and beliefs, natural and cultural environment over which are all significant to protected nearly two centuries. “Cottage coun- landscapes/seascapes, are also fre- try” emerged in response to the quent characteristics of cultural land- region’s scenic and recreational attrac- scapes. Management approaches for tions. Now an active recreational protected landscapes/seascapes and waterway owned and operated by cultural landscapes may have many Parks Canada, the canal remains fully similarities. operational along its original course The Rideau Canal, connecting and is integrated through federal and Ottawa, Canada’s capital, and municipal planning processes with its Kingston, on Lake Ontario, is an 26 adjacent heritage communities. excellent example of the common Woodlands, wetlands, and islands of ground between protected landscapes the corridor ecosystem, comprising a and cultural landscapes. Designated as wide range of habitats for flora and both a national historic site and a fauna, are valued for their historical Canadian heritage river and also listed connection as well as their ecological as a category V protected landscape, importance (Figure 4). The canal’s the waterway is the central feature of a commemorative integrity statement, 202-km evolved, continuing cultural which focuses on historical values and landscape in eastern Ontario. guides planning and management, rec- Constructed through remote wilder- ognizes a significant environmental ness between 1826 and 1832 as part of stewardship role for the canal

86 The George Wright FORUM Figure 4. Settlement pattern, wetlands, and woodlands at Burritt’s Rapids on the Rideau Canal, Ontario. Photo by Paul Couture. “because the waterway and the corri- views, oral narrative traditions, and dor’s ecosystem are inextricably the inseparability of cultural and natu- joined” (Parks Canada 2000). ral values. Many indigenous peoples Many cultural landscapes associat- identify traditional knowledge closely ed with First Nations people may also tied to place at the heart of their cul- qualify equally as category V protect- tural identity. This focus recognizes ed landscapes/seascapes, although few that many people conceive landscape have been listed as such to date. Even fundamentally in spiritual rather than their identification as cultural heritage material terms, and that they regard has been recent. The 1990s saw a sig- the land as sacred and see themselves nificant shift in the recognition of val- as an integral part of this holistic and ues in places associated with the histo- living landscape, whose spirits, ry of Aboriginal peoples from a focus resources, and accommodation of on archeological resources and materi- them they respect (Buggey 1999). The al culture analysis, to ethno-archeolo- approach shares considerable ground gy, and then to cultural landscapes. with the principles and guidelines The new direction underlines the with regard to indigenous and tradi- involvement of local people, particu- tional peoples laid out in the World larly elders, and their long and inti- Commission on Protected Area’s mate connection with the land. A core series on best practices for protected principle accords respect and weight areas (Beltrán 2000). in decision-making to traditional The Fall Caribou Crossing knowledge related to the land, includ- National Historic Site on the lower ing traditional ecological knowledge, Kazan River (Harvaqtuuq) in Nunavut that incorporates Aboriginal world is a cultural landscape which com- Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 87 memorates the importance of the fall the Inuit have frequented this river caribou hunt to the inland Inuit and to north of the treeline, where spring and their survival through the long, harsh fall caribou hunts shaped their season- winter in the eastern Arctic. It is “an al rounds. Downwind of where the example of the cultural meaning of the caribou crossed the river, the Inuit arctic landscape to the Inuit whose established camps to await the ani- application and adaptation of their mals’ crossing. Traditional beliefs and cultural knowledge allowed them to practices guided preparation and survive for centuries...” (Harvaqtuuq behavior for the hunt. Tent rings, 1997). Flowing through a series of hearths, hunting blinds, and food lakes across tundra barren lands to its caches, especially in rocky areas, speak mouth at Baker Lake (Qaman’tuaq), to the long Inuit presence. Inuksuit the Kazan lies on the migration route mark the landscape; the meaning of of the Kaminuriak caribou herd. each can be interpreted only by those Estimated at 320,000 strong, the herd who hold the traditional knowledge moves north across the river in related to it. Songs composed primari- June/July and then in August/ ly of series of place names tell their September crosses south again for the journeys (Keith 1995). winter, reportedly the “largest move- Conservation planning and presen- ment of land mammals in the world” tation undertaken for the cultural (Canadian Heritage Rivers System, landscape, which lies on Inuit-owned n.d.). The herd’s calving grounds are lands in the traditional territory of the not far away, and caribou trails criss- Harvaqtuurmiut people, have been cross the area (Figure 5). For centuries designed to safeguard the integrity of

Figure 5. Caribou trails near Piqqiq, the fall hunting camp on the Kazan River, Nunavut. Photo by Archaeological Services Branch, Parks Canada. 88 The George Wright FORUM the traditional relationship of the proper conduct in visitation, opera- inland Inuit to the fall caribou crossing tion, protection, and interpretation at place. In the absence of legal protec- the site (Harvaqtuuq 1997). The tion, the Harvaqtuuq Historic Site Kazan is also a designated Canadian Committee of Baker Lake and Parks heritage river, in part to help in pre- Canada developed a conservation and serving the traditional Inuit way of life presentation report with indicators for and in part for its outstanding wilder- measuring the “health” of the site. Its ness recreation values. implementation plan addresses low- Sahyoue/Edacho in the Northwest impact land use, future land use poli- Territories are sacred sites of the cy, developments affecting water qual- Sahtu Dene people, which they have ity and water levels of the river, and the used since time immemorial. The two health of the caribou herd, as well as peninsulas comprise nearly 6,000 km2 recording Inuktitut place names, oral known as Grizzly Bear Mountain and traditions, and archeological sites into Scented Grass Hills at the western end a GIS. Items in the implementation of Great Bear Lake. Open boreal forest plan are linked with various Nunavut leading up from beach ridges (Figure planning and resource management 6) provides woodland caribou winter authorities. A community guardian habitat. Moose, caribou, beaver, monitoring program relies on member marten, ducks, fish, and other observations of significant changes, resources have sustained Sahtu Dene threats, or looting. Traditional Inuit traditional land uses and lifestyles values and beliefs give direction for based on hunting, trapping, fishing,

Figure 6. The beach at Sahyoue/Edacho, Northwest Territories. Photo by John McCormick. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 89 camping, gathering medicinal plants, safeguards and management consis- and knowing the land. While the phys- tent with its ecological and cultural ical resources of the peninsulas are values. largely natural, cultural values trans- As these case studies illustrate, cul- form these places from natural to asso- tural landscapes often share common ciative cultural landscapes. ground with protected landscapes/ The fundamental relationship of seascapes, where human interaction the Sahtu Dene with Sahyoue/Edacho with the natural environment has is expressed in the continuing cultural resulted over time in a distinctive land- meaning, ecological integrity, and bio- scape. In evolved, continuing cultural logical diversity of the landscape. landscapes such as the Rideau Canal While Western science has long corridor, the ecosystem is an integral viewed culture and nature as separate part of the historic canal landscape, spheres, Aboriginal world views see a from construction to settlement to holistic universe in which the cosmo- recreation. In Aboriginal cultural logical, geographic, ecological, cultur- landscapes, biological diversity and al, and spiritual are intimately inter- ecosystem integrity are intimately twined. Ancient narratives of the bound up with cosmological, social, Sahtu Dene related to Sahyoue/ cultural, and spiritual relationships of Edacho tell of giant animals whose the people long associated with the bodies comprise specific features of land. Further explorations of this the landscape as well as ancestral spir- emerging common ground in natural it beings and shamans whose heroic and cultural heritage as represented by actions made the earth safer and sus- protected landscapes/seascapes and taining for those who continue to cultural landscapes can continue to practise behavior respectful of the contribute to better understanding of spirits. Other stories guide them in their values, resources, and effective land use and relations with animals; protection mechanisms. still others warn of dangers and direct behavior. Through shapes, names, Conclusion spirits, and behavior, places act as This article has demonstrated the mnemonic devices for recalling the relevance and applicability of IUCN narratives that instruct the people protected area management category from generation to generation in V, protected landscapes/seacapes, to knowing and living with this complex Canada’s protected areas network and landscape. Protection of these sacred heritage conservation in general. The sites and the associated telling of the perspective confirms that protected stories are therefore essential to the landscapes should no longer be con- continuity of Sahtu Dene culture and sidered solely as a Eurocentric con- livelihood (Hanks 1996). While desig- cept. Consequently, an on-going task nation as a national historic site (1996) is to convince protected area agencies carries no legal protection, interim across Canada and Canadians in gen- land withdrawal in accordance with eral of this reality. the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy (2001) provides such [Author’s note: The 2003 United protection while stakeholders apply its Nations List of protected areas reveals framework to work towards long-term that the 765 category V sites in

90 The George Wright FORUM Canada account for 16.9% of the total ha represents 1.2% of the country’s number of sites assigned to one of the protected area assigned to a specific six IUCN management categories, and IUCN category (Chape et al. 2003).] that their combined area of 1,191,307

References Allen, B. 1993. Management strategies for protected landscapes. In Partners in Stewardship: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Research and Resource Management in Parks and on Public Lands. W.E. Brown and S.D. Veirs, Jr., eds. Hancock, Mich.: The George Wright Society, 269–278. Beltrán, J., ed. 2000. Indigenous and Traditional Peoples and Protected Areas: Principles, Guidelines and Case Studies.World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series no. 4. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN. Boyd, D.R. 2002. Wild by Law: A Report Card on Laws Governing Canada’s Parks and Protected Areas, and a Blueprint for Making These Laws More Effective. Victoria, B.C.: Faculty of Law and School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria. Buggey, S. 1999. An Approach to Aboriginal Cultural Landscapes. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Burak, P., and G.S. Swinnerton. 1998. An exploratory application of the biosphere reserve concept in the Aspen Parkland of Alberta. In Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas. N.W.P Munro and J.H.M. Willison, eds. Wolfville, N.S.: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, 577–583. Canadian Heritage Rivers System. N.d. Kazan River. On-line at www.chrs.ca/Rivers/Kazan/ Kazan_e.htm. Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P.Fox, and M. Spalding, comps. 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN and UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Dearden, P., and R. Rollins, eds. 2002. Parks and Protected Areas in Canada: Planning and Management. 2nd ed. Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press. Hanks, C. 1996. Narrative and Landscape: Grizzly Bear Mountain and Scented Grass Hills as Repositories of Sahtu Dene Culture. Ottawa: Parks Canada, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, 1996–61. Harvaqtuuq Historic Site Committee and Parks Canada. 1997. Fall Caribou Crossing National Historic Site, Conservation and Presentation Report, Including Commemorative Integrity Statement. Baker Lake, Nunavut, and Ottawa: Harvaqtuuq Historic Site Committee and Parks Canada. IUCN. 1998. 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. Cambridge, U.K.: IUCN. Keith, D, 1995. The Fall Caribou Crossing Hunt, Kazan River, Northwest Territories. Ottawa: Parks Canada, Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, 1995–28. Mitchell, N., and S. Buggey. 2000. Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes: taking advan- tage of diverse approaches. The George Wright Forum 17:1, 35–46. Munro, N.W.P., and J.H.M. Willison, eds. 1998. Linking Protected Areas with Working Landscapes Conserving Biodiversity: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Science and the Management of Protected Areas.Wolfville, N.S.: Science and Management of Protected Areas Association. Parks Canada. 2000. Rideau Canal and Merrickville Blockhouse National Historic Sites of Canada, Commemorative Integrity Statement. Ottawa: Parks Canada. Québec Ministry of the Environment. 2000. Government Guidelines with a View to Adopting a Québec Strategy: Protected Areas in Québec—A Pledge for the Future. Québec: Québec Ministry of the Environment. Searle, R. 2000. Phantom Parks: The Struggle to Save Canada’s National Parks.Toronto: Key Porter Books. Swinnerton, G.S. 1999. Recreation and conservation: Issues and prospects. In Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-first Century. E.L. Jackson and T.L. Burton, eds. State College, Penna.: Venture Publishing, 199–231. Volume 21 • Number 2 2004 91 ———. 2001. Protected landscapes in Canada: an examination of the use of IUCN management category V. Poster session presented at the George Wright Society biennial conference, Denver, Colorado. Turner, A.M., E.B. Wiken, and N. Lopoukhine. 1999. Reporting and indicators for protected areas and ecosystems: a national perspective. The George Wright Forum 16:2, 37–51. UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization]. 1999. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.Paris: UNESCO.

Guy S. Swinnerton,Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, Van Vliet Centre, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H9, Canada; [email protected] Susan Buggey, School of Landscape Architecture, Université de Montréal, C.P. 6128, succursale Centre-Ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada; [email protected] 1

92 The George Wright FORUM Submitting Materials to THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM

The Society welcomes articles that bear importantly on our objectives: promoting the application of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to policy-making, planning, manage ment, and interpretation of the resources of protected natural areas amd cultural sites around the world. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is distributed internationally; submissions should minimize provincialism, avoid academic or agency jargon and acronyms, and aim to broaden international aspects and applications. We actively seek manuscripts which represent a variety of protected area perspectives. Length and Language of Submission. Manuscripts should run no more than 3,000 words unless prior arrangements with the editor have been made. Articles are published in English; we welcome translations into English of articles that were originally prepared in another language. In such cases we can publish an abstract of the article in the original lan guage, where possible. Form of Submission. We now accept articles in two formats: in manuscript (double- spaced) accompanied by computer disk, or by e-mail. We operate on Macs, and can translate most files from their original format; please indicate the version of the software. If submitting by e-mail, use the e-mail text as a cover letter. Do not embed the document—send it as an attachment. Again, note the version of the software used to create the attachment. For all sub missions, give complete contact details (including e-mails) for each author. Citations. Citations should be given using the author-date method (preferably following the format laid out in The Chicago Manual of Style). Editorial Matters; Permissions. Generally, manuscripts that have been accepted are edit ed only for clarity, grammar, and so on. We contact authors before publishing if major revisions to content are needed. THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM is copyrighted by the Society; written permission for additional publication is required but freely given as long as the article is attrib uted as having been first published here. We do consider certain previously published articles for republication in THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM. Authors proposing such articles should ensure all needed copyright permissions are in place before submitting the article for consid eration. Illustrations Submitted in Hard-Copy. Submit original (not photocopied) line draw ings, charts, and graphs as nearly "camera-ready" as possible. If submitted in a size that exceeds THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM's page dimensions (6x9 inches), please make sure the reduction will still be legible. Color prints and slides are also acceptable; half-tones and pho tocopies are not. We particularly welcome good vertical photos for use on the cover, either in black-and-white or, preferably, in color. Please provide captions and credits and secure copy right permissions as needed, and indicate whether you wish materials to be returned. Illustrations Submitted Electronically. We accept illustrations on floppy or Zip disk, on CD-ROM, or as e-mail attachments. All graphics must be in TIFF or EPS format (notJPG, GIF, or PICT). Resolution must be at 300 dpi or higher. If in doubt, please ask for complete guidelines. Send all correspondence and submissions to: The George Wright Society, ATTN: Editor, THE GEORGE WRIGHT FORUM, P.O. Box 65, Hancock, MI 49930-0065 USA.

^ 1-906-487-9722. Fax: 1-906-487-9405. E-mail: [email protected] P. O. Box 65 GEORGE Hancock, Michigan 49930-0065 WRIGHT USA

SOCIETY www.georgewright.org

Dedicated to the Protection, Preservation, and Management of Cultural and Natural Parks and Reserves Through Research and Education