Wilderness Protected Areas: Management Guidelines for IUCN Category 1b Prepared by the IUCN Wilderness Specialist Group Editors: Sarah Casson, Vance Martin, Alan Watson, Angie Stringer, and Cyril Kormos
Authors: Sarah Casson, Vance Martin, Alan Watson, Angie Stringer, Cyril Kormos, Harvey Locke, Sonali Ghosh, Steve Carver, Tom McDonald, Sharon Shay Sloan, Ilarion Merculief, John Hendee, Chad Dawson, Susan Moore, David Newsome, Steve McCool, Roger Semler, Steven Martin, Robert Dvorak, Chris Armatas, Ralph Swain, Brad Barr, David Krause, Nicole Whittington-Evans, Lawrence S. Hamilton, Joel Holtrop, James Tricker, Peter Landres, Elizabeth Mejicano, and Toby Aykroyd
WILDERNESS SPECIALIST GROUP
IUCN (International Union for The WILD Foundation Conservation of Nature) As the heart of the global wilderness community for IUCN helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our over 40 years, the WILD Foundation protects most pressing environment and development wilderness while meeting the needs of human challenges. IUCN works on biodiversity, climate communities, working across cultures and boundaries change, energy, human livelihoods and greening the by collaborating with local peoples, organizations, the world economy by supporting scientific research, private sector, and governments to create dynamic managing field projects all over the world, and practical projects, inspiring solutions and bringing governments, NGOs, the UN and companies communications initiatives. together to develop policy, laws and best practice. IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest global WILD’s work advances a reciprocal, balanced environmental organisation, with more than 1,200 relationship between people and nature – our Nature government and NGO members and almost 11,000 Needs Half vision. Our aim is to ensure that enough volunteer experts in some 160 countries. IUCN’s work wild land and seascapes are protected and is supported by over 1,000 staff in 45 offices and interconnected (scientifically estimated to be at least hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private half of any given ecoregion) to maintain nature’s life- sectors around the world. supporting systems and the diversity of life on Earth. The vision supports human health and prosperity, and www.iucn.org secures a bountiful, beautiful legacy of resilient, wild nature. Nature Needs Half recognizes that we are part of nature, not separate from it. The “half” also suggests a planet that is respectfully shared, where the needs of all living things are considered and protected equally, for the good of all.
www.wild.org
IUCN World Commission on Protected Wilderness Specialist Group of IUCN Areas (WCPA) The Wilderness Specialist Group serves as a liaison IUCN WCPA is the world’s premier network of between IUCN WCPA and the World Wilderness protected area expertise. It is administered by IUCN’s Congress to establish linkages between the World Programme on Protected Areas and has over 1,400 Wilderness Congresses and IUCN’s World Parks members, spanning 140 countries. IUCN WCPA Congresses and World Conservation Congresses. works by helping governments and others plan The Wilderness Specialist Group was launched at the protected areas and integrate them into all sectors; by World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, in providing strategic advice to policy makers; by 2003. The objectives of the Wilderness Specialist strengthening capacity and investment in protected group include promoting research and discussion on areas; and by convening the diverse constituency of the importance and role of wilderness, helping protected area stakeholders to address challenging integrate wilderness related issues into WCPA issues. For more than 50 years, IUCN and WCPA have publications, proceedings and meetings, and been at the forefront of global action on protected providing expert referral service to the WCPA for areas. wilderness-related issues. www.iucn.org/wcpa
ii
The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN or other participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN or other participating organisations.
Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
Copyright: © 2016 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Citation: Casson, S.A., Martin V.G., Watson, A., Stringer, A., Kormos, C. (eds.) Wilderness Protected Areas: Management Guidelines for IUCN Category 1b. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN xx pp.
ISBN: XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X
Front Cover Photo: © Carlton Ward Back Cover Photo: © Corneila Doerr / Wild Wonders of Europe
Layout by: Fiona Casson
Printed by: IUCN Publications Services Available from: IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Global Protected Areas Programme Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 [email protected] www.iucn.org/publications
iii Contents
Foreword ...... vi
Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………………………… viii
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………..1 1.1 What is a 1b protected area? ...... 2 1.2 History of the IUCN 1b protected area category ...... 4 1.3 Objective of the IUCN 1b protected area management category ...... 6 1.4 Extent of 1b sites ...... 8 1.5 Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities ...... 9 1.6 Application of 1b category: Assignment and Reporting ...... 13
2. Management Principles………………………………………………………………………………14 2.1 Manage wilderness comprehensively through development of large-scale, intact wilderness protected areas and connectivity between wilderness protected areas ...... 15 2.2 Manage wilderness, and cultural sites within, to maintain highest integrity of all components of ecosystems, wildlife, and sacred and traditional cultural use sites ...... 17 2.3 Engagement between stakeholders and non-tribal government with Indigenous Peoples, Tribes and local communities in management and designation of wilderness in true partnership relations ...... 20 2.4 Manage wilderness both to preserve intrinsic wilderness values and to produce human values ...... 24 2.5 Prioritise wilderness-dependent activities and areas of minimal human recreation ...... 27 2.6 Guide wilderness management using written plans with specific area objectives and cultural norms ...... 29 2.7 Manage carrying capacities through establishing limits of acceptable change ...... 32 2.8 Focus management on threatened sites and damaging activities ...... 34 2.9 Apply only the minimum tools, regulations, or force to achieve wilderness protected area objectives ...... 36 2.10 Monitor wilderness conditions and experience opportunities to guide long-term wilderness stewardship ...... 39 2.11 Manage wilderness in relation to its adjacent lands ...... 41
3. Governance and Authority…………………………………………………………………………...45 3.1 Introduction: governance and authority in wilderness protected areas ...... 46 3.2 Governance and authority of wilderness protected areas by government ...... 48 3.3 Governance and authority by Indigenous Peoples and local communities ...... 51 3.4 Private governance of wilderness protected areas ...... 54 3.5 Shared governance and authority of wilderness protected areas ...... 56 3.6 Multilateral governance and authority of wilderness protected areas ...... 60 3.7 Variances in jurisdiction and diversity of governance and authority ...... 62
4. Current Management Issues………………………………………………………………………...65 4.1 Planning systems and management framework ...... 66
iv 4.2 Decision tools in wilderness management ...... 68 4.3 Infrastructure and technology in wilderness protected areas ...... 73 4.4 Changing demographics and relevance of wilderness ...... 75 4.5 Emerging recreation management issues ...... 79 4.6 Managing wilderness for marine wilderness values ...... 83 4.7 Management decisions about passive management, restoration and climate change intervention ...... 85 4.8 Subsistence use and relationship values of wilderness ...... 90 4.9 Managing wilderness for sacred values ...... 93 4.10 Variance ...... 96 4.11 Incorporating science into management decisions ...... 99
5. Evaluating Effectiveness of 1b Sites……………………………………………………………...104 5.1 Assessing ecological representation in 1b sites ...... 105 5.2 Assessing social and cultural justice in 1b sites ...... 108 5.3 Tools and monitoring techniques for evaluation of 1b wilderness attribute protection ...... 110
References ...... 113
v Foreword
Dear Reader,
Thank you for your interest in and commitment to wilderness conservation, protection, and management. The IUCN protected area category of wilderness allows us to understand nature on its own terms and maintain those terms while allowing (and even encouraging) humans to experience wilderness. No other category of protected area management allows for such a relationship between humans and nature. As a manager of wilderness, you are the guardian of this relationship. Remember that, while the work you do now is very important, it will be even more important in the future. It is our job to protect wilderness for future generations.
These management guidelines apply to category 1b (wilderness) within the Guidelines for Protected Areas developed by the World Commission on Protected Areas and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The Wilderness Specialist Group of the World Commission on Protected Areas is comprised of international, professional volunteers and coordinated by the WILD Foundation. These guidelines were produced and reviewed by an independent, international team of Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Peoples who are academic researchers, policymakers, and field managers. The product created and reviewed by this team are the first-ever international guidelines produced for wilderness managers. Your feedback is welcome: These guidelines will evolve, just as does the wilderness we love and manage.
There has never been a time when a unified code for management management is needed more than it is now. It is necessary to manage wilderness to protect thriving wilderness and healthy human relationships with wild nature against the threats posed by climate change and other environmental degradations. The rapidly increasing rate and scale of these negative impacts on wilderness add additional issues and complexities to wilderness management not faced by previous generations. View these challenges as prospects, not problems. Challenges bring new opportunities upon which wilderness managers and policymakers can capitalise: The negative impacts that threaten wilderness areas also create a social, political and economic imperative for wilderness protection and management, with important benefits of doing so. Healthy wilderness is a cost effective, highly functioning, natural solution that builds planetary resilience.
Wilderness decision-makers navigate a plethora of diverse issues when creating management plans. The management of wilderness areas requires addressing the ecological and cultural tenets of the site. The creation of a good management plan necessitates understanding the ecology and the people in relationship with the wilderness area and their needs, histories, and expectations.
Management plans cannot be done in isolation: They are as much of a social construct as they are the ecological objectives for a wilderness area. An effective plan is the result of a process that should include some partners, many stakeholders, and multiple professional disciplines. There
vi will be challenges. Difficulties in creating management plans generally arise only through five variables: lack of correct information, miscommunication, poor procedures, negotiations in bad faith (including politics, local or otherwise), and/or unrealistic appraisal of the financial and human resources available to do the management. Attention to these five variables is essential to the quality and effectiveness of the final management plan.
As you face the challenges, know that wilderness designation and management is beneficial to all people now and in the future, no matter their cosmovision, race, or level of economic development. Always remember that you are on the front lines of conservation, working now to secure a future for all life on earth.
Signed,
Vance G. Martin Wilderness Specialist Group Chair; President, WILD Foundation Sarah A. Casson Guidelines Manager; Peter and Patricia Gruber Fellow in Global Justice at Yale Law School Alan Watson Supervisory Research Social Scientist at Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, United States Forest Service Angie Stringer Guidelines Facilitator; Manager, World Heritage at Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, Queensland, Australia Cyril Kormos Vice Chair of Policy, WILD Foundation; Vice-Chair of World Heritage, UNESCO
vii Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all those many people who reviewed and contributed to the development of these guidelines. In particular, we would like to thank: Zdenka Křenová, Nigel Dudley, John Shultis, Jarrko Saarinen, Sonja Krueger, Illarion Merculief, Fiona Leverington, Graeme Worboys, Loek Kuiters, and Linda Moon Stumpff.
viii © Igor Shpilenok / Wild Wonders of Europe
Introduction 1.1 What is a 1B protected area? legal protection. Wilderness protected areas IUCN Protected Areas Category 1b because of their size and intactness are (wilderness) areas are large-scale sites in essential to climate change mitigation and which ecological processes can function with adaptation (Hilty et al. 2012, Watson et al. minimal human disturbance. These sites are 2013). Wilderness areas are generally more defined as: “Protected areas that are usually resilient to climate change than smaller, less large unmodified or slightly modified areas, biologically intact areas. They are also critical retaining their natural character and to ensuring biodiversity conservation, influence, without permanent or significant especially for wide-ranging species, and for a human habitation, which are protected and wide range of other critical ecosystem managed so as to preserve their natural services, from freshwater quality to condition” (Dudley 2013, p. 14). maintaining the wild relatives of commercial crops (MEA 2005, Mittermeier et al. 2003). Wilderness values do not exclude people. Wilderness areas are essential as biological Rather, they exclude certain human uses, in controls: to provide examples of what intact particular industrial uses, which are or largely intact ecosystems contain. They inconsistent with maintaining wilderness are also very often homes “to thousands of values. In fact, wilderness protected areas indigenous cultures living at low densities can be defined as places that are biologically and provide livelihoods to local communities intact, or largely intact, with which humans around the world (Sobrevilla 2008)” (Kormos have a relationship (Kormos 2008). That et al. 2015, 5). relationship can include the many Indigenous Peoples and Tribes who call wilderness areas homeland. It can also include rural or urban residents seeking solitude, recreation or other human benefits in wilderness protected areas.
Unprecedented levels of industrial activity, such as roads, mining, oil and gas development, logging, hydroelectric projects and climate change threaten the planet’s remaining wilderness areas. Such threats Superstition Mountains, Arizona, USA endanger the ability of 1b protected areas to © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute conserve wilderness resources and to A growing consensus states that we need to provide Indigenous Peoples the ability to protect a much larger percentage of the maintain traditional wilderness-based planet than called for under current lifestyle and customs, if desired. Tactics for multilateral agreements. The science-based combating and managing for these severe global vision of Nature Needs Half— threats can be found in Section 4 (Current protection of at least half of the world’s Management Issues). terrestrial and marine ecosystems—is
supported by prominent scientists like Dr. E. It is critical to ensure the protection of O. Wilson (Wilson 2003). The Promise of enough wilderness areas of proper size and Sydney document created at the 2014 IUCN 2 World Parks Congress calls for a vision of the Unlike other protected area categories, future in which the balance between human wilderness protected areas are the subject of society and nature is restored (IUCN World national legislation in only 11 countries Parks Congress 2014). Protecting new (Kormos 2008). Wilderness as a category is wilderness areas and enhancing the current more often the subject of provincial and state protection of wilderness is critical to both legislation or unit zoning. This category is Nature Needs Half vision and the vision often used as an administrative designation outlined within the Promise of Sydney. The applied by managers or supervisors of parks number of designated category 1b sites is or reserves. Thus, wilderness standards will increasing with time and will likely grow vary between countries depending on much larger and diverse in the future circumstances ranging from geographical (Kormos 2008). size, biographical context and social-cultural histories and national relationship with the The objective of wilderness protected areas wilderness concept. These guidelines is characterised by a core set of wilderness provide the implementation tools to best values and attributes. These include protect of wilderness attributes and values. biological intactness, sacred areas, traditional use, absence of significant IUCN’s protected area categories classify permanent infrastructure or commercial protected areas according to their resource extraction, and opportunities for management objectives. While these experiencing solitude, uncertainty and categories are merely intended as guidelines, challenge. international bodies, like the United Nations, and many national governments recognise While the concept of designating areas of them as the global standard for defining and minimal human use is old, and while the term recording protected areas and, as such, are ‘wilderness’ is also old, use of the term increasingly being incorporated into ‘wilderness’ within protected area government legislation. nomenclature is relatively recent. The United States Forest Service first used the term in While the concept of wilderness is invariably 1924 in the administrative designation of the applied in different manners according to Gila Wilderness in New Mexico. 40 years cultures, languages, conservation later the United States Congress passed the perspectives, and worldviews, these Wilderness Act, which is the first-ever guidelines suggest a baseline standard for national legislation of wilderness globally. As wilderness management decisions. The detailed in Section 1.2, the term wilderness IUCN protected areas category 1b definition was officially adopted into the IUCN and management guidelines strive to Guidelines for Protected Areas in 1994. integrate many and diverse views while still being consistent with core wilderness values.
3 1.2 History of the IUCN 1b wilderness category (Martin and Inglis 1984). Coordinated by the 3rd World Wilderness protected area category Congress Executive Director, Vance G. Martin, this caucus was energised and The concept of ‘wilderness’ was not included informed by Ian Player (founder, World in the 1978 publication that established the Wilderness Congress), Sierra Club leaders original set of IUCN categories (IUCN 1978). Dr. Ed Wayburn (President) and Mike The IUCN introduced protected area McCloskey (Executive Director and, later, category 1b in 1994 because of growing Chairman). Also in this caucus and especially demand and necessity for this category. helpful because of their positions and long experience within IUCN were Dr. Kenton IUCN senior Ecologist Raymond Dasmann Miller and Harold Eidsvik (Director, Parks suggested in 1972 at the Second World Canada and Chairman, IUCN CNPPA). Parks Congress that a protected areas category system be adopted and explicitly In 1984, subsequent to IUCN General used the term wilderness as one of the Assembly resolutions calling for more examples of what he referred to as ‘Strict recognition of wilderness and for inclusion of Nature Reserves’ (Phillips 2008, p. 14). Indigenous Peoples in protected areas, Kenton Miller, who served both as IUCN members of this caucus and others within Director General and Chairman of IUCN’s CNPPA created a task force to review and Commission on National Parks and update the categories. In 1994 at the IUCN Protected Areas, led an international team General Assembly in Buenos Aires, the that investigated the usefulness of protected current Protected Area Categories, including area categories and in 1978 published a the category 1b, were adopted and table that used the term “wildlands” as a wilderness was officially recognised for the major protected area classification (Miller first time within the IUCN (Dudley et al. 2008). 2012).
The World Wilderness Congress played a At the IUCN World Commission on Protected decisive role in developing the wilderness Areas meeting during the World concept for consideration as an IUCN Conservation Congress in Amman, Jordan, in category and advocating for its adoption 2000, Vance G. Martin (President, WILD (Eidsvik 1990). At the 1st World Wilderness Foundation) proposed that a Wilderness Congress (Johannesburg, 1977) the lack of Task Force be established. Terms of an international definition for wilderness was Reference were subsequently developed and noted. At the 2nd World Wilderness Congress were adopted in 2002 which, inter alia, (Australia, 1980) a committee headed by Dr. created the first official linkage between the George Stankey, US Forest Service, reported World Wilderness Congress and the IUCN. on various ways to approach and shape The Wilderness Task Force was upgraded to such a definition, given the diverse views and a Wilderness Specialists Group in 2009. uses of the term (Martin 1982). In 2004 at the IUCN World Conservation At the 3rd World Wilderness Congress Congress in Bangkok, a resolution was (Scotland, 1983) an informal caucus was adopted requesting the IUCN World formed around the commitment to advocate Commission on Protected Areas to review within the IUCN for official adoption of a 4 and revise its guidelines for protected areas. Thoroughly debated and ultimately adopted, After three years of intensive debate the primacy of nature conservation was one (coordinated by Nigel Dudley and Sue of the central outcomes of the Almeria Stolton) that produced over 50 papers Summit. This rigorous three year process containing many suggestions (one of which and its outcomes subsequently informed the proposed that descriptive nouns such as IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas ‘wilderness’ and ‘national parks’ should be 2008 Guidelines on Protected Area dropped in favour of just using category Categories, which were approved at the numbers), a Protected Area Summit World Conservation Congress in Barcelona convened 100 invited protected area experts (Dudley et al. 2012). In these revised in Almeria, Spain in 2007. Core members of guidelines, both category 1b and the term the Wilderness Task Force (Cyril Kormos, ‘wilderness’ were retained. Harvey Locke, Vance G. Martin) and others presented formal and adjunct arguments As of this publication, the IUCN Wilderness promoting nature conservation as the highest Specialist Group is facilitated by the WILD value of protected areas, and the key role of Foundation (http://www.wild.org/) and wilderness in fulfilling this objective. associates. It remains the coordinating hub for protected areas category 1b within the WCPA and IUCN.
5 1.3 Objective of very remote areas, for example use of snowmobiles by Native Alaskans); the IUCN 1b protected area management category 2. Traditional lifestyles Category 1b exists to enable Indigenous Objective Peoples, Tribes, and local communities to Consistent with the 2008 Almeria Summit, maintain their traditional wilderness-based the primary management objective of lifestyle and customs, living at low density category 1b is nature conservation. The and using the available resources in ways objective is management that will protect the compatible with the conservation objectives. long-term ecological integrity of natural areas For example, the ability of Saami people in that are undisturbed by significant human Northern Scandinavia to continue their activity, have no modern infrastructure, and reindeer herding; are characterised by freely occurring and reasonably intact natural processes. An 3. Cultural and Spiritual Uses important aspect of this objective is the Category 1b promotes the protection of emphasis on biological health and intactness relevant non-material benefits, such as rather than human benefits. solitude, respect for sacred sites, respect for ancestors, etc. While this has always been evident for Indigenous Peoples’ Compatible Objectives communities, the concept of wilderness as a Where the biological integrity of a wilderness place of worship for many non-traditional protected area can be secured and the people is gaining currency as public primary objective of nature conservation is participation wanes in institutionalised met, the management focus of the religion. The types of experiences most wilderness area may include other objectives associated with this are “awe, wonder, such as recreation, but only in so much as transformation, connection” (Ashley 2012). the primary objective is maintained securely.
Traditional lifestyles and cultural and spiritual 4. Education and Science uses should always be considered Category 1b allows for low-impact compatible with wilderness management and educational and scientific research activities, as noted throughout these guidelines rights- especially when such activities cannot be based approaches should be fully conducted outside the wilderness implemented at all times. Other important objectives include: Exceptions to Objectives 1. Recreation and access Although we have referred thus far entirely to In contrast to category 1a, which in most large intact areas of land and sea, the cases disallows public access, category 1b objectives above are equally important when encourages such public experience but only applied to (a) somewhat disturbed areas that to the extent and of a type that it will are capable of restoration to a wilderness maintain the wilderness qualities of the area state—a process commonly referred to as for present and future generations. “rewilding” (Johns 2016)—and (b) smaller Mechanical and motorized access is areas that might be expanded over time. uniformly not allowed (with notable Both of these types of areas could play an exceptions, made for subsistence lifestyles in important role in a larger wilderness 6 protection strategy as part of a system of protected areas that includes wilderness, if the management objectives for those somewhat disturbed or smaller areas are otherwise consistent with the objectives set out above.
7 1.4 Extent of 1b sites Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern The following countries have wilderness Ireland, the United States, Zambia, and protected areas that fit IUCN category 1b. Zimbabwe (www.protectedplanet.net). The These wilderness areas are established via governance structures of these wilderness legislative or administrative designation or protected areas varies across and within wilderness zones within protected areas: countries. For more detail on wilderness Australia, Botswana, Canada, Finland, governance, see Section 3. Wilderness Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, México, protected areas have a critical role to play as Namibia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the the world works to stop biodiversity loss and Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, safeguard ecosystem services. Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, the United
European wilderness. © Florian Moellers / Wild Wonders of Europe
8 1.5 Inclusion of treaties and cultural values. Ongoing, these abuses undermine Indigenous Peoples well- Indigenous Peoples being, life-ways, cultural practices, and and Local Communities economic stability, and result in the inability of Indigenous Peoples to continue their In many cases Indigenous Peoples’ cultural practices which include stewardship traditional knowledge systems, customary and protection for the Earth. This is a rights, governance and cultural practices detriment to both Indigenous Peoples and sustained wilderness since before there was these natural areas, and is counterproductive a “wilderness” concept (Cajune, Martin and to global conservation goals to protect and Tanner 2008; Martin and Sloan 2012). In the sustain wild nature. Current trends suggest majority of cases, conservation schemes that conservation schemes that may have developed and superimposed on Indigenous been adequate historically, including those Peoples and local communities territories applied by Indigenous Peoples and local without adequate consultation or inclusion. communities and institutional and This process resulted in gross violations of contemporary conservation, are often not rights, and has been a detriment to both sufficient in the face of mounting pressures conservation and Indigenous Peoples of climate change and increased (Stevens and DeLacy 1997; Stevens 2014). environmental degradation. New approaches are needed, including strengthened In a growing number of cases around the partnerships between Indigenous Peoples world, Indigenous Peoples and local and local communities and non-Indigenous communities have regained management governments and agencies. As stated in the and/or governance control of resources 2014 Promise of Sydney: through self-determination, legal advances and negotiated partnerships with non-tribal governments and national agencies. There [By] working in partnership with and are also an increasing number of cases in recognising the long traditions and which Indigenous Peoples have been able to knowledge, collective rights and responsibilities of Indigenous Peoples and preserve or regain complete territorial control local communities to land, water, natural of their land, including environmental resource and culture, we will seek to protection and wildlife management redress and remedy past and continuing (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes injustices in accord with international 2005; Martin et al. 2011). agreements. (Promise of Sydney, World Parks Congress, November 2014) It should be noted that the majority of the conservation priorities for this century are on Indigenous Peoples lands. These natural The true partnership between Indigenous areas and ancestral homelands are the Peoples’ governments and non-indigenous location of multi-stakeholder conservation governments within wilderness areas is one accomplishments, integrating the of the most important as it is challenging management and governance approaches of areas of work. Extra attention is both Indigenous Peoples, local communities and required and deserved. This is emphasised institutional conservation (Stevens 2014). by the fact that two of the four compatible These same areas are also sometimes the objectives for category 1b relate specifically site of continued violations of human rights, 9 (though not entirely) to Indigenous Peoples by Indigenous Peoples or areas that have and non-Indigenous local communities: active land claims. Some central and guiding • To enable Indigenous Peoples to maintain realities that category 1b decision-makers their traditional wilderness-based ways of need to use when considering such areas life and customs, living at low density and are: using the available resources in ways compatible with the conservation 1. Partnership —Indigenous Peoples are objectives; not another group in a diverse range of stakeholders to be consulted as • To protect the relevant cultural and management plans are developed. spiritual values and non-material benefits Indigenous Peoples are partners: to Indigenous Peoples or non-Indigenous category 1b lands or seas under populations, such as solitude, respect for consideration have been their physical sacred sites, respect for ancestors etc.; and cultural home for centuries, if not millennia, prior to colonisation. In most The ultimate best practice approach to cases, except for the very few wilderness management with Indigenous instances where local communities Peoples and non-Indigenous governments is have jurisdiction over land declared as to collaborate from the beginning. Work wilderness with management authority together to first identify the areas for vested in the Tribe or community, the wilderness designation. Cooperatively design authority of the current governing appropriate, ecologically sensitive and institution arose far later than that of culturally relevant management plans that the resident Indigenous Peoples. protect wilderness values while allowing Indigenous Peoples and local communities 2. Reciprocity—Indigenous Peoples’ to maintain their relationship with the culture by definition is fully integrated wilderness area for customs, ceremonies, with the entirety of nature (land-and ancestral respect, subsistence uses, etc. Too sea-scape, flora, fauna, sky, soil, etc), often, especially in the twentieth century, this and the people are in relationship with was not the case and central government nature. Therefore, even aboriginal land declared wilderness areas with little or no practices such as fire management local consultation. Though lack of and subsistence harvesting (hunting, consultation still occurs in some countries, gathering) are viewed through the the accepted international standard is free, perspective of ‘reciprocity’ rather than prior, and informed consent (FPIC) (UNDRIP ‘best practice management.’ In this 2007, article 10). Extensive consultation is case, ‘reciprocity’ can be defined as now the norm but not yet universally the quality that informs a partnership, practiced. A free, prior and informed consent whereby the partners share equally process should be used through all planning, with each other all aspects of the policy making and policy implementation in partners lives and reality. This is also wilderness protected areas. demonstrated through the way that most native cultures understand the The best wilderness management is a world and build knowledge. composite of science and culture, and this is ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’ as nowhere more important than when some Western Science researchers considering wilderness areas either inhabited 10 refer to it, is assembled and deployed This needs to be somewhat reversed subjectively, compared to the when working with local communities. objective nature of contemporary Assume that they already have the scientific and management inquiry answers to the management issue(s), (Berkes 2012; Watson et al. 2003; and do your best to reaffirm that, work Watson et al. 2011). Subjective with it, and slowly interject your own knowledge derives from and drives ideas. Effective management plans toward holistic understanding, empower people to understand their whereas objective knowledge is important role in the situation being reductionist, tending to narrow managed. information to the smallest parts in 3. Humour – Humour is generally an order to understand (Berkes 2012). intrinsic part of conversations, of sharing knowledge and building Few human communities are homogeneous. relationships. This is equally true of Indigenous Peoples 4. Knowledge – Indigenous Peoples and local communities as it is of non- have repeatedly had their traditional Indigenous, western-style communities. knowledge, customs, ceremonies, Internal factors and externalities are always images, and cultural artefacts stolen, at work: level of education and economic used without permission, and/or development, religion, rivalries, greed, otherwise abused. Justifiable ‘outside’ influences and other factors are sensitivities abound around this issue. common in all communities. In many ways, Asking permission is both polite and when working with Indigenous Peoples’ necessary, as is giving attribution to communities — or any local community — any contributions. the non-Indigenous government wilderness manager is almost always regarded by local Consultative Management people as another outside, often intrusive, and Co-management and complicating influence. As national governments increasingly and appropriately recognise Indigenous Peoples’ In such a case as this, the manager needs to land claims, numerous innovations have be mindful of and practice four important been devised to accommodate wilderness behavioural tools. management. At a minimum, wilderness decision-makers should incorporate 1. Time – Spending time within these consultative management strategies within communities or with their their management plans to ensure representatives is essential, before Indigenous Peoples’ ability to partner in all asking lots of questions and expecting decisions. answers. Go away and return. “Showing up” builds trust, and is Where possible, co-management between valued as much or more than practical Indigenous governments and non-Indigenous plans. governments should be sought for 2. Solutions – Understand that non- wilderness areas (Stevenson 2006). Such co- indigenous, western-style education management structures should be based teaches people to prioritise the upon respect of Indigenous Peoples and of creation and deployment of solutions. their rights (Carlsson and Berkes 2005;
11 Casson 2015; Nie 2008). Within the United management responsibilities to state or States, the Native Environmental Sovereignty national government. In other instances Project at the University of Oregon is an Indigenous governments and non-Indigenous important resource (https://law.uoregon.edu/ governments establish co-management explore/ENR-nesp). Canada is very regimes in which responsibilities are shared advanced in this regard as they work with and overseen by a committee representing their First Nations to increase and manage both local and governmental interests. In all wilderness areas such as occurred with the cases, Indigenous Peoples are assured rights large expansion of the Nahanni National of access and “appropriate” mechanised Park, with the Dene leaders and people transport to assure non-interference with playing a primary role in the negotiations that their customs and traditions while still extended for many years (The Deh Cho First assuring protection of wild processes and Nations, The Government of Canada and The systems. A policy statement by the Government of the Northwest Territories Australian Conservation Foundation (1999) 2001a; The Deh Cho First Nations, The remains one of the best outlines of Government of Canada and The Government management approaches in regards to of the Northwest Territories 2001b; Parks Wilderness and Indigenous Cultural Canada 2010; UNESCO World Heritage Landscapes. Committee 2011). Variance within Category 1b for Australia has developed excellent policy and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities practice in this regard, with some of the best Management plans for wilderness that has and varied examples of consultative indigenous communities in and around it management and co-management (Ens et al. always requires variance or management 2012). The Australian government’s practices exceptions. See sections 3.7 and 4.10 for include a range of approaches (Hill et al. more information. 2011; Hill et al. 2012). In some instances Indigenous Peoples have formally ceded
12 1.6 Application of 1b category: To assign wilderness status and report on that status, follow these seven steps Assignment and Reporting (modified from Dudley 2013, p. 40): 1. Identify the management objectives of Once wilderness decision-makers select the site category 1b as the proper IUCN protected 2. Assess if the site meets the IUCN area category, the site’s decision-makers definition of a wilderness protected must follow IUCN protocol for the area assignment and reporting process to 3. Document the wilderness properly categorise a wilderness area as an characteristics (wilderness values, IUCN protected area category 1b site. The management objectives, governing governance body that oversees the site is bodies, etc) and the justification for responsible for the process of assignment. wilderness protected area status As is detailed in Section 3, governance of a 4. Consult with relevant partners and wilderness area can be varied. The stakeholders to agree on wilderness assignment principles for an IUCN category category designation apply to all governance types of wilderness 5. Propose that the area be designated areas. As outlined by Dudley 2013 (p. 39) as protected area category 1b there are five principles for assignment: 6. Governing body of site makes final 1. Responsibility: The ability to assign decision of assigning protected area protected area category type lies category 1b designation to site within the governing body responsible 7. Report wilderness category for the uses of the land and water assignment to UNEP World within the wilderness area Conservation Monitoring Centre for 2. Democracy: All partners and site inclusion in the World Database stakeholders related to the wilderness on Protected Areas area should be consulted prior to the
final assignment Whenever possible communicate updates to 3. Grievance procedure: Those opposed the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring to the proposed assigned wilderness Centre. At a minimum, annual category should have the ability to communication to UNEP and the challenge the decision in due process international conservation community is best. 4. Data management: Data collected Communicate important on-going work, within the wilderness area should be challenges and successes of the wilderness reported to the United Nations site through publication in academic peer Environment Programme (UNEP) reviewed journals, like the International World Conservation Monitoring Centre Journal of Wilderness, in conference 5. Verification: IUCN may soon institute a presentations, and in publicly accessible verification system through which all documents and newspapers. Publications, protected areas can choose to have whenever possible, should be written by a their site verified as complying with multitude of wilderness partners and protected area category objectives stakeholders.
13 © Fiona Casson Management Principles 2.1 Manage Wilderness Comprehensively through Development of Large- Scale, Intact Wilderness Protected Areas and Connectivity between Wilderness Protected Areas [WAITING ON HARVEY]
15
Saving this page for Harvey’s 2.1
16 2.2 Manage wilderness, and inventorying cultural sites and monitoring visitation. cultural sites within, to maintain highest integrity of all Baselines components of ecosystems, To ensure non-degradation, management must define a baseline against which wildlife, and sacred and degradation can be measured. This baseline traditional cultural use sites will influence how priorities are set for restoration and monitoring and future goal Guiding Principles planning. An understanding of baseline conditions is essential to measure the pre- Once the wilderness environmental or existing impacts and influences of human cultural resources areas are degraded by activity. Degradation of a wilderness area is human activity and exploited for non- assessed against this quantitative baseline. wilderness land uses, such as forestry or mineral extraction, they cannot easily be To prevent a shifting baseline phenomena— recreated. A better and more cost-effective in which target conditions are based on living approach than restoration is to adopt a non- memory that slowly degrades from one degradation concept (Dawson and Hendee generation to the next—management must 2009). Non-degradation is defined as the rely upon as many data sources as possible maintenance of existing environmental to inform the baseline to which degradation conditions where they meet or exceed is measured (Papworth et al. 2009). Evidence minimum standards of wilderness or cultural from a single source may not represent the values. The concept is best applied when the true ecological conditions for natural ecological integrity of an area is maintained ecosystems. Not accounting for shifting as far as is possible, free from human baselines in historic accounts can have a impact, interference and influence (Dawson marked effect on what is and is not and Hendee 2009). Wilderness sites, and the considered natural, even among trained cultural sites within, should be managed to ecologists (Pauly 1995). maintain the highest integrity of all components of ecosystems, wildlife and Cultural Sites cultural meaning through an explicit focus on Management under the non-degradation non-degradation. When necessary, the concept is not limited to the biophysical concept of managing for non-degradation characteristics of wilderness areas but provides an opportunity to upgrade or applies equally to sacred and traditional restore wilderness quality. cultural use sites. It is essential to protect the
special qualities of these sites and adjust Key Considerations management practices to allow sacred and The principle of managing for non- traditional practices to be observed wherever degradation is the maintenance of appropriate. Examples include sacred pools environmental and cultural conditions within and rivers, religious sites, and archaeological the designated wilderness area to not allow sites like prehistoric petroglyphs, rock art, these to degrade or deteriorate unduly. Three and historic markers. Cultural sites may be areas in need of particular management discrete locations or, as in many cases, consideration are: establishing baselines, entire landscapes. For example, the
17 designated wilderness area landscape of may be restricted from public access and Mount Yengo in New South Wales, Australia open only to specific individuals or peoples is of great cultural and spiritual significance with cultural and spiritual ties to the site. to the Wonnarua, Awabakal, Worimi and Darkinjung aboriginal groups (Clark 2003). As Case Study with many sacred places, only certain The California Desert Protection Act of 1994 aspects of the area’s spiritual values of the (Public Law 103-433) in the United States site can be discussed publicly (see Section created 69 new wilderness areas in and near 4.9). Sacred sites should not be located on the southern California desert region. The maps available to the public. United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) developed one plan to guide the Monitor Visitation management of five of these areas: It should be recognised that any kind of (www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/bakersfield/Progra visitation to a wilderness area involves some ms/wilderness.html). The plan applies to five level of impact and therefore impacts cannot of these areas: Chimney Peak Wilderness, be avoided, if human visitation occurs. In Domelands Wilderness, Kiavah Wilderness, some cases, however, such as small island Owens Peak Wilderness, and Sacatar Trail wilderness, or extremely fragile ecosystems, Wilderness. The management plan specifies visitation may not be allowed. Certain types a non-degradation approach through each of of visitation impact are also in direct conflict the following management goals: with the non-degradation concept. For 1. To provide for the long-term instance, heavy horse and mule traffic in protection and preservation of the sensitive environments can cause irreparable area's wilderness character under a impacts. Such visitation-induced degradation principle of non-degradation. The must be avoided. area's natural condition, opportunities for solitude, opportunities for primitive Examples of unacceptable degradation and unconfined types of recreation, through visitation include: and any ecological, geological, or • Crowding of popular trails, destinations other features of scientific, and campsites leading to loss of values of educational, scenic, or historical value solitude due to crowding, often present will be managed so that they operationalised by frequency of will remain unimpaired. encounters with other people. 2. To manage the wilderness area for the • Noticeable signs of over-use, including use and enjoyment of visitors in a extreme trail erosion, trail braiding manner that will leave the area (multiple trails in one spot), and campsite unimpaired for future use and impacts. enjoyment as wilderness. The • Visual and audible impacts from other wilderness resource will be dominant users within the wilderness. in all management decisions where a choice must be made between It is important to protect wilderness areas preservation of wilderness and visitor against degradation and promote the special use. qualities that make experiencing wild nature 3. To manage the area using the and landscapes in wilderness areas valued minimum tool, equipment, or structure and highly rewarding. Access to cultural sites necessary to successfully, safely, and
18 economically accomplish the • Monitor wilderness conditions and objective, the chosen tool, equipment, experiences and modify management or structure should be the one that plans accordingly. least degrades wilderness values • Work closely with Indigenous Peoples, temporarily or permanently. Tribes and local communities who identify Management will seek to preserve important cultural sites within a wilderness spontaneity of use and as much area to maintain cultural practices and freedom from regulation as possible. non-degradation. 4. To manage nonconforming but accepted uses permitted by the Aspects of these basic principles are Wilderness Act and subsequent laws considered in the following sections. An in a manner that will prevent explicit focus on maintaining non- unnecessary or undue degradation of degradation will help combat a potential the area's wilderness character. shifting baselines situation and subtle Nonconforming uses are the degradation of wilderness components within exception rather that the rule; an area. therefore, emphasis is placed on maintaining wilderness character. Recommended Reading • Cohen, M.P. (1984) The Pathless Way: John Muir and the American Wilderness. Madison: University Implementation of Wisconsin Press Hendee et al. (1990) suggested a non- • EKW (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife) (2011) Wilderness degradation philosophy should underlie all Management Plan: uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: management decisions in a wilderness area. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife If possible, management should act to • Graber, D.M. (2003) ‘Ecological Restoration in Wilderness: Natural versus Wild in National Park improve wilderness conditions through Service Wilderness’. The George Wright Forum 30 careful application of these management (3) principles that adhere to a non-degradation • Martin, V. and Sarathy, P. (eds.) (2001) Wilderness and Humanity—The Global Issue: Proceedings of purpose. These include: the 6th World Wilderness Congress. Golden, • Manage human influences on wilderness Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing (e.g., recreation pressure) and not the • Martin, V. and Watson, A. (2009) ‘International Wilderness’. in Wilderness Management: wilderness itself. Stewardship and Protection of Resources and • Favour wilderness-dependent activities Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 50–88 and experiences. • Sylven, M., Martin, V., and Schenck, C. (2014) ‘A • Guide management with written plans and Vision for a Wilder Europe’. International Journal of objectives. Wilderness 20 (1) • Tarlock, A.D. (2003) ‘Slouching Toward Eden: The • Set carrying capacities as necessary to Eco-Pragmatic Challenges of Ecosystem Revival’. prevent unnatural change. in Symposium, The Pragmatic Ecologist: • Focus management on threatened sites Environmental Protection as Jurisdynamic Experience. 97. Minn. L. Rev. 1173 and damaging activities. • Watson, A., Martin, V., and Lin, C.C. (2009) • Apply the minimum necessary tools or ‘Wilderness: An International Community Knocking on Asia’s Door’. Journal of National Park 19 (4), 1–9 regulations to achieve desired outcomes. • Watson, A., Matt, R., Knotek, K., Williams, D.R., • Involve stakeholders in developing and Yung, L. (2011) ‘Traditional Wisdom: acceptable management plans. Protecting Relationships with Wilderness as a Cultural Landscape’. Ecology and Society 16 (1), 36 • Wilderness Watch (2009) Wilderness Stewardship Concepts & Principles 19 2.3 Engagement between as homeland and ancestral domain. Further, the notion of “wilderness” as pristine, stakeholders and non-tribal uninhabited, and/or “untrammelled by man” government with Indigenous is not accepted by most Indigenous Peoples Peoples, Tribes and local who see “wilderness” as “well‐conserved nature that intrinsically includes people” (10th communities in management World Wilderness Congress 2013). and designation of wilderness Indigenous Peoples do not regard their territories as “natural,” but created and/or in true partnership relations transformed by past interactions between
their ancestors and the ancestors of other Guiding Principles species (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1976; Berkes For Indigenous Peoples and local 2012). Thus, while many Indigenous Peoples communities, the need for reconciliation and celebrate the care for and protection of place building mutual trust are paramount to that wilderness implies, many have rejected building true partnership relations. For wilderness schemes which interfere with the Indigenous Peoples and local communities, way they have traditionally interacted with reconciliation begins with the affirmation of nature. Some Indigenous Peoples have simply Indigenous Peoples’ sovereignty and all side-stepped this issue by recognising and/or internationally recognised instruments for establishing Indigenous Peoples’ and protecting Indigenous Peoples and local Community Conserved Territories and Areas communities’ rights; this is the basis of (ICCAs), which can have many names, establishing trust. Without this integration, including Indigenous Protected Areas, Tribal conservation advances can be seen as Parks, nature reserves, biocultural reserves, taking a step backwards for Indigenous etc., and may or may not support wilderness Peoples and local communities. True characteristics. To partner with Indigenous partnership relations require that historical Peoples and local communities in wilderness methods of ‘inclusion’ expand from attempts designations and management, the to integrate Indigenous Peoples and local institutionalised commitment to "no-use" must communities into non-traditional government be abandoned to, at minimum, support non- and agency processes toward mutually industrial, customary use for subsistence and determined processes in which power is traditional purposes. equitably distributed. True partnership means redefining the processes that are used to Reciprocity, Stewardships & Management determine management and stewardship Principles practices, priorities and strategic plans. Traditionally, Indigenous Peoples depended entirely on local fish, wildlife, and habitat, Key Considerations and needed creative ways to avoid their Indigenous Peoples and Cross-Cultural collapse. To achieve this, by western Notions of ‘Nature’ and ‘Wilderness’ standards, one could say that Indigenous Most Indigenous Peoples’ languages do not Peoples traditionally “managed” their have a word for “wilderness.” Rather, many resources: they not only used what was Indigenous Peoples have had intimate, physically available to them, but made social sustained relationships with what is choices about the rate of use, within commonly referred to as “nature” for sustainable limits and modified ecosystems, thousands of years, relating to “wilderness” in selective and sustainable ways to increase 20 the availability of useful resources inseparability of culture and nature, and (International Indigenous Commission 1991). Indigenous Peoples and local communities However, Indigenous Peoples do not have disproportionately suffered the typically use the term “management” to consequences. Further, in the majority of describe their relationship with an cases, Indigenous Peoples and local ecosystem, because it implies human communities were not adequately consulted domination. Rather, they are more likely to in the decisions to create protected areas, speak in terms of reciprocity, a relationship including wilderness areas. This has resulted of give and take aimed at harmonising the in gross violations of rights, disruption of human and non-human worlds, based on cultures, and in some cases extinction of mutual accommodation or adaptation aimed peoples and lifeways. At the 5th World Parks at bringing people and the land into balance. Congress in Durban, South Africa, in 2003, Thus, for many Indigenous Peoples, true Indigenous Peoples delegates stated the partnership requires expanding management following, calling for a radical shift in the definitions to include the principle of historic approach to conservation: “First we reciprocity. were dispossessed in the name of kings and emperors, later in the name of state The reported instances in which Indigenous development, and now in the name of Peoples appear to have been using their fish, conservation.” In addition to eviction from wildlife, and habitat non-sustainably can be their traditional lands, dispossession has also traced to losses of land or depletion of included the denial of access to traditional natural abundance resulting from lands, waters, and wildlife by communities settlements, removal, or state administration residing outside official protected areas, and and exploitation of their territory (International progressive restrictions upon communities Indigenous Commission 1991). Thus, the allowed to remain inside (Scott 1998; Nelson right to the traditional territories is the key to 2004; Poole 2011). Given this history, power continued protection of Indigenous Peoples asymmetries between Indigenous Peoples lands and seas, which include a significant and conservation agencies must be number of potential future wilderness areas. recognised. Kayapó boy holding a parrot. Supporting Indigenous Peoples is necessarily part of true partnership. This should include: sustaining and supporting networks of sacred natural sites, cultural practices, traditional languages, methods of teaching traditional cultural values, respecting and upholding Natural Law, engaging multi-generational timeframes in planning schemes, eliminating economic incentives that undermine traditional values and endanger cultures and peoples, and © Cristina Mittermeier supporting governance systems that align with Indigenous Peoples and local True Partnership Relations communities values. Early concepts and applications of wilderness did not acknowledge the 21 Wilderness Designation and Free Prior and planning and determination of the Informed Consent designation. Currently, Indigenous Peoples total 5% of the world population, have traditional land Case Study claims to 24% of the Earth’s lands and On November 13, 1979 the Confederated seas—containing 80% of the planet’s Salish and Kootenai Tribes set aside 92,000 biodiversity—and inhabit 80% of protected acres (38,333 hectares) as a Mission areas. Indigenous Peoples are currently the Mountains Tribal Wilderness (Confederated stewards of at least the same amount of wild Salish and Kootenai Tribes 2005). Many of nature as all regional and national the Tribal members at that time did not know governments and conservation organisations the meaning of wilderness in the context combined (11%) (10th World Wilderness outlined in these guidelines but did agree Congress 2013). Most of the world’s that this mountain range was an integral part remaining ‘pristine’ ecosystems which may of their core values and that future be fit for wilderness designation are actually management of this resource was needed to human-modified environments, and their preserve it as a natural and cultural area. current levels of biodiversity are in part the result of niche modifications by Indigenous The Tribe’s resource management staff and Peoples and local communities inhabitants. the Federal government’s Bureau of Indian Thus, most, if not all, future wilderness Affairs were given the authority to manage designations necessarily include Indigenous the area under the guidance of two key Peoples and local communities. documents: a Tribal Council Wilderness Ordinance and a management plan. A Historically, such designations were made management plan to protect a buffer zones either without regard to Indigenous Peoples within the wilderness area’s adjacent tribal and local communities, or by attempting lands was also created. These three inclusion by exposing a projected documents provide the guiding policies for management plan to Indigenous Peoples and Tribal management of the wilderness area on local communities for their input under the the Flathead Indian Reservation. terms set by the author. Though there is often discrepancy of jurisdiction according to Local, State and other Federal management customary, traditional, local, national and agencies, such as the United States Forest international law, engaging Free Prior and Service, were not delegated any Informed Consent (FPIC) is the international management authority for the Mission norm and increasingly so (Hanna and Mountains Tribal Wilderness. Instead, Vanclay 2013). FPIC requires inclusion in the government-to-government consultation and design as well as implementation of a partnerships assisted with the Tribes’ efforts management plan, as well as the governance to sustain the tribal wilderness resource. structure for a designated wilderness area. Moreover, if not done correctly, where a wilderness designation undermines or otherwise determines Indigenous Peoples and local communities relationship with a place, the designation may be deemed false if Indigenous Peoples and local communities have not been adequately involved in the 22 Implementation • Recognise and affirm Indigenous Peoples’ When partnering with Indigenous Peoples’ rights and customary and legal jurisdiction Governments, non-Indigenous governments in accordance with all recognised should: international instruments, including the • Expand definitions of wilderness to United Nations Declaration on the Rights incorporate concepts of homeland and of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the ancestral domain. Convention on Biodiversity Article 10(c) • Implement Free Prior and Informed Sustainable use and Article 8(j) Protection Consent, i.e. co-determine wilderness and Recognition of Traditional Knowledge designations and management schemes • Engage processes of dialogue, with Indigenous Peoples and local reconciliation and trust building. communities from the beginning of the design process; establish and work Recommended Reading toward common goals. • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, G., • Adopt provisions addressing Indigenous and Bassi, M. (2004) Indigenous and Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity Peoples and local communities leadership and Enhanced Conservation. vol. 11. Gland, and active participation in the governance, Switzerland: IUCN • Dove, M.R. (2006) ‘Indigenous People and development and management of Environmental Politics’. Annual Review of terrestrial, marine and estuarine wilderness Anthropology 35 (1), 191–208 areas. • Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014) An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States. Boston: Beacon Press • Honour customary use for subsistence • Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., and other traditional activities within and Shrumm, H., and Secretariat of the Convention on surrounding wilderness areas. Biological Diversity (2012) Recognising and Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by • Adopt language to honour the rights and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: roles of Indigenous Peoples and local Global Overview and National Case Studies. • Li, T.M. (2001) ‘Masyarakat Adat, Difference, and communities throughout policy and legal the Limits of Recognition in Indonesia’s Forest documents. Zone’. Modern Asian Studies 35 (3), 645–676 • Incorporate sacred natural sites and • Salmón, E. (2000) ‘Kincentric Ecology: Indigenous Perceptions of the Human-Nature Relationship’. networks, biocultural systems and cultural Ecological Applications 10 (5), 1327–1332 keystone species in management and • Watson, A., Matt, R. Knotek, K., Williams, D.R., and governance plans. Yung, L. 2011. Traditional Wisdom: Protecting Relationships with Wilderness as a Cultural • Redress past and current injustices. Landscape. Ecology and Society 16(1), 36.
23 2.4 Manage wilderness both to approach must employ both in a manner that does not subjugate TEK beneath or within preserve intrinsic wilderness Western Science. TEK should be understood values and to produce human by managers as a nested system of processes that produce a way of knowing values the world. TEK is not a body of knowledge
but rather how a life is lived (Berkes 2012). Guiding Principles As Watson et al. 2003 argue, “TEK assumes Wilderness should be managed in an that humans are, and always will be, approach that understands a holistic view of connected to the natural world, and that the world in which humans and non-humans there is no such thing as nature that exists are respected (Berkes 2012; Folke 2004; independent of humans and their activities Savory and Butterfield 1999; Watson et al. (Pierotti and Wildcat 1997)” (p. 3). One 2003). Humans should be understood as part cannot separate TEK into discrete items to of nature and as performing complex be integrated into Western Science or interactions with non-humans in ways that selectively employ local knowledge without can “enhance and improve the ecosystem” the repercussion of tokenizing TEK (Nadasdy (Watson et al. 2003, p.3). Management 1999). TEK can only be approached as a should both preserve intrinsic wilderness nested system of local knowledge, land and values and produce human values. This kin- management systems, social institutions, centric approach is grounded in a state of and worldview constantly in interaction with reciprocity between humans and nature one another (Berkes 2012). (Salmón 2000). Such management permits natural ecological processes to operate as Precautionary principle freely as possible because, ultimately, Management that follows a kin-centric wilderness values for society depend on approach follows the Precautionary Principle, retention of naturalness (Hendee and which is the anticipation of harm before it Stankey 1973). Such benefits and values occurs in order to protect humans and the derived from kin-centric management apply environment against uncertain risks of to both Indigenous Peoples engaged in the human action (Deville and Harding 1997; wilderness area and visitors who use the UNESCO 2005). This principle as it relates to area recreationally. wilderness, assumes that when an area’s wildness is reduced or distorted, then the Key Considerations human values including experiential, spiritual, Different approaches to knowledge scientific and educational, will be lessened. Management should be informed by all Management of wilderness areas should knowledge systems of the partners involved follow the Precautionary Principle. in the conservation of the area. The concept of knowledge can vary greatly between those Examples using Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) Ways in which wilderness can be managed and those informed by western science both to preserve intrinsic wilderness values (Babidge et al. 2007; Berkes 2012; Dove and to produce human value include: 2005; Menzies 2006). Western science often • Experiential values such as self-reliance, views knowledge as static, TEK understands physical and mental challenge, knowledge as an on-going process (Berkes companionship, solitude, freedom, and 2012, p.8). A kin-centric management 24 expressions of humility are enhanced by a Wilderness areas additionally provide ideal wilderness setting and are clearly training grounds for outdoor education in impacted by the presence of human wilderness survival skills, navigation, development which reduce risk and effort minimum impact camping and ethics (see while providing easier access to Section 2.8). supporting infrastructure. Implementation • Spiritual values such as aesthetic beauty, To implement management both to preserve awe, connectedness, mindfulness, intrinsic wilderness values and to produce religious and philosophical freedom human values, a fair and equal treatment of associated with being in an environment both TEK and western science knowledges that is separate or apart from everyday should be employed in all management societies rules, regulations and mental decisions. Ways to do this include: pressures are enhanced in a wilderness • Establishing the capacities, mandates and setting. While the label wilderness might motivations of the management partners not be significant, wilderness areas are and assessing the compatibility (and non- often areas of immense cultural and compatibility) between the partners in spiritual significance to Indigenous terms of power, interest and assess to Peoples. resources. • Scientific values of wilderness including • Assessing the wilderness area’s provision of sites and subjects for data distribution of burden and benefits. collection, experimentation and general • Understanding the historical legacy of the study. Wilderness is particularly valued for wilderness area and respecting existing science because of the lack of human legal and customary rights to land and influence on natural processes, resources within the wilderness area. ecosystems and human behaviour and • Incorporating TEK and western science as psychology. For this reason wilderness equally legitimate processes and areas are often used as control sites for contributions to management decisions. studies on human impacts on global • Ensuring future adaptability and flexibility ecosystems. Human impact in wilderness for the management relationships to areas reduces the usefulness of such continually evolve. studies as varied and sometimes unknown • Assume a long-term view of management human influences will be exerted on the plans that allows for proper consultation of results of these scientific studies and all partners and stakeholders, and to allow controls. ongoing involvement in the management process. • Educational values of wilderness areas are many and varied but include sites and Political actors involved in the management case studies for the study of natural of a wilderness area must constantly work to ecosystems and processes, and outdoor ensure that conservation practices reflect a skills and ethics. The wilderness condition holistic approach to wilderness. Such an allows students to study natural approach is not quickly or easily done but ecosystems, wildlife and processes when done correctly can create strong without needing to allow for possible management of wilderness areas that uphold human influences, which would otherwise human rights and wilderness values. detract from the value of such studies. 25 Recommended Reading • Nadasdy, P., Goldman, M., and Turner, M. (eds.) (2011) Knowing Nature: Conversations at the • Babidge, S., Greer, S., Henry, R., and Pam, C. Intersection of Political Ecology and Science (2007) ‘Management Speak: Indigenous Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Knowledge and Bureaucratic Engagement’. Social • Tsing, A. (2005) ‘This Earth, This Island Borneo’. in Analysis 51 (3), 148–164 Friction. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, • Bohensky, E.L. and Maru, Y. (2011) ‘Indigenous 155–170 Knowledge, Science, and Resilience: What Have • Watson, A., Stumpff, L.M., and Meidinger, J. (2012) We Learned from a Decade of International ‘Traditional Wisdom and Climate Change: Literature on “integration”’. Ecology and Society 16 Contribution of Wilderness Stories to Adaptation (4), 6 and Survival’. International Journal of Wilderness • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, G., 18 (2), 21–25 and Bassi, M. (2004) Indigenous and Local • West, P. (2006) ‘Articulations, Histories, Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity Development’. in Conservation Is Our Government and Enhanced Conservation. vol. 11. Gland, Now. New ecologies for the twenty-first century. Switzerland: IUCN Durham: Duke University Press, 52–124 • Hathaway, M.J. (2013) ‘Making an Indigenous • Whiting, A. (2004) ‘The Relationship between Space’. in Environmental Winds. Berkeley: Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal Members) and University of California Press, 116–151 the Western Arctic Parklands, Alaska, United • Nadasdy, P. (2003) Hunters and Bureaucrats: States’. International Journal of Wilderness 10 (2), Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations 28–31 in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, BC: University
of British Columbia Press
Long-distance hiking in Southwestern USA. © Sarah Casson
26 2.5 Prioritise wilderness— dependent activities and areas Case Study Prioritising wilderness-dependent activities of minimal human recreation and designating areas of minimal recreational use can prove difficult for wildness decision- Guiding Principles makers. The mangers of the Mission When making decisions about conflicting Mountains Tribal Wilderness Area have activities, wilderness decision-makers should worked hard to ensure the proper and favour activities within the protected area respectful protection of the area that are wilderness-dependent. Such (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes activities include scientific research, 2005). In 1979 when the Confederated Salish traditional means of livelihood, and low-key and Kootenai Tribes created the first tribally recreational activities. All activities should be designated wilderness in the United States, consistent with the overarching wilderness lack of general public awareness and vitriol values. Areas of minimal human recreation racism threatened the protected area’s should be prioritised within management existence. plans and zoning. One tactic undertaken by the Mission Key Considerations Mountains Tribal Wilderness Area managers Defining wilderness-dependent was education through the work of the Wilderness-dependent actives are those that Wildland Recreation Program. In 1982 the can only be done within a setting that uphold Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes wilderness values: biological intactness, government created the Wildland Recreation sacred areas, traditional use, absence of Program to lead in the management of the significant permanent infrastructure and wilderness area and provide tribal wilderness commercial resource extraction, and education to the Flathead Indian Reservation opportunities for experiencing solitude. and Western Montana public. The Wildland Declaring activities as wilderness-dependent Recreation Program began a visitor may vary between protected areas. awareness effort by producing a Wilderness decision-makers must use their photographic slide show of the wilderness best judgement. As Dawson and Hendee area with narration and music, with the goal (2009) state, “Defining an activity as to inform the local population about the wilderness-dependent can be difficult. Often, resource, visitation rules and value of the it is not the activity itself that is dependent, designation. but the particular style in which it is pursued. For example, hunting is not necessarily Beyond the people reached by the visual wilderness dependent. However, certain education program, the managers still styles of hunting, such as pursuing game needed to educate the recreationists who did under the most natural conditions away from not adhere to the management zoning and roads or talking a bighorn sheep among high designation of the Mission Mountains Tribal peaks, are highly dependent on wilderness Wilderness Area. The wilderness managers settings. The importance of naturalness and assumed that those recreationists were not solitude to the experience, not the mere aware of the tribal wilderness land quest for game, defines certain kinds of boundaries and the management distinctions hunting as wilderness-dependent” (p. 186). between the area managed by the 27 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes important tool to show that the Mission and the area managed by the United States Mountains Tribal Wilderness Area is trust Forest Service. lands open to public use to individuals that have obtained a Confederated Salish and In 1989 the Wildland Recreation Program Kootenai Tribes’ conservation license to proposed a cooperative effort with the United recreate on tribal lands. States Forest Service Flathead National Forest to develop a joint map covering both Implementation Federal and Tribal wildernesses of the When use conflicts arise within a wilderness Mission Mountain Range. The map would protected, the activity defined as most help improve compliance to the tribal wilderness-dependent should be favoured to wilderness conservation rules. By the end of prevent overuse and to adhere to wilderness 1992, the Wildland Recreation Program values. Implementing this into practice may presented the new Tribal/Federal wilderness prove challenging but, ultimately, more map to the Tribes’ governing Council. beneficial to the wilderness area as Program staff stated that even though the demonstrated within the case study. If any boundaries between the two wildernesses zoning of locations with minimal or no are contiguous, the management differs recreation within the protected area, all between the two distinct agencies. Specific wilderness decision-makers should uphold regulations for each wilderness area were this zoning regulation in everyday practice, in listed separately on this map, along with educational outreach and in the management general backcountry information that was plans. common to both the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness and the Mission Mountains Recommended Readings Wilderness. • Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (2005) Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study. Native Lands and Wilderness Council The joint Tribal-USFS wilderness map has • Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009) ‘Chapter 7: proved to be hugely beneficial for the Tribes’ Principles of Wilderness Management’. in wilderness management efforts. Managers Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 4th edn. now have an educational tool that Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 179–194 demonstrates the Tribal wilderness • Fox, S., Phillippe, C., Hoover, V., and Lambert, L. boundaries and rules in mass print, and the (2015) Celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act. October 15-19. Albuquerque, NM. map helped silence those who questioned Proceedings of the National Wilderness Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes’ Conference. • Krahe, D. (2005) Last Refuge: The Uneasy Embrace ability and commitment to resource of Indian Lands by the National Wilderness management and conservation. The map Movement, 1937–1965. Washington State includes a reference guide with tribal cultural University quotes and highlights areas within the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Area not open to recreationists. This map is an
28 2.6 Guide wilderness ensure that the goals and objectives are being met following management activities management using written (Dawson and Hendee 2009). A management plans with specific area plan should strive to address all wilderness area partners’ histories, needs and cultures. objectives and cultural norms Extra care should be taken if some wilderness decision-making partners do not Guiding Principles come from cultures where writing and Wilderness management actions should be objective-planning are commonplace. In guided by formal plans that state specific such cases, a mediator, such as a cultural objectives and explain how they will be anthropologist, should work closely with all achieved, consistent with all applicable legal decision-makers in creating the objectives. authority for the area. The plan guides Such mediation works to prevent the individual area stewardship with increasingly stagnate subjugation of Indigenous Peoples’ refined legislative, policy, and local relationship to nature and adaptive management directions, strategies and knowledge systems to western science static actions toward specific area objectives. knowledge paradigms (Simpson 2005). These objectives, by providing clear descriptions of the desired conditions to be The internal logic of a written plan is achieved, serve as benchmarks for periodic expressed in an orderly process that evaluation of stewardship progress, and establishes clear, attainable, measurable, subsequent adjustments or revision. The and acceptable objectives that allow for entire planning process must include, in all flexibility and consistency in purpose across its stages, the involvement of area time to guide management activities toward stakeholders, using whatever variety of desired outcomes and conditions (Dawson methods is needed to acquire their input, and Hendee 2009). Change is inevitable both and enlist their continuing involvement in within an area and in the adjoining landscape resolving issues that are encountered during and good planning requires anticipating plan implementation (Dudley 2013; Dawson trends, changes, and problems so that and Hendee 2009; IUCN 2016). The plan management direction and actions can should include the cultural norms of proceed in a logical manner. Without a Indigenous Peoples, where relevant and written document to guide decision-making, appropriate, and form true partnerships in managers could too quickly react to the creation and the implementation of the problems or outside pressures and arrive at a management plan. cumulative undesirable result based on incremental decisions that were not focused Key Considerations on the goals and objectives. Management plan as a written document A wilderness management plan is a written Components of management plans document stating the authority and policies The framework for a written management under which a designated area is managed; plan (Dawson and Hendee 2009) includes the goals and objectives for management; five types of components: the management direction and actions 1. Goals are the broad statements of necessary to achieve the stated goals and intent, direction, and purpose based objectives, and; the monitoring program to on national policy and the specific
29 authority that designated a local area ecological and cultural homeland area for the as wilderness. The goals stated for Dehcho First Nations who use the traditional designation as a protected area under name for the park: Naha Dehé. The park was IUCN category 1b should be established in 1976 and expanded in 2009 to considered in this statement (IUCN 30,000 sq. km making it the third largest 2016). Park The park was established in 1976 and 2. Objectives are hierarchical expanded in 2009 to 30,000 sq. km making it statements under each goal that the third largest Park in Canada. The park describe the specific and attainable includes a Canadian National Heritage river conditions sought for a particular and a World Heritage area. wilderness area, serve as criteria for deciding which management actions In 2000, Dehcho First Nations and Parks are needed and appropriate, and used Canada jointly created the Naha Dehé as a basis for later monitoring and Consensus Team to engage in cooperative evaluation of the effectiveness of planning and management for the Nahanni management actions and activities. National Park Reserve (The Deh Cho First The objectives stated for IUCN Nations, Government of Canada and category 1b should be considered in Government of the Northwest Territories this statement (IUCN 2016). 2001a; Deh Cho First Nations). Some of the 3. Current situation and assumptions principles expressed in cooperative are statements that set the context for management by the Naha Dehé Consensus developing a set of management Team included: recognising and respecting actions for an area by summarising traditional use; sharing the stories and local conditions and situations, traditions of the Naha Dehé; using traditional prediction likely changes to wilderness knowledge in park management; supporting conditions and uses, and focus the cultural learning; managing in partnership overall direction for management and looking to the future (Parks Canada actions. 2010). The Canada National Parks Act 4. Management direction and actions requires all national parks to develop a park are statements of program direction to management plan that guides management guide managers toward achieving and operation decisions and actions. The each stated objective within the plan. most recent management plan for the 5. Monitoring program is a statement of Nahanni National Park Reserve was revised which specific measurable standards and completed in 2009-10. The planning can be used to evaluation the team included the Naha Dehé Consensus effectiveness of management actions Team, Parks Canada staff, community and and activities to attain each stated local stakeholders, and the public. The plan objective. provides a long-term vision and strategic direction for the park and it is reviewed every Case Study five years to ensure that the plan remains Nahanni National Park Reserve, a wilderness valid and effective. This park plan is a good protected area, is located in the southwest example of cooperative management and the corner of the Northwest Territories of inclusion of the cultural norms of Indigenous Canada. The South Nahanni River is the main Peoples. feature of the park and is an important 30 Implementation Examples of wilderness management Good planning is essential to support good planning approaches and sample plans for management and stewardship of a the four United States federal agencies who wilderness area (Dawson and Hendee 2009). manage areas of the 110 million acres in the The intent of writing wilderness management National Wilderness Preservation System can plans is to organise the best logical thinking be found through the “Wilderness about which objectives to achieve and the Management Planning Toolbox” management direction necessary to be (http://www.wilderness.net/planning) (Arthur successful. Goals and objectives stated in a Carhart National Wilderness Training Center wilderness management plan serve as and others 2016). guiding statements for deciding which management actions are necessary and Recommended Reading appropriate, and provide targets against • Berkes, F. (2012) Sacred Ecology. 3rd edn. New York, N.Y.: Routledge which the effectiveness of management • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., actions and activities can be judge toward Lassen, B., Broome, N.P., Phillips, A., and achieving the desired objectives. Sandwith, T. (2013) Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action. Gland, Furthermore, by stating the situation and Switzerland: IUCN assumptions at the time the plan was written, • Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009) Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of the written document allows future decision- Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: makers to decide if those conditions still Fulcrum Publishing exist, or if the plan needs to be revised in • Thomas, L. and Middleton, J. (2003) Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas. Gland, view of changing conditions. All wilderness Switzerland: IUCN area decision-makers from relevant • Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, Indigenous Peoples governments and non- S., and Pulsford, I. (eds.) (2015) Protected Area Governance and Management. Canberra: ANU Indigenous governments should be part of press the management planning process.
31 2.7 Manage carrying capacities involvement strategy from the outset and is explicit about defining different zones within through establishing limits of the park where different desired visitor acceptable change experiences and resource conditions might apply, mapping these and selecting Guiding Principles indicators and standards for each zone that Management should determine the limits of can then be used in development of acceptable change in wilderness conditions appropriate management actions and by setting standards to protect the area and monitoring of their efficacy (Bacon et al. uphold wilderness values. Setting such 2006). Other useful frameworks exist and can standards allows use within carry capacity be found in Recommended Reading below. through the management of human behaviour and distribution. While limits on Indicators use are sometimes established in cases Useful indicators are ones that can be where impacts are solely related to user measured in cost-effective ways at numbers, impacts have become the more acceptable levels of accuracy and precision; desirable focus to protect wilderness are related to the type, level and location of attributes. Indicator-based planning systems use; reflect changes in conditions due to take a threat-oriented approach to protect visitor use; respond to and help determine both experiences and resources. management effectiveness; help report on the quality of visitor experiences; and are Key Considerations meaningful to stakeholders, including senior managers (Moore et al. 2003). Such Visitor-use indicator-based frameworks indicators are needed to report on the A popular visitor-use indicator-based objectives that ideally make explicit the framework is the limits of acceptable change desired conditions. (LAC) framework (Frissell and Stankey 1972;
Cole and Stankey 1997). This framework Examples of biophysical indicators include asks the questions ‘how much change is the percentage of vegetation cover around a acceptable’ and ‘what are the desired campsite or extent of trail erosion or conditions’ rather than asking ‘how much ‘braiding’. A social indicator in widespread use is too much’? (Watson et al. 2003; use in wilderness areas is the number of trail McCool et al. 2007, Newsome et al. 2013). It encounters with other parties, and number of defines the amount of degradation in parties camped within sight or sound, as an biophysical and/or social conditions indicator of crowding, a threat to solitude permitted in a wilderness area’s (Manning 1997). See Section 2.10 for more management objectives (McCool et al. 2007). information on selecting indicators to monitor
wilderness conditions and experience Another framework, Visitor Experience and opportunities. Resource Protection (VERP), is useful to wilderness managers (U.S. Department of the Interior 1993; U.S. Department of the Interior Implementation 1997; Manning 2001). VERP is largely an Using indicators to define and protect adaptation of the earlier LAC model. VERP carrying capacity provides a means by which crucially includes additional elements the acceptability of inevitable impact can be concerned with developing a public determined and managed. Desired 32 conditions must be explicitly detailed in the Management: Stewardship and Protection of management objectives for the wilderness Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 218–249 area. These objectives must be sufficiently • Lindberg, K., McCool, S., and Stankey, G. (1997) specific and provide clear guidance for ‘Rethinking Carrying Capacity’. Annals of Tourism Research 24 (2), 461–465 wilderness decision makers. Using planning • McCool, S.F. and Cole, D.N. (eds.) (1998) Limits of systems and managements to develop such Acceptable Change and Related Planning objectives is expounded upon in Section 4.1. Processes: Progress and Future Directions: Proceedings of a Workshop May 20–22 1997, Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Recommended Reading Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station • Blaikie, P. (1985) The Political Economy of Soil • McCool, S.F. and Lime, D.W. (2001) ‘Tourism Erosion in Developing Countries. New York: John Carrying Capacity: Tempting Fantasy or Useful Wiley and Sons, Inc. Reality?’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (5), 372– • Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., and Weber, D. 388 (2006) Managing Australia’s Protected Areas: A • Nilsen, P. and Tayler, G. (1997) ‘A Comparative Review of Visitor Management Models, Analysis of Protected Area Planning and Frameworks and Processes (Technical Report). Management Frameworks’. in Proceedings – Limits Gold Coast, Queensland: Cooperative Research of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Centre for Sustainable Tourism, Griffith University Processes: Progress and Future Directions (General • Cole, D. (2009) ‘Ecological Impacts of Wilderness Technical Report INT-GTR-371). Rocky Mountain Recreation and Their Management’. in Wilderness Research Station, Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Management: Stewardship and Protection of Service, 49–57 Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: • Salerno, F., Viviano, G., Manfredi, E.C., Caroli, P., Fulcrum Publishing, 395–436 Thakuri, S., and Tartari, G. (2013) ‘Multiple Carrying • Cole, D.N. and McCool, S.F. (1998) ‘Limits of Capacities from a Management-Oriented Acceptable Change and Natural Resources Perspective to Operationalize Sustainable Tourism Planning: When Is LAC Useful, When Is It Not?’ in in Protected Areas’. Journal of Environmental Proceedings—limits of Acceptable Change and Management 128, 116–125 Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future • Stankey, G.H. (1984) ‘Limits of Acceptable Change: Directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, A New Framework for Managing the Bob Marshall UT: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wilderness Complex’. Western Wildlands 10 (3), Rocky Mountain Research Station, 69–71 33–37 • Dawson, C. and Hendee, J. (2009) ‘Managing for
Appropriate Wilderness Conditions: The Limits of Acceptable Change Process’. in Wilderness
33 2.8 Focus Management on Special provisions Stipulations exist within individual countries’ Threatened Sites and legislation to protect or allow non-compliant Damaging Activities or non-conforming—but legal—activities under special provisions (Nickas and Guiding Principles Proescholdt 2005; Watson et al. 2004). An A threatened site or area can be defined as example can be found within the United any site or location where wilderness States: Limited commercial use is a special physical attributes and/or social conditions provision within the Wilderness Act. These are at risk or are undergoing change or special provisions are sometimes the most degradation as a result of non-natural forces, threatening human uses within a wilderness like impacts from recreation. Wilderness area and cannot always be contained by areas by their very nature tend to be large managers (Natural Resources Law Center and can encompass varied and complex 2004). mosaics of different landscapes and ecosystems. Management must be designed Implementation to the individual circumstances of the To focus on threatened sites and damaging wilderness area. Management should focus activities management must be selective and on threatened sites and activities that site-specific (Cole 1994; Franklin and Aplet damage wilderness areas. Such a focus is 2009). This approach allows managers to more effective than applying unnecessary address and solve problems that occur only management actions to areas not under locally or are temporary in nature. threat. Examples of this focused style of
management include: Key Considerations • Temporary trail closure during wet season Activity outside the defined wilderness area to prevent excessive erosion from foot Difficulties arise for the manager where sites traffic. are threatened by the impacts of activities • Closure and vegetative restoration of taking place outside of the wilderness area popular campsites to allow renewal. (Cole and Landres 1996; Landres et al. 1998). • Segregation of hikers and horse-riders on These might include air and water pollution different trails to minimise possible inter- from agriculture, forest operations and user conflicts. industry. They may also include impacts from • Closure of sensitive areas during critical hunting on dilution of wildlife populations and breeding season for certain species. the resultant effects on territories. The • Impose quotas on user numbers in heavily creation of buffer zones, policy and/or used areas to maintain use within legislation and incorporation, when specified limits to protect user applicable, of World Heritage or UNESCO experiences. Biosphere Reserves are critical in ensuring • Manage visitor’s behaviours, group size, core wilderness. Further discussion on and distribution through limits of management in relationship to adjacent acceptable change protocol to protect the lands can be found in Section 2.11. area’s ecological integrity. • Implement visitor restrictions to mitigate damage to threaten sites with directional
34 flow, assigned campsites and designated bearing in mind that the high frequency/low routes through the area. impact uses might be the most difficult to manage with these being dispersed and Many of these restrictions apply to recreation often with multiple entry points (Leung and use (Cole et al. 1997; Cole and Wright 2003). Marion 2000). When considering which recreational activities to focus on, managers often face For example, management actions and difficult decisions regarding fairness. Careful policies focused on reducing trampling of thought should be given to who should be vegetation and disturbance of wildlife along busy trails by imposing trail quotas, restricted, under what conditions and criteria, restrictions or even closures will adversely and how should these restrictions be impact on visitor experiences by restricting implemented, placing minimum burden on choice and accessibility to key destinations. those facing some sort of restrictions, if Another example might be how a ban on necessary. Management should first focus firewood collection at a popular campsite to on the most damaging activities at the most protect populations of saprophytic insects threatened sites, and then address wider and the species, which depend on them for food will impact user enjoyment by removing issues arising from other uses. It is often the the option of having a campfire. case that the greatest total impact arises from high frequency, low impact uses (e.g., hiking) whereas highly localised yet Recommended Reading • Blaikie, P. (1985) The Political Economy of Soil damaging impacts come from low frequency, Erosion in Developing Countries. New York: John high impact uses (e.g., horses). Impacts can Wiley and Sons, Inc. also arise from manager efforts to fix the • Conover, M.R. (2002) Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage problem. It is incumbent on the manager to Management. New York: Lewis Publishers make decisions about which impacts to focus on and which users/uses to target,
35 2.9 Apply Only the Minimum The Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) describes two steps to this decision Tools, Regulations, or Force to process: Achieve Wilderness Protected 1. Determine if any administrative action is really necessary. The absence of Area Objectives visible presence of humans is highly
desirable in wilderness, and
Guiding Principles opportunities for spontaneity, Decisions about wilderness administrative exercising freedom in decision-making actions and how they both protect and can and lack of heavy-handed, threaten the wilderness resource and visitor authoritarian management presence is experiences are very important. Many highly compatible with the wilderness characteristics of wilderness are fragile and ideal. Describe the situation that may irreplaceable. If decisions are made without prompt action and describe why it is a systematic analysis and without forethought problem or issue. Determine if there for protecting key benefits of wilderness are any options outside of wilderness designation, a great deal could be lost — can action be taken outside of through the wrong, or at least not the most wilderness that adequately addresses appropriate, administrative actions. A the situation? If action is necessary, systematic decision process should be used move to step 2, to determine the for determining appropriateness of minimum requirement to address the administrative actions in wilderness. This can issue. In the United States, the MRDG include the use of tools (like methods used to limits this analysis to “…actions control invasive plants, suppress fires, or include, but are not limited to, conduct scientific research), to regulations scientific monitoring, research, (such as weighing user restrictions that recreational developments (trails, impact experiences but protect the resource bridges, signs, etc.), and activities against educational approaches) to related to special provisions applications of force (citations, warnings, mandated by the Wilderness Act or education, etc.). A firm, systematic process subsequent legislation (such as for making decisions is recommended. grazing, exercising mineral rights, access to inholdings, maintenance of Key Considerations water developments, and commercial The Minimum Requirements Decision Guide services).” (MRDG 2014) (developed by the Arthur 2. Determine the minimum required Carhart Wilderness Training Center in the activity. To do this, identify a selected United States) suggests a simple principle of alternative after identifying and “use the minimum tool” that is necessary to evaluating all reasonable alternatives. accomplish the task. The tool that is least Describe the rationale for selecting obtrusive to the wilderness environment and this alternative, referencing law and visitor experiences and addresses the issue policy criteria. And describe any will be the best tool, regulation or amount of monitoring and reporting force to use. requirements. The MRDG suggests a worksheet that forces the administrator to work through a series
36 of questions in describing each area closures will be used during herbicide alternative solution and helps to application operations. Monitoring of existing document why an alternative was infestations and inventory of new outbreaks selected. would continue as required. A public information program would be implemented Case Study outside wilderness (i.e., trailhead information On the MRDG website (www.wilderness.net boards, forest offices, forest website, etc.) to /MRA), there are case studies for such issues inform wilderness visitors and others about as livestock grazing management, historic the threat of non-native invasive plants cabin management, insects and disease infestations and to promote prevention control, native fish restoration, non-native measures to minimise introduction and invasive plants management and wildlife spread. The public and adjacent landowners surveys. A key example found in the MRDG would be informed of treatment actions and is that of non-native invasive plants temporary area closures during herbicide management. This work resulted in a solution application operations. that is highly driven by protection of the wilderness character of the place and the Implementation symbolic values of wilderness protected at The MRDG suggests development of specific this place. In this example, after learning criteria for determining necessity. Such from monitoring activities that non-native decisions must be made in a consistent invasive plants were increasing at one manner. As issues and personnel change, location in a wilderness in the United States, wilderness managers must strive to apply the a minimum requirement analysis was same criteria in action planning and decision conducted. making. The MRDG suggests making decisions of necessity minimally based on This prescription was adopted: Treatment of these five criteria: non-native invasive plants infestations would 1. Valid existing rights or special occur within the wilderness and continue on provisions of wilderness legislation: Is national forest and private lands adjacent to action necessary to satisfy valid the wilderness. All treatment actions in this existing rights or a special provision in case study follow the recommendations of wilderness legislation that requires an Integrated Weed Management Plan (see action? Colorado Natural Areas Program 2000 for 2. Requirements of other legislation: Is more details on such planning). These action necessary to meet the treatment actions are to be adjusted annually requirements of other federal laws? as needed. Hand-pulling and grazing, using 3. Wilderness character: Is action domestic goats controlled by a herder, will necessary to preserve one or more of be used for knapweed and herbicides will be the important qualities of wilderness applied to treat leafy spurge, toadflax and that were behind formal protection of Canada thistle. Only non-motorised spray this area as wilderness? equipment will be used and all transportation 4. Legislation language: Is there “special of personnel and equipment will be on foot or provisions” language in legislation (or pack string. All personnel will camp in other Congressional direction) that existing campsites and use Leave No Trace explicitly allows consideration of a use techniques to minimise impacts. Temporary otherwise prohibited AND/OR has the
37 issue been addressed in agency take place and what mitigation measures policy, management plans, species would be necessary. Wilderness managers recovery plans, or agreements with should select the method or technique that other agencies or partners? causes minimum impact to the resource and 5. Time Constraints: What, if any, are the visitor experiences while solving the issue. time constraints that may affect the action? Recommended Reading • Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) For each decision made, managers must (2014) Online Instructions for Minimum describe what possible methods and Requirement Analysis is available online from the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center techniques could be used, when the action
38 2.10 Monitor Wilderness (Cole 2010). Wilderness management takes a long-term view. Monitoring is a key factor in Conditions and Experience ensuring the continued ecological and Opportunities to Guide Long- cultural intactness of a wilderness area. The use of an indicator-based planning system is Term Wilderness Stewardship essential for long-term monitoring (see
Sections 2.7 and 4.1). Guiding Principles
To monitor wilderness conditions is to Adaptive management observe and measure the quality of the area Wilderness areas are subject to human- over time through the systematic review of induced change that can be addressed by specific metrics, indicators and wilderness managers (e.g., soil erosion) and measurements. Any management plan other human-induced changes that are not requires effective monitoring systems and (e.g., climate change, air pollution). protocols to evaluate progress towards its Management needs to be able to deal stated objectives. Monitoring is essential to flexibly with both these endogenous and guide planning and identify any revisions that exogenous influences, with flexibility may be required to the management plans or particularly important with respect to the actions. It is also essential to understand any latter where uncertainty is an inherent trait. changing circumstances and to be able to Flexibility in management is also needed to assess management actions already respond to changing visitor and visit undertaken. Only through monitoring can it characteristics over time and associated be determined if the objectives in a changes in impacts. And, what is societally wilderness area management plan have been acceptable over time is going to keep accomplished or not. changing. Also adding uncertainty is whether a particular management strategy for visitors is going to work or not, and needing to adjust it accordingly. For all these reasons, adaptive, flexible management is necessarily central to successful management. The limits of acceptable change framework was designed with adaptive management in mind (Moore and Hockings 2013, Cole and McCool 1997).
Importance of collaboration between all Wilderness manager collecting monitoring stakeholders data. Managing for desired conditions or © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute acceptable levels of change suggests value judgments are integral to decision making Key Considerations (McCool et al. 2007). These judgments could be made by managers but they are unlikely Long-term perspective to reflect the full suite of values held Monitoring, when employed correctly, allows regarding a wilderness area; values held by for the possibility of a wilderness area’s long- Indigenous People, visitors, commercial term stewardship for future generation’s use 39 operators (concessionaires), neighbours, (Merigliano and Krumpe 1986; Landres et al. environmental organisations, and others. 2005). Collaboration is needed throughout the planning cycle in determining desirable It should be recognised that most of these conditions and encapsulating them in the indicators will vary both spatially and objectives, through to indicator and site temporally across the wilderness area and selection and the review of results (Newsome will require appropriate tools and systems to et al. 2013). assist in both data collection, management and subsequent analysis. In some instances Implementation a Geographical Information System (GIS) populated with appropriate datasets, Devising effective monitoring for wilderness supported by the necessary hardware and management plans can be a major challenge. software, and personnel within an Good monitoring systems involve the careful appropriate organisational setting, will be and systematic collection of data followed by used to handle the data management and careful analysis and evaluation. Monitoring of analysis (Carver and Fritz 2016). In all the quality of wilderness areas should instances working closely with natural and include baseline documentation of influence social scientists will be extremely useful. external forces from adjacent lands (see Section 2.11). Analysis should focus on the assessment of non-degradation of an area Recommended Reading (see Section 2.2), the wilderness experiences • Landres, P., Boutcher, S., Merigliano, L., Barns, C., of recreational users and the cultural needs Davis, D., Hall, T., Henry, S., Hunter, B., Janiga, P., of the Indigenous Peoples and local Laker, M., McPherson, A., Powell, D., Rowan, M., and Sater, S. (2005) Monitoring Selected communities associated with the area (see Conditions Related to Wilderness Character: A Section 2.3). Data should be collected on National Framework. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. biological, physical, social, psychological Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky and cultural metrics for the wilderness area in Mountain Research Station question and for the adjacent lands
40 2.11 Manage Wilderness in Legal and administrative involvement Wilderness can be regarded as one side of Relation to Its Adjacent Lands the environmental modification spectrum (or wilderness continuum). It is difficult to draw Guiding Principles the boundary between legally protected (i.e., Adjacent lands are the areas surrounding the de jure) wilderness and non-wilderness (Nash demarcated protected area and are outside 1982). Boundaries are usually decided the limits of the core wilderness area. Threats through a process of legal and administrative to core wilderness can come from human decision-making. Boundaries can often activities outside the protected area. Discrete cross, divide or intersect natural biophysical legal and practical protected area boundaries zones or ecosystems making the manager’s do not necessarily reflect boundaries task all the more difficult. Wilderness followed by natural processes, like wildlife managers must involve themselves with the migration and wildfires. It is often necessary management of land uses outside of their to manage the wilderness area not in immediate area of jurisdiction. Careful isolation but in coordination with its adjacent planning and coordination with decision- lands. makers, landowners and wilderness area partners is essential. Key Considerations Do not manage wilderness in isolation Influence of and on adjacent lands In a recent survey of wilderness managers in There are many ways in which adjacent lands the United States (Dawson et al. 2015) one of influence (and are influenced by) wilderness the most serious threats to wilderness areas. These can be summarised as follows: conditions identified by these managers was • Air pollution from nearby urban areas (e.g., the threat posed from adjacent lands. All of emissions from cars, power stations and the natural processes, and many of the industry) can negatively affect air quality human ones too, do not respect judicial and inside wilderness areas leading to impacts administrative boundaries that we place on wildlife and vegetation health. around designated wilderness and other • Dust and smoke from agriculture and protected areas. We cannot always establish forestry (e.g., wind-blown soil from boundaries in a way that limits exchange of ploughed fields and smoke from deliberate organisms, sounds, water and human uses burning of crops and forestry residues) across landscapes. Wilderness cannot be can also impact on air quality within managed in isolation from the physical, wilderness areas and adversely affect ecological and human context of its visibility. Within the United States’ surroundings. Managers must manage categorisation of air quality, wilderness wilderness in relation to its adjacent lands. In areas should be ranked as cleanest. some countries, buffer zones can be Monitoring of air quality within a implemented to protect the core wilderness wilderness area affects a local industry’s area from activities outside the protected ability to increase air pollutants. area. In some countries or at specific sites, • Water quality within wilderness areas can buffer zones cannot be established. be affected either by wet/dry fallout of atmospheric pollutants or by direct runoff where a wilderness area boundary does not encompass the whole of a catchment,
41 watershed or drainage basin. It is usual for wilderness associated species beyond the wilderness areas to be regarded as highly wilderness protected area can bring it into beneficial water supply zones and have conflict with economic land uses such as often been preserved as wilderness for farming and ranching as a result of just this purpose (e.g., the Catskill livestock predation, genetic dilution from Mountains supply drinking water for New interbreeding and transmission of disease. York City). Thus, ranching and farming landowners • Wildfires are a particular concern in regard may sometimes view wildlife as threats to to the management of wilderness in their livelihoods. relation to adjacent lands. Wildfires originating from natural ignitions (e.g., Case Study lightning strikes) in wilderness areas and On Montana’s Flathead Indian Reservation allowed to burn as part of the ecological the tribal council designated the 92,000-acre management plan, can cross the boundary Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness (Fig. 1) and pose a threat to lives, property and in 1982 at the urging of many tribal economic land use outside of the members. The wilderness is a symbol of the wilderness. Similarly, fires started by overarching relationship the Confederated human action (either accidentally or Salish and Kootenai tribes once had with the deliberately) outside of wilderness areas northern Rocky Mountains. The Tribes also can burn into the wilderness and cause established protection in 1987 for an unnatural damage. additional 22,000 acres west of the • Access and recreation also needs to be wilderness to serve as a buffer zone against considered. Roads, trails and trailheads at unwanted human activities. The wilderness the wilderness boundary create localised buffer zone essentially established a checks- areas of higher accessibility within the and-balances system that assured wilderness with associated impacts from deliberation and conscious decision making higher recreational use. Trespass into to ensure that trust is protected and wilderness from adjacent lands by wilderness values do not deteriorate. This violators using motorised or mechanized parcel of land—half of which is owned by the methods of conveyance can severely Tribe, half by tribal and non-tribal threaten wilderness resources. individuals—contains some homes and • Disease is often a key concern in regard to roads and remains a working landscape adjacent land use. While natural pests and within the community. Both the wilderness diseases are often not controlled within a and the buffer zone are considered protected wilderness area (e.g., Pine and Spruce cultural as well as natural landscapes; thus bark beetle in Europe and North America) major decisions about the management of and are perhaps considered a natural these areas are subject to review by the process, they can cause problems from Tribal Cultural Committee, the Tribal Council economic damage and losses once they and other tribal members (Watson et al. cross the boundary. 2013). • Wildlife is generally highly mobile, sometimes with large home ranges or To successfully improve forest health within territories that extend well beyond the that wilderness buffer zone and increase wilderness boundary. Movement and opportunities to restore fire in the wilderness, migration of wilderness dependent and the Tribal Forestry Department and the
42 public are working together to find solutions Implementation to increasingly threatening fuel buildups. Wilderness is often managed in relation to Decades of fire suppression within the adjacent lands through zoning and wilderness buffer zone have resulted in heavy coordinated planning. Zoning can be applied accumulations of dead wood on the forest both inside and outside of wilderness areas. floor, a dense understory of brush and young Inside the wilderness area, zones describing trees, and closed forest canopy. This levels of use based on landscape indices and accumulation renders the forest highly accessibility can be used to manage use susceptible to destructive wild fires, disease, based on remoteness from the wilderness and infestations of pine bark beetle and other boundary and access points. The creation of harmful insects. Yet, at the same time buffer zones should be encouraged outside improving forest health demands the use of of the wilderness boundary. Buffer zones are fire to restore a structure that makes it more usually zones of limited economic activity fire-resilient over the long term. Although the (e.g., extensive grazing and light forestry) and tribal people and their governing agencies developed recreation (e.g., serviced camp are ostensibly committed to seeing fire grounds) that act as a buffer or separation restored in the wilderness, the situation of between the wilderness and intensive land fuels abundance in the buffer zone has been uses beyond. Buffer zones act in both a serious obstacle. directions depending on the threats and influences under consideration. For example, a wilderness buffer can protect wilderness from intensive land use via legal planning restrictions within the buffer zone. It can also protect economic land use from wildlife and diseases originating inside the wilderness (Cole and Hall 2006) or restoration fires to move outside the wilderness boundary to valuable cultural forest or homes (Watson et al. 2013).
Buffer zones are not the sole answer to managing wilderness in relation to its adjacent lands. It is essential to work with law enforcement, to get local community support, and to implement legal restrictions. Careful coordination of management actions both within and outside the wilderness areas between reserve managers and local planning authorities is necessary to protect
wilderness areas from external forces and Fig. 1: The Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness is bordered to the west by the development. Tribal Buffer Zone. © Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
43 Recommended Reading
• Cole, D.N. and Hall, T.E. (2006) ‘Wilderness Zoning:
Should We Purposely Manage to Different
Standards’. in People, Places, and Parks:
Proceedings of the 2005 George Wright Society
Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and
Cultural Sites. 33–38
• Dawson, C., Cordell, K., Watson, A.E., Ghimire, R.,
and Green, G.T. (2015) ‘The US Wilderness
Managers Survey: Charting a Path for the Future’.
Journal of Forestry 114
• Watson, A., Carver, S., Matt, R., Gunderson, K., and Davis, B. (2013) ‘Place Mapping to Protect Cultural Landscapes on Tribal Lands’. in Place- Based Conservation. Springer Netherlands, 211– 222
44 © Sarah Casson Governance & Authority 3.1 Introduction: Governance political actors involved at all scales of wilderness protected areas. and Authority in Wilderness Protected Areas No single governance model can be used as the ideal across all wilderness areas. Governance refers to the interactions among Wilderness areas are intrinsically different, institutional structures, processes and and require different governance traditions through which political actors can approaches. Section 3 recognises four enact legislation, delegate power and principle governance types: by government, responsibility, and determine the by Indigenous Peoples and local appropriateness and equity of management communities, by private governance, and by objectives (Graham et al. 2003; Borrini- shared governance. Shared governance can Feyerabend et al. 2013). Governance is incorporate any of the three other intimately related to management but governance types. Section 3 also provides ultimately separate (Borrini-Feyerabend and guidelines for wilderness governance through Hill 2015). Management determines the multilateral treaties (see Section 3.6). actions that are undertaken in pursuit of wilderness area protection, whereas As stated in the 2014 Promise of Sydney (see governance dictates which political actors Introduction for more detail on the 2014 have the power and responsibility to make Promise of Sydney document) quality for all those management decisions (Lockwood et governance approaches must be coupled al. 2006). Management focuses on the ‘what’ with governance diversity and vitality. of wilderness protection and governance Governance diversity requires dynamic focuses on the ‘who’ and ‘how’ (Graham et systems that involve as many political actors al. 2003). as is feasible. Full participation of government officials, rights-holders, non- Those charged with the task of wilderness governmental organisations and private area governance should strive to uphold a institutions is essential to high quality set of governance quality principles governance. Diversity of actors can be customised to a particular area’s specific enforced through official legislative bodies cultural concerns, historical land use, and and informal social structures. Governance geography. Borrini-Feyerabend et al. (2013) vitality is “the capacity for integration and argue, “These principles provide insights connectivity, learning from experience and about how a specific governance setting will social-ecological history, fostering advance or hinder conservation, sustainable engagement and developing innovative and livelihoods and the rights and values of the empowering solutions” (IUCN World Parks people and country concerned” (p. xii). Congress 2014: 3). A focus on improving Strong adherence to governance principles governance vitality provides a way to ensure within wilderness law is required to ensure the protection of wilderness areas is proper protection. There are five main premised on respectful and equitable principles of good governance quality relationships. defined by the IUCN: Legitimacy and Voice, Equity, Fairness and Rights, Performance, Section 3 also explores the permitted and Accountability. These principles of governance variances from wilderness governance quality should be upheld by all legislation (see Section 3.7). Within all
46 governance types wilderness legislation Kormos, C.F. (ed.) (2008) A Handbook on International regulates certain human uses within Wilderness Law and Policy. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing wilderness areas but allows other uses that • Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Neumann, A., are consistent with wilderness values Shrumm, H., and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Recognising and (Kormos 2008: 356). Supporting Territories and Areas Conserved by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: Global Overview and National Case Studies. Recommended Reading For • Lockwood, M., Worboys, G., and Kothari, A. (eds.) Section 3 (2006) Managing Protected Areas: A Global Guide. London ; Sterling, VA: Earthscan • Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Gardner, J., • Stevens, S. (2014) Indigenous Peoples, National and Heylings, P. (2003) Evaluating Governance--A Parks, and Protected Areas. Tucson (AZ): The Handbook to Accompany a Participatory Process University of Arizona Press for a Protected Area. Report for Parks Canada and • Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, CEESP/CMWG/TILCEPA S., and Pulsford, I. (eds.) (2015) Protected Area • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Governance and Management. Canberra: ANU Lassen, B., Broome, N.P., Phillips, A., and press Sandwith, T. (2013) Governance of Protected • IUCN Protected Areas Governance website, Areas: From Understanding to Action. Gland, accessed online
• Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and Hill, R. (2015) ‘Governance for the Conservation of Nature’. Protected Area Governance and Management 169– 206
47 3.2 Governance and authority of The legislation of wilderness protection is important to effective conservation efforts. wilderness protected areas by National government approaches to government wilderness legislation span a spectrum of de jure (existing in law) and de facto (existing in Guiding Principles fact) protection. Kormos (2008) argues that National government governance occurs many countries have the de jure legal when a national government body, like a protection of wilderness areas but not all ministry or protected area agency, has an nations refer to the governance as explicit official mandate and the necessary capacity laws (p.18). Certain countries, like Australia, to govern a wilderness protected area. Sub- Canada, Finland, South Africa, Russia, Sri national governance of wilderness protected Lanka, the United States, and the Flathead areas occurs at the provincial, regional and Indian Reservation in the United States have local government levels. Most national statutory protection of wilderness areas. government and sub-national legislative Such statutory protection describes the approaches to wilderness correspond with tenets of a wilderness area within a IUCN Protected Areas Category 1b wilderness law and establishes wilderness classification. Governance by government of protected areas protected by law. Other wilderness is growing in adoption countries, like New Zealand, Zimbabwe, and internationally. It is likely that more countries Italy, have less strict legislation of wilderness will soon adopt their own wilderness laws areas. Instead these countries protect that correspond to the IUCN categorisation. wilderness areas through administrative zoning laws (Martin and Watson 2009). This type of law allows for wilderness as a Key Considerations category of protected area within the country National government governance but delegates the particular zoning to A national government body may declare individual park management authorities. new wilderness areas, determine the conservation objectives of the areas, and Wilderness laws perform two tasks: 1) they oversee the area’s management (Borrini- define the attributes that wild areas must Feyerabend et al. 2013; Borrini-Feyerabend possess to qualify as a wilderness protected and Hill 2015; Lockwood et al. 2006; area, and 2) they define the range of human Worboys et al. 2015). Sometimes the uses that are deemed compatible with those government body in a country, like Namibia attributes and which are therefore permitted and the Philippines, will delegate day-to-day within wilderness (Kormos 2008: 21). Such management and governance, for example laws create the legal and political definition to a sub-national government agency, of wilderness protected by those tasked with Indigenous Peoples’ management board, the conservation of the area. Governance non-governmental organisation, or private creates and upholds wilderness legislation sector actor though usually retaining the within protected areas. ultimate responsibility and decision making authority (Dawson and Hendee 2009; Borrini- With all types of national government Feyerabend et al. 2013). legislation of wilderness governance, the challenge for legislators is to combine the social, biological and recreational aspects of
48 wilderness into nationally applicable law that which circumstances non-intervention remains consistent with wilderness values management may be applied within Natura (Kormos 2008). Policymakers must draft 2000 areas. wilderness statutes that combine protection for ecological resiliency, recreational values, The wilderness definition used within these and Indigenous Peoples’ traditional means of European Commission guidelines was livelihoods that are dependent upon the derived from the IUCN definition of category wilderness resource. 1b. These guidelines enable implementation of protection and restoration schemes to a Sub-national government governance uniform standard regardless of geographic or Government is not a monolithic entity. A cultural circumstances, and also provide multitude of agencies comprise all nations’ direction for governance. The document calls governments and work at the local, regional, for more effective use of legislative capacity provincial, and national levels (Lockwood et already existing within the Natura 2000 network to protect wilderness and to al. 2006; Worboys and Trzyna 2015) , often in concert with private interests and non- coordinate with local law. It also directs governmental authority. Each agency has its decision-makers to incorporate protected own claims to authority, legitimacy and wilderness areas within more general ability to produce quality conservation. Sub- conservation agendas by realizing the national government governance creates the economic, social and cultural importance of potential for a more collaborative and wilderness in addition to its intrinsic, decentralised process of conservation biodiversity and ecosystem service benefits (Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill 2015) based upon locally-defined relationships between Implementation of the European Commission government agencies, local communities, guidelines represents part of a broader non-governmental organisations and private programme to advance the wilderness and individuals. Today it is rare that a sub- wild area agenda in Europe. These guidelines national wilderness protected area is solely provide governance advice while also governed by a government agency without sending a useful global message about the collaboration with Indigenous Peoples or importance of wilderness protection. other conservation actors. Implementation Case Study A wilderness protected area governed by a In 2009 the European Parliament passed a national or sub-national government body resolution calling for improved protection and should: recognition. The European Commission
(2013) published guidelines on management • Be transparent in management decisions of wild and wilderness areas in the Natura • Alert the public of actions through 2000 network. Covering 18% of Europe’s publication of management policies and terrestrial area, this network is now the performance effectiveness reports largest coordinated set of protected areas in • Foster engagement with political actors the world. 130 non-governmental across government agencies and with organizations approved these guidelines’ non-government individuals recommendations on how, where and under • Promote dialogue between stakeholders and conservation partners 49
Above all, such a governance structure should strive to uphold the ecological and social wilderness values of the area.
Planning meeting of wilderness decision-makers. © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute
50 3.3 Governance and authority communities uphold wilderness values and should, if desired by the specific Indigenous by Indigenous Peoples and People or local community, be registered as local communities a wilderness protected area. In 2012 the IUCN adopted resolution 5.094 Respecting, Guiding Principles Recognising and Supporting Indigenous Governance of land and marine territories by Peoples’ and Community Conserved Indigenous Peoples, Tribes and local Territories and Areas that called for communities is both widespread and the governments, non-governmental oldest form of governance. If Indigenous organisations and the IUCN body to People, a Tribe or the local community “recognise and support ICCAs in situations choses to have their self-governed and where they overlap with protected area or managed territories designated as a other designations” (IUCN 2012; Stevens wilderness protected area, that site can be 2014). Such recognition comes from the referred to as an ICCA (Indigenous Peoples’ proper international and national respect of and Community Conserved Territories and Indigenous Peoples’ customary territories Areas) (Dudley 2013; Kothari et al. 2012). and laws used to govern those areas. ICCAs have three key tenets: 1) “An Adhering to the United Nations Declaration Indigenous People or local community on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is possesses a close and profound relation with essential. In cases where indigenous people a site (territory, area or habitat)”; 2) “The do not hold direct authority over culturally people or community are the major players in significant areas, but no other protection decision-making related to the site and have exists, ICCA listing goals can motivate de facto and/or de jure capacity to develop communities to seek or declare needed and enforce regulations”; and 3) voluntary authority. “decisions and efforts lead to the conservation of biodiversity, ecological Holistic approach functions and associated cultural values, Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ regardless of original or primary motivations” territories and practices that align with the (Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill 2015:185; IUCN definition of category 1b sites and Stevens 2014: 71). While not all ICCAs are ICCAs may be concerned with more than wilderness areas, within ICCAs there is vast biodiversity conservation alone (Stevens diversity in governance structures, customary 2014:70). ICCAs often “can be central to and local organisations, mandates, and livelihood, culture (including identity, capacities to protect wilderness attributes. relationships to territory, and spiritual beliefs), The guidance of United Nations Declaration and, when appropriately recognized and on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should respected, the realization of rights. They are be followed within all ICCAs. essential to secure livelihoods, providing access to food, water, shelter, clothing,
energy and income (Dias 2012) through Key Considerations sustainable use of natural resources based International recognition of Indigenous on local knowledge, cultural values, and Peoples’ customary ICCAs as protected collective management of commons” areas is an important step within (Stevens 2014:70-71). ICCA is an umbrella conservation. Many territories governed and term that impasses many of the ways that managed by Indigenous Peoples and local 51 Indigenous Peoples and local communities accordance with the United Nations conserve and protect their territories and Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous areas through customary traditions, culture, Peoples. Without proper recognition of self-governance, and relation to place ICCAs, non-Indigenous governments risk (Stevens 2014). Overly restrictive definitions undermining, suppressing, and violating the of ICCAs, often premised upon non- rights of Indigenous Peoples (Borrini- Indigenous Peoples’ romanticisation and Feyerabend and Hill 2015; Stevens and static understanding of Indigenous Peoples Pathak-Broome 2014). Nation states must and local communities, undermine the recognise customary territories and law, and autonomy of ICCAs, Indigenous Peoples’ many are beginning to do so (Borrini- rights and ICCA’s conservation contributions Feyerabend and Hill 2015: 193). Customary (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013; Stevens law must be understood and respected as a 2010, 2014; Jonas et al. 2012; Kothari et al. legitimate body of law separate from a non- 2012). Indigenous government’s body of law.
Collective rights Implementation ICCAs are often governed and managed A wilderness protected area governed by collectively. Recognition of Indigenous Indigenous Peoples or local communities Peoples’ collective rights—as opposed to should affirm Indigenous peoples sovereignty individual—to their land, water and natural and rights, including: rights to control their resources is essential (Borrini-Feyerabend own development and to use, conserve and and Hill 2015:183). Collective rights support manage all natural features of their lands, community institutions’ ability to be the including the rights to keep their own governing bodies of protected areas. systems of land tenure, and to be protected Denying collective rights to Indigenous from environmental degradation; right to Peoples harms their capacity to govern their participate in decisions regarding the traditional lands. disposition of any state-owned minerals which may affect them, with the objective of Acknowledgement of negative conservation obtaining their agreement or consent, and legacies not to be removed from lands without their All work done must acknowledge consent. This includes the allowance of conservation’s historical legacy of nation- limitations of recreational access seasonally building, subjugation of Indigenous Peoples, and/or spatially to assure privacy for the blatant racism and ethnocentrism, explusion spiritual and traditional practice of of Indigenous Peoples from their territories, Indigenous Peoples. and extreme prejudices by non-Indigenous Peoples of the purported threats posed by Recommended Reading Indigenous Peoples to so-called • Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., and Zerner, C. (eds.) conservation efforts (Stevens 2014:40). In (2005) Communities and Conservation: Histories instances where ICCAs exist within larger and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Globalization and the environment. government-governed wilderness protected Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press areas, all wilderness decision-makers must • Cajune, J., Martin, V., and Tanner, T. (eds.) (2008) Protecting Wild Nature on Native Lands: Case support ICCAs and governance by Studies by Native Peoples from around the World. Indigenous Peoples in a manner that vol. 1. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples in
52 • Dudley, N. (ed.) (2013) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN • Indigenous peoples’ and community conserved territories and areas (ICCAs) consortium website:
53 3.4 Private ownership and as secondary to the wants of private individuals. Today private governance governance of wilderness prioritises the conservation needs of protected areas wildlands, often through conservation easements. A common example of such Guiding Principles governance is seen when corporations, non- Private governance of wilderness protected governmental organisations or private trusts areas is an important field of conservation in purchase and lease of wildlands for the which wildlands are overseen by private explicit purpose of conservation (Langholm institutions, not government agencies and Krug 2004). Many are driven by respect (Dudley 2013). The authority and for nature and desire to protect wild places responsibility to make conservation (Worboys et al. 2015). More utilitarian decisions rests solely with the private motivations include corporate responsibility institutional owners, individuals or trusts who objectives, biodiversity offsets, ecotourism own the land. To be formally recognised income and tax incentives. Both motivations within the IUCN definition, any wildlands are important and interrelated. governed by private actors must prioritise the conservation needs of the area over any Oversight and certification activities that might impinge on the Oversight and certification by external conservation objective and must adhere to sources should be encouraged to maintain best practices as defined within IUCN strict standards of best practice governance management guidelines. and management (Worboys and Trzyna 2015). Many protected areas are privately owned and governed are managed by a Key Considerations board whose purpose is to ensure proper Certain countries, particularly Eastern and governance practices (Worboys and Trzyna Southern African countries, have more land 2015). Poor governance practices in private protected under private ownership and wilderness areas can result in “ ‘islands for governance than under the authority of elites’—places where wealthy landowners government (Worboys et al. 2015). It is host affluent tourists (Langholz and Krug important to ensure best practices on these 2004)” (Worboys et al. 2015: 192). This is wildlands and proper recognition of the especially a concern with foreign ownership quality conservation performed through of lands protected for their wilderness value private governance. and character. Oversight by external sources allow for the use of specific legal and political Legacy of private governance in conservation contexts to ensure quality governance, which Private ownership and governance has a requires cooperation with the national and long history within nature conservation sub-national government agencies and (Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill 2015; Johnson relationships with communities surrounding 1996; Nash and Hendee 2009). The origins of the private wildlands. Proof of such private conservation governance can often cooperation can come from certification be found in lands set aside by aristocrats given by the national government or and monarchs to protect areas to use as international bodies that monitor and hunting grounds (Lockwood et al. 2006). evaluate the effectiveness and equity of a Such governance saw conservation practices wilderness area (Lockwood et al. 2006: 130).
54 This regulation can ensure private Initiative, formally declared by Mexico and governance adherence to IUCN standards of the United States. A further example was the quality governance and true partnerships Shamwari Game Reserve in South Africa, with surrounding communities (Worboys et which was the first private wilderness al. 2015). protected area designated in South Africa. Shamwari is no longer a privately owned wilderness protected area but did set many Case Studies good examples of how to govern a privately Private governance is often best owned wilderness area. Examples of quality implemented through partnerships between private governance can be found in Kormos’ private actors and conservation-focused (2008) writing on conservation by nongovernmental entities, governments, or corporations and individual landowners and grant-making foundations. Working at a Borrini-Feyerabend’s (2013) description of landscape-scale can bring together multiple ecotourism and private hunting reserves. private landowners and conservation agencies to agreement on large conservation management plans and governance Implementation objectives (Worboys et al. 2015). Examples Private wilderness protected areas should: of such partnerships can be seen in the 2.4 • Be overseen by an external source to million-hectare Adirondack Park in New York ensure best practices State in which half of the land is privately • Where applicable, use a management owned and can be seen in the vast private board to execute governance decisions ranches of the American West (Kormos • Cooperate with national and sub-national 2008). Another example is El Carmen, a government agencies private wilderness protected area in northern • Partner with conservation Mexico (www.cemex.com/Sustainable non-governmental organisations or Development/cases/ElCarmen). El Carmen is grant-making entities owned by the private company CEMEX, • Where possible, create financial incentives which is advised by several non- for private actors to respect the ability of governmental conservation organisations on Indigenous Peoples to continue accessing best practices for wilderness conservation. traditional places and land uses. CEMEX announced the creation of El Carmen at WILD9, the 9th World Wilderness All governance and management decisions Congress in 2009. As a result of work done should be toward upholding best practices by the organisers of that Congress and the and wilderness values. Mexican Government, one year later El Carmen was a key part of a three million hectare transboundary protected area, the El Carmen-Big Bend Conservation Corridor
55 3.5 Shared governance and actors, their respective capacities and interests. This focus on diversity allows for a authority of wilderness multitude of engaged actors to be involved in protected areas the conservation process and for the recognition of partners and stakeholders Guiding Principles beyond national government agencies to be A shared governance structure that can formally involved in the governance of a balance diverse partners and stakeholders wilderness area (Dovers et al. 2015). Some with differing (sometimes vastly differing) actors, like Indigenous Peoples, local capacities and interests will be a much communities and private landowners, have stronger long-term governance system than almost always been informally involved in the one that ignores these complexities to focus governance of wilderness but can now be only on the politically powerful (Berkes 2012; given due recognition through shared Worboys and Trzyna 2015). Shared governance roles (Lockwood et al. 2006). governance requires institutional Wildness decision-makers in shared mechanisms that share governance and governance structures must adhere to the authority among several actors but can be United Nations Declaration on the Rights of individualised at the local level (Worboys et Indigenous Peoples. Two articles within this al. 2015). A multi-level emphasis incorporates declaration of particular importance to a management structure able to work with a shared governance are: plurality of governance that brings together • Article 12: “the right to maintain, protect, different levels of national, state and local develop and teach their spiritual and governments of the state to work in religious traditions, customs and coordination with Indigenous Peoples, Tribes ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect and local communities’ governments. The and have access in privacy to their religious complexities of power relationships between and cultural sites, the right to use and a politically and culturally diverse group can control their ceremonial objects and right to present major difficulties to a successful repatriations of their human remains….” shared governance structure, but, when (UNDRIP 2007: 9). successful, this diversity can likewise better • Article 31: “the right to control, protect and ensure the long-term stability and success of develop their cultural knowledge….and a wilderness protected area. intellectual property rights…” (UNDRIP 2007: 11). These rights include the right to Key Considerations research employing indigenous science and methodology and to ensure the Key features of successful shared inclusion of indigenous science in policy governance structures include partnerships implementation, other research projects, that are multi-party, multi-level, multi- assessments and response to protected disciplinary, and flexible with an emphasis on area threats. constantly evolving process, and created in a paradigm in which powers are shared and Shared governance presents the possibility benefits distributed (Dudley 2013; Borrini- that a protected area could incorporate the Feyerabend and Hill 2015). An explicit focus ecological and cultural needs of an area in a on multi-party collaboration requires manner that upholds the best practices incorporating different types of political required by governments, communities, 56 scientists, and conservationists. In some of shared authority, responsibility, mandate situations, non-governmental organisations and capacity to govern a wilderness area. may oversee the governance of a wilderness Joint governance has a strong potential to area and be charged with the responsibility incorporate the pressing social and of bringing together a range of stakeholders ecological needs of conservation (Carlsson and conservation actors, including and Berkes 2005). government agencies. Transboundary governance Collaborative governance When applicable to wilderness protected Collaborative governance occurs when one areas, transboundary governance refers to government agency—often a state or the ways in which wilderness protected provincial agency—possesses the authority areas are established and managed across and mandate to govern an area but must at national government borders to allow the free least consult and inform stakeholders when migration of animals across political borders implementing regulations and initiatives (Mittermeier et al. 2005; Sandwich et al. (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013). Consultation 2001; Vasilijević et al. 2015). Transboundary may vary from informal to formal depending governance should include management upon the regulation at hand and the actors plans in which the management is truly involved. A strong form of collaborative shared between and integrated across the governance uses a type of consultation that nations involved in the transboundary area. requires the fully informed and Transboundary efforts may not explicitly comprehensive involvement of all focus on wilderness but include the stakeholders in the decisions made for the protection of wilderness areas as part of an area (Lockwood et al. 2006; Borrini- overall conservation strategy. Transboundary Feyerabend and Hill 2015). Applicable to all governance can and should include protected areas, collaborative governance collaborative or joint governance. works well for wilderness protected areas as does joint governance described below. Peace Parks (www.peacepark.org) provide examples of transboundary governance Joint governance structures that benefit ecosystems, peoples Joint governance has a regulation body and wildlife in the name of conservation and composed of actors representing a variety of social justice. The Kavango-Zambezi vested interests and constituencies that are Transfrontier Conservation area that spans charged with the authority and responsibility Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and of a protected area’s decision-making Zimbabwe is a good example of a peace (Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill 2015). The park that contains wilderness protected nuances and balances of such power sharing areas. structures is defined in a formal manner from the outset of the joint governance An example of another transboundary relationship. The balance of power between governance structure is the Yellowstone to the conservation partners and stakeholders Yukon Conservation Initiative that stretches spans a continuum from full control by from northwestern Wyoming (Yellowstone, government agency to full control by non- USA) to northwestern Canada and government conservation partners and is northeastern Alaska (Yukon) (http://y2y.net/). often based upon an individualised platform It is an example of an area conserved at a 57 continental scale through a governance • Recognise Indigenous peoples’ territories, structure that incorporates hundreds of collective land and sea tenure, self- diverse political actors working together to determination, self-governance, and best direct the conservation objectives customary law or agree to differ on issues (Bates 2010; Locke and McKinney 2013). such as territorial ownership while dispute These transboundary conservation resolution processes proceed. governance structures allows for the • Only undertake shared governance with protection of important ecosystems in the free, prior, and informed consent of entirety. Transboundary protected areas can Indigenous Peoples. be governed through multilateral treaties (see • Provide for periodic review and Section 3.6). renegotiation of shared governance arrangements. • Provide, when agreed to by all parties, for Implementation shared governance to be an interim A shared governance structure should arrangement to facilitate transition to acknowledge the rights of the partners and Indigenous Peoples’ self-governance of increases the participation of peoples protected areas in their customary involved in the conservation of protected territories. areas. Successfully executed, shared • Establish formal, clear, legally binding governance can promote both social justice agreements on shared governance that and scientific best practices of conservation. include institutional arrangements, Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill (2015) argue that decision-making process, dispute it is possible to achieve a balance “between resolution mechanisms, protected area fairness and acquired rights, stability and goals and management categories, and innovation, local meaning and values and key policies and regulations. broader liberating principles” by adopting a • Ensure that Indigenous Peoples have at ‘human rights-based approach,’ by which a least equal decision-making power and multiplicity of procedural and substantive authority in shared governance rights is respected” (p. 201). Such a structure arrangements. must incorporate historical events and • Develop decision-making processes with relationships, previous governance Indigenous Peoples’ full and effectiveness structures, multiplicity of actors with explicit participation that respect their own interest in area protected, ecological realities decision-making protocols. as well as the more intangible aspects like • Ensure that when management boards are fairness of process, capacity and means to established these are not merely advisory manage, and true power-sharing (Borrini- and define their purview to include policy- Feyerabend et al. 2004; Borrini-Feyerabend making, planning, assessment and and Hill 2015; Nie 2008). The principles of evaluation, oversight of day-to-day effective shared governance of protected management, fiscal responsibility, and areas as outlined by Stevens (2014:300-301) accountability. should be followed in all shared governance • Ensure that Indigenous Peoples approve of wilderness protected areas: the means by which management board • “Recognise Indigenous Peoples’ status as members are selected. Indigenous Peoples and their human and Indigenous rights and responsibilities.
58 • Ensure that Indigenous Peoples have at • Strive for decisions that reflect respect for least equal representation and leadership Indigenous Peoples’ values and on management boards. knowledge as well as non-Indigenous • Provide capacity building for all involved, Peoples’ concerns and knowledge. including for improving cross-cultural • Recognise ICCAs that overlap with or are communication, relationships, and contained within these protected areas. interactions. • Provide legal authority for Indigenous • Foster trust and a strong shared rangers, guardians, and others designated commitment to working together. by Indigenous Peoples to enforce • Carry out joint work and training, the customary law and protected area shared experience of which can foster regulations.” better interpersonal relationships, mutual understanding, and respect.
59 3.6 Multilateral governance Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), the World and authority of wilderness Heritage Convention, and the UNESCO protected areas Biosphere Programme (Dawson and Hendee 2009; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013). While Guiding Principles the Ramsar Convention and the Biosphere Multilateral governance structures can be Programme do not explicitly describe used to protect wilderness areas through wilderness areas, they do describe key treaties agreed to by three or more sovereign wilderness values (see Introduction for states. These treaties are often concerned discussion of wilderness values) like with the conservation of wildlands that are naturalness and minimal human impact transboundary, are of global importance, or (Dawson and Hendee 2009: 58) creating are areas not administered by specific good potential to use these mechanisms to countries such as Antarctica and the High protect wilderness qualities or areas with Seas. These governance structures often high wilderness value. The Convention require the participation of many non- Concerning the Protection of the World governmental organisations, government Cultural and Natural Heritage of 1972 agencies, advocacy groups and private protects sites with Outstanding Universal individuals. The incorporation of so many Value by inscribing them on the World disparate actors provides both benefits and Heritage List. The World Heritage Convention challenges to the creation of a successful has already been used to protect very large, governance structure. intact areas (including a number of protected areas designated or partially designated as wilderness protected areas) and potential Key Considerations exists for a more systematic contribution to Multilateral governance wilderness conservation globally in the future Multilateral governance of wilderness (Kormos et al. 2015) protected areas occurs when three or more national governments decide upon a formal Ocean wilderness governance conservation agreement. Governance at the The United Nations Convention on the Law multilateral level requires implementing of the Sea (UNCLOS) dictates governance of legislation at the national level for each the High Seas, i.e. areas beyond national participating country. Examples of such jurisdiction. UNCLOS provides the conservation agreements are the Convention foundation upon which any regional on Biological Diversity, the Convention on governance structures for the High Seas Migratory Species, the Barcelona should be built. Any High Seas governance Convention, General Fisheries Commission structure must first establish the correct type for the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the of governance that allows for as many Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic diverse actors to be as involved in the Seals, the Hamilton Declaration, and the decision-making process given their Abidjan Convention. respective capacities, authorities and mandates. Governance vitality can be Three multilateral environmental agreements maintained through the overarching that have been used to protect wilderness supervision of a multilateral body like the and which have great potential for further, United Nations Environment Programme more systematic use in the future, are the 60 Regional Seas Programme. The survey on status (Deary and Tin 2015). Two Annexes to potential high seas wilderness areas by this Protocol provide environmental McCloskey (2001) should be used as a management directives specific to reference in establishing governance of such wilderness: Annex I Environmental Impact areas. Assessment and Annex V Area Protection and Management (Deary and Tin 2015, 2). As Antarctica the tourism sector increases visitation to Antarctica is the world’s largest area with Antarctica and climate change threatens to intact wilderness qualities. It is governed by disrupt Antarctica’s ecosystem dynamics, the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS), a complex the governance structures must remain governance structure that incorporates a adaptive and protective in accordance with multiplicity of regulation agreements between wilderness values. multiple countries. Within ATS, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty provides specific protection to the wilderness values of Antarctica with a legal
61 3.7 Variances in jurisdiction 3. Fishing—Humans take species from fresh or salt water for food or and diversity of governance and recreation. authority 4. Primitive recreation—Humans use their own legs, canoes, or domestic Guiding Principles animals to spend time in places they In certain instances the interpretation of enjoy. wilderness legislation recognises specific 5. Benchmark study—Humans use an variances. General category principles, area to learn more about the world’s explained below, should be used in natural conditions. assessing whether certain activities are 6. Restoration—Humans restore natural consistent with the intent of wilderness law. processes and conditions to an area As a rule, activities should be judged by the they have previously converted to extent to which they undermine—or do not other use. undermine—wilderness values of the protected area. As wilderness law and policy The compatibility of these categories continue to evolve so will the nuances of depends upon other factors, including variances permitted within wilderness areas. national legislation. At times, these All current and future variances should be categories may be in conflict with one analysed by their consistency with the another. Some of these categories, like principles of wilderness values. Variances for fishing and hunting, may be restricted within new designation types, like those by individual areas to specific peoples, like Indigenous Peoples and the private sector, traditional aboriginal inhabitants, or to must be explored further. Wilderness law and specific zones within the larger wilderness the variances from it must be assessed by area. Specific activities may be governed at a their ability to work in conjunction with and in sub-national level instead of at a national a context of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights government level. For example, in the United (Kormos 2008:357). See Section 4.10 for the States, wildlife and fish are governed at the management and permitting of variances. sub-national level, which means hunting and gathering variance differs within the country. Sport hunting and fishing is permitted within Key Considerations wilderness areas, provided the activity is Kormos and Locke (2008: 24-25) describe six regulated in accordance to wilderness values categories of human activity that may be and the prevailing wilderness legislation. compatible with wilderness: 1. Wildlife sanctuary—Humans restrain Grazing variation their own activity, providing an area in Kormos and Locke (2008) explain that the which other species are free from grazing of domestic animals is rarely human predation. compatible with wilderness values. They 2. Hunting and gathering—Humans hunt define this category of human activity as wild animals and harvest plants that “Humans domesticate animals and have grown without human concentrate their grazing activity. They may intervention or cultivation. use an area permanently or move through it temporarily” (p.25). Often the grazing that is permitted within a wilderness area is by
62 nomadic peoples and is categorised as non- Alaska. See section 4.8 for more detail on intensive grazing (Dudley 2013). Such grazing ANILCA. Similar country-wide variances exist activity must be analysed and continually re- in Australia and Canada (Kormos 2008). analysed on an individual basis to confirm its compatibility with wilderness values. As Size Variation Kormos and Locke (2008) emphasise, unless All wilderness areas should meet the grazing is done in an extremely light manner, biological definitions of size and intactness it should be considered incompatible with set by the IUCN. In a few instances, variance wilderness values unless there is legal must be given to areas that cannot reach direction otherwise. Intensive grazing can these definitions but should still be defined quickly destroy the ecological integrity of any as wilderness. Such exceptions can be wilderness area. As a general rule, as with all reached if the decision-makers see potential variances, grazing within a wilderness to restore the area to a wilderness state, to protected area must remain consistent with include in a landscape wilderness approach, the overarching wilderness values. As stated or to make the best of a physically limited, in the Australian Environmental Protection but excellent, representation of wildlands and Biodiversity Conservation Act: (Kormos and Locke 2008:28). “Indigenous human communities living at low density and in balance with the available Emergency Management resources should be able to maintain their During times of emergency, like out of lifestyle” (CoA 1999). If the traditional control fires, emergency management knowledge systems, customary rights, powers may be permitted to override governance and cultural practices of an wilderness legislation and allow fire control Indigenous People includes non-intensive equipment to operate in a wilderness area grazing then such grazing should be a until the emergency is controlled. For permitted variance. example, wilderness areas within the Australian state of New South Wales allows Variance defined within national wilderness bulldozers within wilderness areas if required legislation during an emergency wildfire incident Certain countries have explicit variances (Worboys 2015). Worboys (2015: p. 823-850) written into their wilderness legislation that gives definitions of incidents requiring are not compatible with wilderness values. emergency management, examples of For example, Finland’s wilderness law has protocol for handling emergency incidents, explicit allowances for activities, like herding and best practices for preventing and limited forestry, and infrastructure, like emergencies that require variance from roads, in wilderness areas that benefit either wilderness legislation. “the common good or the indigenous livelihoods in the area” (Kormos and Locke Implementation 2008:27-28). As with all variances these As described in Section 1, all wilderness represent a small fraction of all Finnish areas are intended to adhere to a set of wilderness areas and are often exceptions, wilderness values. Six categories of human not norms, within Finnish protected areas. activity described by Kormos and Locke The Alaska National Interest Lands (2008:25) are not compatible with these Conservation Act (ANILCA) stipulates wilderness values and cannot be given variance for subsistence use of wilderness in variance: 63 1. Farming—Humans change the species composition of an area for their own nutritional benefit by altering the land or seabed and planting one or several species. 2. Mechanical recreation—Humans use vehicles for recreational activities, including bicycles, automobiles, off- road vehicles, motorboats, and snowmobiles. 3. Transportation corridors and infrastructure—Humans build highways, railways, airports, harbours, shipping lanes, irrigation canals, or straightened river channels for navigation. 4. Permanent dwellings—Humans build structures that provide permanent human habitation in a fixed place. 5. Towns and cities—Humans build large collections of permanent dwellings and other infrastructure.
6. Industrial activity—Humans refine or Manager and pack mule in Bob Marshall reassemble primary products from the Wilderness Area. earth on a large scale for human use © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute or obtain such primary products by
clearing forests for lumber; damming rivers for hydroelectricity or diverting them for irrigation; mining; or oil and gas exploration and exploitation.
64 © Sarah Casson Current Management Issues 4.1 Planning systems and Decision-Making A planning system and management management framework framework helps wilderness management decision makers gain insights about the Guiding Principles particular issues within their protected area Frameworks provide ways for wilderness and provides guidance on how to best managers to understand complex situations address the issues. Frameworks build and develop situational awareness (McCool understanding of what acceptable conditions et al. 2015). Useful indicator-based planning are, what impacts on those conditions are systems and management frameworks are predicted to occur as a result of a proposed those that help decision makers ‘work action, and what mitigations may be through’ choices in a manner that allows necessary if the proposed action takes place. technical expertise, knowledge (of various Frameworks promote appreciation of forms) and public values and interests to be contexts, relationships and processes and incorporated, assessed and used (Stankey provide specific components to make a and Clark 1996). Planning systems and management decision. management frameworks ask two questions: 1) What social and biological conditions are Promoting understanding appropriate or acceptable in wilderness? and To transfer a puzzling, troubling and 2) How much change from the ideal pristine uncertain situation into a solvable problem, is acceptable? wilderness decision makers rely on indicator- based planning systems and management Key Considerations frameworks (Weick 1995). Such a reliance Appropriate Conditions avoids oversimplification of management The most critical question underlying challenges and provides solution wilderness stewards when faced with possibilities. management and planning decisions is what conditions are appropriate or acceptable that Resolving competing trade-offs protects the natural conditions at the heart of Planning systems and frameworks are useful the wilderness. Finding resolutions to this mechanisms for management of wilderness question is not simple: numerous uses that contain two or more competing constituencies compete to protect their demands and interests (McCool et al. 2007). interests, cause-effect relationships are often These systems resolve trade-offs among loosely coupled and dynamically complex, competing objectives. A common second and third order effects are spatially management dilemma is the trade-off and temporally discontinuous, and people between wildness and naturalness. impacted by decisions may not even yet Wilderness decision-makers might strive for exist. To account for this complexity all more naturalness, but impose heavy-handed framework or planning systems should be management to achieve it, imposing assessed against four criteria; 1) conceptual trammelling on the freedom of choices and sound; 2) ease of translation; 3) identifies experiences of risk, uncertainty, and distributional consequences and 4) efficient spontaneity. and effective (Brewer 1973). Indicator-based planning systems often assist in management decisions about trade-
66 offs between human uses of wilderness and Recommended Reading the protection of natural conditions (Manning • Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., and Ostrom, E. 2004; McCool and Lime 2001). Frameworks (n.d.) ‘A Framework to Analyze the Robustness of Social–ecological Systems from an Institutional specifically focused on visitor-use, like LAC Perspective’. Ecology and Society 9 (1), 18 (Limits of Acceptable Change) and VERP • Borrie, W.T., McCool, S.F., and Stankey, G.H. (1998) ‘Protected Area Planning Principles and (Visitor Experience and Resource Protection), Strategies’. in Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners serve to 1) identify, define and work to and Managers. vol. 2. North Bennington, VT: The ensure that the negative social and Ecotourism Society, 133–154 • Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and McConnell, C. (1978) biophysical impacts from recreational uses ‘The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and are acceptable, and 2) provide guidance in Behavioral Information in Outdoor Recreation selection of appropriate and effective Resource Supply Inventories: Background and Application’. in Integrated Inventories of Renewable management actions. Natural Resources: Proceedings of the Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Implementation Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, To implement a framework follow these 73–84 • Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979) The steps: Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for • Select a framework appropriate to the Planning, Management, and Research. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-98. Portland, OR: US Department of question facing management. Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest • Select and modify if necessary a Research Station framework that has been tested and used • Cole, D. (2009) ‘Ecological Impacts of Wilderness Recreation and Their Management’. in Wilderness in prior situations. Management: Stewardship and Protection of • The dominant indicator-based planning Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: systems have a large literature associated Fulcrum Publishing, 395–436 • Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009) ‘Chapter 8: with their use and document advantages, Wilderness Management Planning’. in Wilderness shortcomings and rationale (see Management: Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Recommended Reading). Read this Fulcrum Publishing, 195–216 literature, talk to other managers and gain • McCool, S.F., Freimund, W.A., and Breen, C. insights on what to expect. (2015) ‘Benefiting from Complexity Thinking’. in Protected Area Governance and Management. • Develop the capacity to use these Canberra, Australia: ANU Press, 291–326 frameworks in a protected area • Moore, S.A., Smith, A., and Newsome, D. (2003) ‘Environmental Performance Reporting for Natural organisation. Each of the frameworks Area Tourism: Contributions by Visitor Impact holds a learning curve and thus managers Management Frameworks and Their Indicators’. will need, as with any other management Journal of Sustainable Tourism 11 (4), 348–375 • Nilsen, P. and Tayler, G. (1997) ‘A Comparative tool, some training for their efficient Analysis of Protected Area Planning and application. Mentoring and workshops are Management Frameworks’. in Proceedings – Limits two ways of developing capacity for their of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions (General application. Technical Report INT-GTR-371). Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah: USDA Forest Service, 49–57
67 4.2 Decision tools in wilderness Establish wilderness policy It is extremely important that wilderness management management agencies develop and institute clear and concise policies related to their Guiding Principles wilderness management mission and Those involved in managing wilderness areas objectives, including but not limited to are often faced with challenging issues designation of wilderness areas, protection where their decisions may affect public of wilderness resources, preservation of support and trust for an agencies’ wilderness wilderness character, public recreational use management mission. Decision-making tools of wilderness, and gathering and improve a manager’s ability to make disseminating information regarding use and informed, consistent and defensible enjoyment as wilderness. A general policy decisions that help achieve wilderness should also address how wilderness management objectives. management objectives interface with an agency’s enabling legislation and/or stated Key Considerations mission. Understand wilderness, protected area and biodiversity conservation law and policies Define responsibilities It is imperative that decision-makers Managing agencies should clearly identify understand and comply with laws and the specific role and function, required statutes related to wilderness, including competencies, supervisory hierarchy, and legislative history and intent, specific decision-making authority for all key staff statutory prohibitions, and special provisions. engaged in wilderness stewardship. These Understanding the law and associated responsibilities should be identified in policy compliance requirements is essential to and articulated in appropriate position maintaining program integrity and public vacancy announcements, position trust. Sound decision-making can also be descriptions, and annual performance plans. enhanced through understanding and awareness of previous case law rulings Foster consistency related to legal challenges to previous Wilderness management agencies should decisions or actions. seek to achieve consistency in wilderness management objectives, techniques, and Know the wilderness resource practices both within an agency and at an It is essential that decision-makers interagency level. Agencies should maintain understand and identify what is unique and effective intra-agency and inter-agency special about a wilderness area. This communications, and should encourage, includes tangible bio-physical resources and sponsor, and participate in intra-agency and characteristics as well as the intangible, inter-agency training and workshops experiential, and inspirational aspects of a designed to promote the sharing of ideas, wilderness. This understanding is an concerns, and techniques related to important aspect of making sound and wilderness management. Consistency can be informed wilderness management decisions. encouraged and enhanced through the development and implementation of agency- wide policies, guidelines, and standard operating procedures.
68 access and review administrative records Provide continuity associated with past wilderness Nature conservation management agencies management decisions can play an should actively address the importance of important role informing contemporary continuity and the need for succession decisions. planning associated with changing administrations and/or decision-making personnel. This can be accomplished through training, development and recruitment programs that focus on entry and mid-level personnel who will become the next generation of decision-makers.
Ensure accountability Human resource management processes should be implemented to acknowledge and/or award personnel for sound wilderness Wilderness manager interviewing public management decisions, particularly those citizen. involving sensitive, controversial, innovative © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute or courageous decisions. In addition, Establish priorities agencies should establish human resource The establishment of wilderness management protocols and procedures to management priorities through vision or holding wilderness management decision- mission statements and/or management makers accountable when failures occur on plans can help decision-makers stay focused failure to compliance with wilderness law, on the most important wilderness policy or other guidelines. preservation issues at hand and apply an
appropriate level of attention to make Engage the Public informed decisions. Those working in wilderness areas should strive to engage the public in important decision-making processes within the Implementation context of policy or law. Proposed actions The following tools should be used in involving legislation, rule-making, implementing decision-making tools in management or access plans are of wilderness management: particular importance. Solicitation of public comment is an important aspect of involving Wilderness training and development stakeholders and constituents and analysis The training and development of key staff of public comments can have a significant with wilderness management responsibilities influence on final decisions. is a vital component of sound decision making. Wilderness management agencies Document and disclose decisions should identify specific core competencies Proper documentation and archiving of for all staff engaged in wilderness decisions is an important aspect of a management decision making along with the progressive wilderness management specific training requirements to ensure program. The ability for decision-makers to these competencies. Training should be made available on regular intervals 69 commensurate with the demand. Agencies regulation. Wilderness regulations are of are encouraged to develop and institute a particular importance to visitor use program to identify and train trainers along management objectives that address visitor with appropriate curriculums to meet training behaviour, carrying capacity and use objectives. Training requirements should be allocations, etc. incorporated into annual training and development plans for appropriate Wilderness character narrative personnel. The Arthur Carhart National A qualitative, affirming, and holistic narrative Wilderness Training Center (http://carhart. describing what is unique and special about wilderness.net/) in represents an excellent a specific wilderness can serve as an example of an interagency wilderness important component in helping decision stewardship training program that services makers recognise the broader and more America’s national wilderness preservation holistic meanings of wilderness for an area. system. Some universities also sponsor These meanings, in turn, are essential for distance education programs (e.g., the highlighting priorities for monitoring Wilderness Management Distance Education wilderness character as well as for identifying Program at The University of Montana priorities in planning and stewardship. The (www.cfc.umt.edu/wmdep/) that are available narrative is intended to capture the feelings worldwide. and relationships of a wilderness. For example, a narrative may describe the Legal compliance and counsel ecological processes that shaped a Wilderness management decisions must be wilderness landscape, visitor experiences made within the context of law and statute to that may not be available elsewhere, or ensure the integrity of and public trust for notable scientific, conservation, educational, wilderness stewardship programs. It is vital scenic, or historical values of a wilderness that appropriate due diligence be given to area. In addition, the narrative can legal compliance requirements for proposed acknowledge and celebrate the intangible, actions, including but not limited to experiential, and inspirational aspects of a wilderness legislation, environmental wilderness, including historical or cultural protection, endangered species, clean air connections to the landscape. and water, historic and archeological resource protection, etc. Consulting with Wilderness management planning agency legal counsel is a highly encouraged Wilderness management plans or equivalent practice when making decision associated documents should be developed and with sensitive or controversial issues. maintained to guide the preservation, management, and use of wilderness areas Wilderness Regulations (see also Section 2.6). Wilderness Statutes that mandate wilderness management plans should identify the preservation and stewardship must be desired future conditions, as well as supported by lawful regulations that allow for establish indicators, standards, conditions, the enforcement of specific statutory and thresholds beyond which management requirements and prohibitions. Wilderness actions will be taken to reduce human regulations should be based on well- impacts on wilderness resources. In addition articulated definitions and include language to wilderness management plans, wilderness that clearly describes the elements of the management actions should be carried out
70 within an interdisciplinary framework of other encouraged when consistent with agencies management plans, including but not limited responsibilities to preserve and protect to natural resource management plans, wilderness. Wilderness can and should serve cultural resource management plans, fire as an important resource for long-term management plans, and other activity level research into and study and observation of plans. Wilderness management and other ecological processes and the impacts of associated plans serve as a key tool in humans on the ecosystem. The Aldo Leopold fostering consistent and defensible decisions Wilderness Research Institute (www.leopold. that help achieve wilderness management wilderness.net/) represents an excellent objectives. Established management plans example of an interagency wilderness also help provide for continuity needed to science program that serves the United address the succession of personnel and States’ national wilderness preservation decision-makers. system and provides a repository of recent and previous wilderness science studies, Inventory and monitoring compilations of papers, and publications, The ability to make informed wilderness and monitoring and application guidelines. management decisions can be enhanced through an understanding of the presence, Case studies extent, and condition of tangible wilderness Detailed case studies summarising resources in an area. The conditions and challenging wilderness management issues long-term trends of wilderness resources and associated decisions can provide a very should be monitored to identify the need for useful tool to help inform wilderness or effects of management actions. The management decisions. Case studies can be purpose of monitoring is to ensure that shared and discussed in a number of forums, management actions and visitor impacts on including but not limited to interactive wilderness resources and character do not training sessions, webinars, written exceed established standards and conditions narratives, discussion forums and share- (see also Section 2.10). As appropriate, point sites. wilderness monitoring programs may assess physical, biological, and cultural resources Wilderness mentors and social impacts. Monitoring programs The international wilderness management may also need to assess potential problems “community” is blessed with a number of that may originate outside the wilderness to current and/or retired professionals who determine the nature, magnitude, and have dedicated their careers to wilderness probable source of the impacts. stewardship. These individuals represent an invaluable source of subject expertise and Wilderness science advice and are often willing to provide Knowledge gained through scientific consultation or serve as a mentor to fellow research in wilderness can serve as a vital wilderness colleagues. Wilderness link to making sound and defensible management agencies are encouraged to wilderness management decisions. Scientific explore avenue s to advertise opportunities research is of particular importance when the and initiate mentoring programs. desired information is essential for understanding health, management, or administration of wilderness and should be
71 Decision-making resources Recommended Reading There are a variety of techniques and formats • Landres, P., Barns, C., Boutcher, S., Devine, T., available to share and distribute guidelines Dratch, P., Lindholm, A., Merigliano, L., Roeper, N., and resources that inform wilderness and Simpson, E. (n.d.) Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in management decisions, including but not Wilderness Character across the National limited to decision trees, flow charts, Wilderness Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. frameworks, handbooks, policy manuals, RMRS-GTR-340. Fort Collins, CO: US Department reference manuals, memorandums, etc. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain These resources may be provided in either Research Station • Meyer, S.S. (2000) ‘Legislative Interpretation as a hard copy or digital format and may be Guiding Tool for Wilderness Management’. in distributed through websites, share-point Wilderness Science in a Time of Change. sites, face-to-face meetings or trainings, Conference May 23– 27, 2000; Missoula, MT. webinars, and other venues. The Minimum Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) Management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest developed by the Arthur Carhart National Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Wilderness Training Center (see also section • Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (MRDG) 2.9) serves as an excellent example of a step (2014) Instructions for MRDG available online: by step decision making tool that guides http://www.wilderness.net/MRA decisions related to prohibited uses in the • Watson, A.E., Patterson, M., Christensen, N., Puttkammer, A., and Meyer, S. (2004) ‘Legislative national wilderness preservation system Intent, Science and Special Provisions in (www.wilderness.net/MRA). Wilderness: A Process for Navigating Statutory Compromises’. International Journal of Wilderness 10 (1), 22–26
72 4.3 Infrastructure and cross-country routes); whether such technology could influence visitor behaviours technology in wilderness in wilderness (e.g., increased risk-taking); protected areas how such technology might both increase the frequency of search and rescue efforts, Guiding Principles but potentially also make such efforts easier; Infrastructure and technology in wilderness and how the use of such technology might protected areas should be regulated carefully affect visitor experiences, including the by wilderness decision-makers. The potential experiences of other visitors who might be uses of emerging technologies such as exposed to it. In addition, advanced unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) technology such as Google Trekker and in wilderness, including recreational use by unmanned aircraft systems that can record visitors (see Section 4.5), commercial use, and quickly disseminate high quality managerial or administrative use, search and photography, when combined with advanced rescue, and scientific research, are nearly digital trip planning tools, also have the limitless. The use of these emerging potential to attract, increase and redistribute technologies also has the potential for use, and potentially lead to an over-reliance serious negative impacts to a wilderness on such technology relative to route-finding area and must therefore be monitored closely and risk-taking. On the other hand, all of by wilderness decision-makers. these technologies also have the potential to Infrastructure is generally not permitted increase support for wilderness, through both within wilderness areas. Exceptions are direct use and indirect appreciation. allowed in certain instances like built Incorporating the most recent research on structures, trails, scientific installations and this topic will support management variances given to Indigenous Peoples (see strategies (Watson et al. 2015). section 4.10), but such exceptions are only permitted within wilderness protected areas Implementation if their production and use are consistent All uses of technology and infrastructure in with wilderness values. wilderness areas must first comply with wilderness values. While certain uses of Key Considerations technology are permitted within wilderness Emerging technologies areas, most instances of infrastructure are While wilderness decision-makers have long incompatible with wilderness values and thus dealt with the complexities of infrastructure not allowed within wilderness areas. The in wilderness areas, the regulation of following categories should be used in the technology within wilderness areas is new. decision-making process to determine if a Researchers and managers are just technology and what uses of a technology beginning to examine visitor attitudes toward are compatible with wilderness values. such technology (Pope and Martin 2011); visitor use of technology in wilderness Protection of biological resources and (Blackwell 2015); how such technology might ecological processes affect use levels and the spatial distribution The use of technologies, like drones, or of of use and impacts (e.g., more inexperienced infrastructure in wilderness protected areas people visiting wilderness because they feel may disturb or disrupt certain types of safer, increased use of remote areas and resources and processes, like the natural 73 behaviours of wildlife. To minimise impacts and intrusions by motorised equipment in to biological resources and ecological accordance to wilderness values. processes, recreational and commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems and other Administrative and managerial use similar and potentially disruptive Any administrative or managerial use of technologies should not be permitted. technology and infrastructure in a wilderness area must first comply with wilderness Visitor opportunities for solitude values. Such use should be limited by Wilderness decision-makers should manage wilderness decision-makers. In certain technology and infrastructure to maximise circumstances, administrative or managerial visitor opportunities for solitude and a sense use of unmanned aircraft systems or other of remoteness. An essential characteristic of motorised technology may be the best, the wilderness is freedom, including personal only, or the most appropriate action. privacy, freedom from surveillance, and the Managers must be sure that such use is ability to enjoy nature free from the justified as being the minimum required disruptions and distractions of modern action. Administrative use of unmanned industrial civilisation. The presence of aircraft systems and other future technology unmanned aircraft systems can negatively should be limited to applications such as impact visitors’ sense of solitude and Search and Rescue, fire management, and separation from civilisation. Recreational and scientific research, and permitted only after a commercial use of these technologies should minimum requirements analysis has been not be permitted (see Section 4.5). completed. A procedure for conducting a minimum requirements analysis should be Motorised equipment formalised and should take into account A natural soundscape is an important part of factors such as how the proposed unmanned a wilderness experience for visitors and aircraft systems (and other future technology) equally important to wildlife species. The use use would: 1) contribute to the preservation of motorised equipment disturbs and of wilderness character; 2) protect resources, intrudes on a natural soundscape. Motorised including visitor experiences; and 3) be equipment, except in specific variances (see consistent with the legislative purpose of the Section 4.10), is not permitted in a wilderness area. wilderness area. Unmanned aircraft systems and other similar technologies are a form of Recommended Reading motorised equipment. Therefore, wilderness • Pope, K. and Martin, S. (2011) ‘Visitor Perceptions decision-makers should not permit the use of of Technology, Risk and Rescue in Wilderness’. International Journal of Wilderness 17 (2), 19–26, the recreational and commercial use of 48 unmanned aircraft systems, as well as other • Watson, A., Cordell, H.K., Manning, R., and Martin, forms of motorised equipment and S. (2015) ‘The Evolution of Wilderness Social Science and Future Research to Protect technology, within a wilderness area. Any Experiences, Resources, and Societal Benefits’. permitted variances must minimise the use of Journal of Forestry
74 4.4 Changing demographics recreation behavior of today's young people may suggest less support for protecting and relevance of wilderness wilderness in the future. However, emerging adults appear to express strong pro- Guiding Principles environmental values, but they exhibit Changing demographics of populations outdoor recreation patterns strikingly around the world and the dynamic nature of different from the past (Zinn and Graefe ‘what’s relevant’ to societies in general 2007). presents a challenge for promoting the creation, protection and management of Future generations of wilderness advocates, large wilderness areas across the globe, and scientists, and stewards must be engaged. new opportunities. The understanding of Young adults often have strong these changing demographics has important environmental values and land ethics. implications for management and policy- Organisations, management agencies, and making regarding wilderness protected educational institutions must continue to areas. As new information and knowledge provide entry into wilderness stewardship as about the benefits of wilderness is a profession. Career ladders need to be built accumulated, it will necessarily change our and expanded to allow individuals to direct approach to educating managers, policy- their passion for wilderness into a life-long makers, and the general public about the career. Young adult professionals that strive importance of wilderness protection. towards the future sustainability of Wilderness protected areas are relevant to all wilderness is essential to the continued people and significant worldwide. protection of wild nature.
Key Considerations If we are to recruit younger generations to Wilderness practitioners, policy managers, appreciate and protect nature, this will occur research scientists, and advocates must in a global context that has been more examine and understand the changing urbanised and with greater challenges to demographics of our global population. It is have transformational experiences with necessary to understand the meaning of nature and protected areas. Efforts to nature across our diverse cultures and how address urbanisation should be focused on the relevancy of wilderness may ebb and its implications for human’s flow over time. Such an understanding conceptualisation and connection with should inform the education, interpretation, nature (Kowari 2013). The Promise of Sydney and outreach efforts that will invigorate and recognises the rebalancing of the inspire future generations of wilderness relationship between human society and advocates and stewards. nature is essential. Valuing wild nature can strengthen the link between nature and Young Adults urban young adult residents. Many resource managers and wilderness advocates see links between appreciating Diversity wild nature, participating in traditional One line of thought suggests that outdoor activities, and support for protecting connections and experiences within nature wild areas. Some of these individuals are also critical for the development of express concern that the values and environmental values and an understanding
75 of the importance of wilderness (Stumpff gender differences were observed, with men 2013). It is through our personal experiences representing approximately 75% of that we form a lasting relationship and bond wilderness users over that time period. with nature. However, a greater Similar user profiles were observed by understanding of how wilderness benefits Gundersen, Tangeland, and Kaltenbron increasingly diverse populations, who may or (2015) among users of the Oslomarka may not have strong connections to nature, outside of Oslo, Norway. Users of the urban is critical for developing support for wilderness area zones were typically male wilderness management and policy (Turner (61%) and on average 52 years old. et al. 2004). If we are to inspire people across If a constituency is to be created that can generations, geography, and cultures to embrace and protect wilderness values, a experience nature through wilderness, it will greater diversity of wilderness users and be necessary for us to understand the advocates must be created (Chavez et al. implications of an ageing population with 2008; Pease 2015). Previous research has gender disparities. In terms of wilderness shown that barriers continue to exist for users, an ageing population may have people from minority, racial, and ethnic constraints related to accessibility, personal groups to recreate in parks and protected mobility, and recreation choice behaviour. areas (Johnson et al. 2004). Lack of financial These constraints must be negotiated while resources, time, and information about maintaining wilderness values. Our ageing visiting protected areas continue to be population is predominantly female, while constraints to access and enjoyment. wilderness users are predominantly male. If Individuals may not feel welcome or perhaps future generations are to form bonds and discriminated against if workers at sites and relationships between nature, protected protected areas are not of their ethnicity or areas, and wilderness, gender differences heritage. Efforts need to target mitigating must be addressed and barriers to these barriers to participation, thus growing participation and inclusion must be removed this potential wilderness constituency. among wilderness users. Wilderness practitioners, scientists, and advocates Ageing should prioritise efforts to negotiate and According to the 2013 edition of the United overcome these barriers and constraints. On Nation’s report World Population Ageing, the the other hand, Watson (2013) suggests that number of global individuals age 60 years or the relevancy of the ecosystem services over is expected to more than double from provided to the population is not age or 841 million in 2013 to more than 2 billion in gender specific and that the growing 2050. This global demographic profile is importance of these relationships with particularly important when compared to wilderness only needs to be recognized wilderness area user profiles. Dvorak et al. through better explanation to visitors and (2012) examined wilderness visitor use and non-visitors. users trends over a 40 year period in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, Interpretation United States. Over this period, mean user It is important to recognise that while ages increased from 26 years of age in 1969 recreational experiences in wilderness and to 45 years of age in 2007. Little change in nature are necessary to create bonds and
76 form relationships, we must strive to wilderness-based recreation was declining communicate conceptualisations of created the opportunity for cuts to wilderness wilderness and protected areas that are funding and decreased support for beyond a utilitarian point of view. Managers wilderness designation. However, by engage the public in discussions that frame considering a broad range of activities (not wilderness as something beyond only just fishing and hunting, but also other tourism and recreation experiences. The activities such as foraging, landscape Promise of Sydney calls for an investment in viewing and photography, kayaking, and the nature’s solutions. Wilderness is a safeguard study of nature), Cordell et al. 2008 found for biodiversity, mitigates climate change that despite a decrease of participation in impacts, and is deeply embedded in the particular activities, there was an overall cultures of many Indigenous Peoples. increase in nature-based recreation and Wilderness provides ecosystems services visits to wilderness. However, actual visits to that improve food and water security along wilderness may not be the primary benefit with global human health. Wilderness future generations will receive from managers should ensure that wilderness wilderness protection. areas are understood in these value contexts as well as the economic and recreational benefits often associated with wilderness Case Studies and protected areas. Finland created official wilderness legislation in response to increased pressure on Understanding how different societies wilderness caused by an expansion from appreciate wilderness can help managers ‘traditional’ use (i.e., subsistence and cultural anticipate potential conflict and educate activities) of wilderness to ‘modern’ uses of wilderness users. For example, Boxall et al. wilderness such as recreation, tourism, and (2002) found that canoeists in wilderness forestry (Sippola 2002). In the USA, areas in Canada highly valued the experience wilderness is increasingly viewed as a source of viewing aboriginal rock art., However, they of diverse benefits that expands far beyond also noted that managers are faced with the the original, on-site uses established in the conundrum of promoting this benefit for an Wilderness Act (Cordell et al. 2003) and, in enhanced visitor experience whilst also Europe, the European Parliament recently risking the negative impacts of directing recognised the benefit of wilderness visitors to a place that holds spiritual and protection for the conservation of biodiversity cultural importance to Canadian First Nations (Carver et al. 2014). Peoples. Education and interpretation may help visitors to understand values and In the United States, Dvorak et al. (2012) therefore encourage users to be sensitive examined how visitors to the Boundary and respectful to wilderness areas. Waters Canoe Area Wilderness changed between 1969 and 2007 by analysing survey Wilderness activities data collected in 1969, 1991, and 2007. The A narrow focus on particular wilderness trend analysis focused on changes in user activities may result in the perception that characteristics (e.g., age, education, gender), wilderness support is declining (Cordell et al. activities (e.g., fishing, camping) and 2008). For example, during the early 2000s in opinions (e.g., perceptions of crowding). the United States, a growing perception that Although collecting data over long periods of time is costly, there are ongoing efforts to 77 make previously collected data more • Identification of barriers to wilderness available to the public. For instance, a data recreation and engagement, particular for catalog of raw data, survey instruments, and underrepresented populations and young other relevant supporting documents from adults many wilderness studies completed in the • Monitoring the ongoing influence of USA are available on the United States urbanisation on individual nature Department of Agriculture, Forest Service experiences and the value of protected website (http://www.fs.usda.gov/rds/ areas archive/Catalog). • Developing interpretation and education materials that emphasise both the regional Implementation and global significance of protected areas To understand the relevance of wilderness to to all citizens visitors, non-visitors, future generations, and relevance to overall conservation Recommended Reading accomplishments, wilderness decision- • Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., and Absher, J.D. (2008) makers must employ social science Recreation Visitor Research: Studies of Diversity. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-210. Albany, qualitative and quantative research. Data CA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, archives can provide the needed baseline Pacific Southwest Research Station data for trend studies, and provide • Cordell, H.K. (2012) Outdoor Recreation Trends and Futures: A Technical Document Supporting the supporting information (e.g., example Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. General questions and survey instruments) for Technical Report SRS-150. Asheville, NC: US collecting data in areas where data regarding Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station human perceptions of wilderness may not be • Pease, J.L. (2015) ‘Parks and Underserved readily available. Audiences: An Annotated Literature Review’. Journal of Interpretation Research 20 (1), 11–56 • United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Social science approaches and efforts to Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. World compile baseline data should target: Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. (ST/ESA/SER.A/352) • Increased documentation and • Watson, A. (2013) ‘The Role of Wilderness representation of the relevancy of Protection and Societal Engagement as Indicators of Well-Being: An Examination of Change at the wilderness for minority, racial, and ethnic Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’. Soc groups Indic Res 110, 597–61
78 4.5 Emerging recreation rangers. As new products enter the market place, wilderness consumers have embraced management issues products that have helped them recreate in wilderness. Since the 1960s, improved Guiding principles clothing (Gortex water-proof materials), Wilderness decision-makers are witnessing a backpack design (internal frame packs), tent whole new array of recreation management construction (dome tents) and light-weight issues that they were not confronted with in hiking boots with rock-gripping tread, has the past. How visitors use or recreate in made backpacking, camping and hiking in wilderness can create challenges for remote wilderness more comfortable and wilderness decision-makers. Emerging convenient (Turner 2002). Managers recreation management issues in wilderness observed that these new comforts drastically have increased due to advancement in changed visitor length of stay and travel backpacking equipment and gear, new patterns. Wilderness visitors ventured to technology being used by visitors in more remote corners of the wilderness and wilderness, and the ways in which wilderness camped in shoulder seasons; earlier in spring visitors pursue recreation in wild nature. and later in autumn. Wilderness managers Finding solutions to future unanticipated and rangers began to witness increased recreation conflicts requires that wilderness resource degradation, more user-created decision-makers ensure that the emerging trails and crowding. issues adherence to the central mandates of wilderness values. Unmanned Aircraft Systems as recreational tools Key Considerations As discussed in Section 4.3, Unmanned Emerging issues are not new to wilderness Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as stewardship. New technology has always drones, are unprecedented for wilderness held a conflicting juxtaposition for wilderness managers. The ramifications of recreational visitors and managers. In the United States, UAS use are incompatible with wilderness Aldo Leopold was confronted in the values. Today’s sophisticated recreational or twentieth century with the issue of hunting hobby drones, if permitted, would will take scopes on rifles and whether this new the very essence of wilderness being a place technology was ethical or created an unfair of self-discovery and mystery to a landscape hunt (Leopold 1949). As was true in that can be viewed in real time. Drones, with Leopold’s time, it can be difficult to tell if the their high-definition cameras attached to the new technology is changing the values of aircraft, become eyes in the sky for the drone those recreating in wilderness, or if it is operator, providing real-time images of simply new visitors with a new set of ethos landscapes, possible campsites, number of who are more comfortable using technology other people in the area and even the ability in all aspects of their lives, including how to track nearby wildlife. See section 4.3 for they recreate in wilderness. more information about the use of technology in wilderness areas. Clothing New equipment and gear have always held a Personal computers in wilderness conflicting juxtaposition for wilderness Some of today’s wilderness visitors use visitors and wilderness managers and modern technology never envisioned by
80 previous generations of wilderness decision- the trail with other users that are hiking, makers. It is not uncommon today to find a backpacking or horseback riding. Trail wilderness visitor at a pristine alpine lake running as an individual pursuit in wilderness deep inside a wilderness using a personal is an acceptable recreational use, however computer (laptop powered by a solar panel sponsored and commercial running races in and internet connection obtained through a the USA are not permitted within wilderness cell phone or satellite hot spot device) to stay areas as they are considered to conflict with connected to their job or respond to emails and impact on wilderness values. and text messages. Other visitors now hike wilderness trails listening to internet- streamed music on a device powered by small, roll-up solar panels with minimal weight and take up little room in one’s backpack.
Global Positing System as a recreational tool Advances in technology also help visitors navigate in wilderness areas beyond the tried-and-true use of map and compass orienteering. Today’s Global Positioning System (GPS) devices have changed how visitors can plan their wilderness adventure, how they orient themselves to rugged and remote landscapes, and how they can bread-crumb their way back to the trailhead in ways never available ten or 20 years ago. New products such as personal satellite tracking devices), allow for immediate response to a ‘need help’ or emergency notice (even when the visitor is only temporary lost, cold, out of water or injured in ways that most would not define as life- threatening). Wilderness managers and Overcrowded boat launch. search and rescue teams have responded to © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute these satellite alerts only to find backcountry visitors scared or disoriented. An increase is Overcrowding of recreation areas such alerts can have negative resourcing Even the pursuit of seeking out solitude, it implications for managing agencies. appears, is changing. In the past, it was common to travel in small groups and seek Changing recreation pursuits out remote areas to find solitude so that one Wilderness recreation pursuits are changing could connect to wild places with friends that just as quickly as the gadgets are changing. have a with similar desire for quietness and Today, it is not uncommon to find a ridge tranquility. However, today’s users seem to runner (extreme trail runners), covering long have no apparent adversity with going to distances in remote wilderness and sharing very popular wilderness ‘magnet’ areas that also draw large crowds. In some cases, 81 these popular spots can have hundreds of restrictions (permits) are now required to limit other visitors sharing the same location and the amount of visitors to a particular area so experience. that the land has a chance to heal.
In the United States the central mandate of With the exception of the use of recreational the Wilderness Act is to preserve wilderness drones, many managers would argue that character. The qualities of wilderness new technology and how visitors use new character can be degraded by signs of technology in wilderness is a personal human use and overuse at popular ‘magnet decision. Unless the use of emerging areas’ where visitors congregate. Resource technology, or user, creates resource damage is starting to show signs of wear and damage or interferes with other’s ability to tear to these fragile landscapes. The enjoy wilderness, little if any management Wilderness Act established the United intervention is needed or appropriate. It is States’ National Wilderness Preservation difficult to tell if the new technology is System, in part, for the use of the enjoyment changing the values of those recreating in of the country’s citizens. No doubt, these wilderness. When faced with new and popular spots have always been a draw, but emerging recreation management continued use at these fragile sites in challenges, wilderness decision-makers must wilderness, are starting to show the wear and check these challenges for their compatibility tear of thousands of boots. Associated (or incompatibility) with wilderness values. impacts of trash, human waste and denuded campsites diminish the natural condition of Recommended Reading the wilderness with some previously pristine • Cole, D. (2009) ‘Ecological Impacts of Wilderness areas now hard-panned brown spots of dirt Recreation and Their Management’. in Wilderness Management: Stewardship and Protection of the size of a small car. Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 395–436 • Landres, P., Barns, S., Boutcher, S., Devine, T., Implementation Dratch, P., Lindholm, A., Merigliano, L., Roeper, N., To deal with the increasing use, managers and Simpson, E. (2015) Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in have implemented a variety of management Wilderness Character across the National actions such as indirect controls to educate Wilderness Preservation System. Service General visitors about Leave No Trace techniques Technical Report RMRS-GTR-340. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research and to promote user responsibilities to taking Station care of the land. In some circumstances, more direct controls, such as visitor use
82 4.6 Managing wilderness for wilderness can be found in the United States. Around 100,000 acres of marine waters, marine wilderness values designated under the Wilderness Act, are included in the National Wilderness Guiding Principles Preservation System (Barr 2012). In their The places most often identified or evaluation of international wilderness law and designated as wilderness are on land, yet the policy, Landres et al. (2008b) found that, idea of areas in the oceans and coastal generally, the Wilderness Act possessed waters possessing wilderness qualities and similar goals and provisions included in the values worthy of preservation has been wilderness laws and policies of many other debated and discussed for more than half a countries. There is no language explicitly century (Barr 2007). Effective wilderness included in the Act that would preclude the stewardship requires the management designation of ocean and coastal waters, agency have the legal authority to establish and the wilderness waters inventory provided and manage wilderness. As well as in Barr (2012) offers at least 13 examples of wilderness-specific management goals and wilderness designated under this law. As strategies adopted, implemented, and statutory language, it offers relatively evaluated that insures the wilderness values unambiguous guidance for a management and qualities of the area are preserved. This framework for wilderness areas designated is true of both terrestrial and marine under this legislation. Examples of marine wilderness areas. wilderness management within North America has been outlined by the Marine Key Considerations Wilderness and Protected Areas Working Similar tenets as terrestrial wilderness Group, part of the North American While the specific human uses encountered Intergovernmental Committee on in marine wilderness may be different from Cooperation for Wilderness and Protected uses of the land, they are similar enough, in Area Conservation which is available online terms of their general characteristics and (www.nawpacommittee.org). The working potential impacts to wilderness character group has produced many case studies that and values. This can offer managers a clear examine and address the key tenets of place to start when developing a marine wilderness areas that are managed management framework for marine and governed by a plurality of political wilderness (Day et al. 2012). There are few actors, including partnerships between examples of international wilderness law or Indigenous Peoples governments and non- policy that explicitly mentions or offers Indigenous government agencies. More specific guidance for marine wilderness examples of marine wilderness can be found areas (Landres et al. 2008b, Barr 2012). The at www.natureneedshalf.org . management framework for marine wilderness areas can appropriately be Implementation captured from the overarching IUCN Marine wilderness areas should uphold the management guidelines for category 1b. same wilderness values and management principles expected of terrestrial wilderness areas. The tenets detailed within these
Case Studies category 1b guidelines apply both to Examples of ocean and coastal waters terrestrial and marine wilderness areas. included in designated boundaries of 83
Recommended Reading • Clifton, J. (2003) ‘Prospects for Co-Management in Indonesia’s Marine Protected Areas’. Marine Policy 27, 389–395 • Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Stolton, S., and Wells, S. (2012) Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Best practice protected area guidelines series 19. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN • Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T., Davey, M., Edgar, S.C., Försterra, G., Galván, D.E., Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., Parnell, P.E., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., and Thomson, R.J. (2014) ‘Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features’. Nature 506 (7487), 216–220 • Kormos, C. (2011) ‘We Need to Scale Up Marine Wilderness Protection’. International Journal of Wilderness 17 (3), 12–15
84 4.7 Management decisions Key Considerations about passive management, Wilderness managers steward essential aspects of climate change action. Wilderness restoration and climate change areas have an important role to play in intervention providing space, unhindered by modern human land use, in which wildlife can Guiding Principles respond to climate change by natural It is impossible to accurately predict all future processes of succession and migration, and climatic changes or environmental so adapt and adjust to changing climatic degradation, which creates challenging conditions (Cole 2010). Where relevant, management decisions within wilderness wilderness decision-makers should consult areas. Despite climate change being an with Indigenous Peoples in appropriate external forcing factor impacting on restoration and intervention activities. wilderness ecosystems it is incumbent on Indigenous science, Traditional Ecological managers to respond to changes within the Knowledge and worldviews should be ecosystem that go beyond normal implemented in policy decisions and actions successional changes. There is little that in appropriate ways (Cruikshank 2005). managers can actually do to ameliorate these wider impacts of climate change or large- Passive Management scale environmental degradation, but they Passive management in the face of climate can act to influence outcomes and make change is perhaps the best and least costly wilderness ecosystems more resilient to the approach to adopt. Here, wilderness areas worst effects. Such resilience may best come are simply retained as non-intervention areas from the passive management of wilderness that allow wildlife and ecosystems to adapt areas. When passive management is not an and respond to climate change as it occurs. option, managers should look to restore the It accepts that active management or direct ecological processes of the wilderness area interventions in wilderness areas is difficult by allowing for increased connectivity and likely to fail in many instances, and so between wilderness protected areas, maintains that the best approach is to restoring ecological functions of wildfire and increase resilience to climate change. It does hydrology within the protected area, and this through ensuring that wilderness is controlling for invasive species and protected from human impacts (beyond introduced diseases. In certain climate change) and core areas are circumstances where passive management connected via landscape corridors and and restoration do not adequately address permeable landscapes that give wildlife the the threats posed by climate change, ability to move and migrate unhindered to managers may need to intervene in the more favourable areas as ecosystems species’ range, breeding and location within change. Human stresses on flora and fauna the protected area. All restoration and should be maintained at a minimum intervention decisions should align with the acceptable level by restricting disturbance principle wilderness values. from hunting, tourism, recreation and management.
85 Restoration Wildfire Connectivity Wildfire has received a great deal of attention Maintaining connectivity at a landscape scale in the past and continues to do so as climate will allow species to migrate and shift their change increases global temperatures and ranges in response to climate change (Heller affects seasonality leading to reduced and Zavaleta 2009). Many species whether precipitation in some areas (Marlon et al. plants or animals, occupy particular 2009). In forest and grassland ecosystems, environmental niches determined by higher temperatures and reduced geology, soil, topography and climate. If the precipitation can lead to increased incidence global climate is warming then it is logical to of wildfires, especially when linked to greater expect that temperature limited species will incidence of ignition from lightning migrate to higher latitudes and higher associated with dry thunderstorms. altitudes to compensate (McKelvey et al. Managers can intervene here in one of two 2011). Ensuring ecological and physical main ways, by either reducing the available connectivity between core wilderness areas fuel loading that can lead to disastrous (large can accommodate latitudinal shifts in and intense) and therefore very destructive species ranges. Altitudinal shifts are less fires, or by fighting fires when they occur and easy to manage as species found locally only stopping them getting out of hand. The at the tops of mountains have nowhere to former approach is usually a better choice migrate to and may literally disappear from and involves reducing the fuel load by either these areas as the climate warms (Gifford prescribed burning (small magnitude, and Kozak 2012). Island ecological controlled burns) or by mechanical thinning communities face similar problems since the and removal of the fuel. surrounding water means there is nowhere to migrate to. This is a particular problem for Hydrology endemic species in both mountain and island Alterations in hydrological regimes are highly ecosystems because they are found nowhere likely, as a result of predicted climatic else and face extinction from climate- changes in temperature and precipitation, change-induced shifts in their eco-climatic which will influence potential niche, unless they can adapt to the changing evapotranspiration and corresponding conditions. Strategic-level management changes in vegetation, soil moisture and across landscape, regional, national and runoff. Water levels in lakes and rivers will be continental scales is required to ensure affected as will season flow regimes with maximum connectivity between core knock-on effects on aquatic ecosystems and wilderness areas that will permit the water availability for animals. Water maximum degree of freedom of movement to impoundments are an important aspect of threatened wildlife species. The Cores, hydrological restoration in light of climate Corridors and Carnivores (CCC) model change effects. Constructing animal watering attempts to encapsulate this level of thinking holes (guzzlers) is one possible intervention wherein protected area cores are connected but this is likely to result in modified animal into a coherent network via either landscape behaviour and local impacts on populations corridors, linear corridors (e.g., riparian and vegetation cover. Water extraction zones), permeable landscape mosaics or upstream of a wilderness protected area can intermediate stepping stones (Soulé and clearly impact heavily on river levels such as Noss 1998). seen in many rivers in the Southwest United
86 States. In such circumstances managers pesticides and herbicides for smaller species should carefully coordinate abstraction and plants. Once established however, licenses in liaison with relevant upstream invasive species are notoriously difficult to authorities. get rid of, so the best a manager can hope for is to perhaps halt or limit its progress Invasive species (Pearce 2015). Climate change may be responsible for outbreaks of alien invasive species within Disease wilderness areas. It is likely, however, that Outbreaks of disease are often associated this has more to do with the human vector with climate change, either because the introducing both plant and animal species affected organism is under stress from the into ecosystems where they have hitherto effects of climate change, or because the been unrecorded. Species introduced in this changing conditions allow the pathogen to manner become invasive when both the spread and infect new hosts without the conditions are particularly suited for the normal environmental controls (Millar et al. species in question, and a niche exists within 2007). Managerial responses to disease the existing ecosystem which it can outbreaks are very much dependent on the effectively exploit. Having found such a niche pathogen and the conditions observed, but within a suitable habitat, the alien species can include inoculation, creating disease can proliferate and spread, outcompeting breaks or barriers to its spread, or endemic species, at which point it is introduction of a counter-pathogen where considered invasive. Despite the negative this is possible. Whichever approach (if any) connotations of the invasive label this is is adopted, this needs to be done carefully simply a natural process of species with a view to costs, chances of success and establishment, competition and succession, the possibility of unforeseen knock-on albeit often one accelerated by human effects (such as diseases jumping from one action. Often invasive species find their own species to another or introduced biological balance and place within their adopted countermeasures attacking unintended ecosystem and, after an initial period of rapid targets). The most common approach is colonisation, become naturalised and add to often just to monitor the situation and hope the biodiversity. Rather, the aesthetics of that the incidence fizzles out in due course invasive species and their ability to (Heller and Zavaleta 2009). outcompete established native species (at least to begin with) is often met with Species Intervention disapproval by humans. Nonetheless, Range managers should be aware of the potential Climate change will inevitably mean there are problems posed by alien invasive species both winners and losers within wilderness and take action to protect indigenous ecosystems. Local actions can be species wherever possible, especially where implemented to try to help some especially the effects of climate change and human threatened species to survive climate modification of natural ecosystems have change. Such actions could be extremely made them vulnerable to competition. expensive and not guaranteed to succeed. Actions that managers may consider include Managers need to look carefully at what they eradication of the invasive species using are trying to preserve. If a species deemed to trapping and hunting for larger animals, and be at risk is locally rare but globally common 87 throughout a wide home range, it may be Relocation that we have to accept the loss of that Capture and relocation of individual animals species in that area hoping it will be safe from healthy or weakening populations to across the rest of its home range (Araújo et suitable habitat within their former range has al. 2011). If a threatened species is locally also been shown to be effective. The return common but globally rare, then it might be of the grey wolf (Canis lupus) to Yellowstone necessary to intervene to ensure its survival. National Park is a well-documented example Introducing new genetic material into a (Mech and Boitano 2010; Smith et al. wilderness protected area is an important but 2003).Originally exterminated by hunting complicated aspect of climate change from the park in the early years of the adaptation. twentieth century, wolves were reintroduced by the United States National Park Service in Captive breeding 1995 (14 wolves) and 1996 (17 wolves) and Those species that are globally rare and have increased in number to around 100 under threat of extinction, either regionally or though numbers fluctuate. The reintroduction globally, due to climate change induced of this missing keystone predator has been shifts in their habitat may require direct credited with widespread ecological recovery intervention if they are to survive. Where within the park due to its effect on modifying species interventions are deemed necessary the behaviour and numbers of elk in the park and beneficial these should be based on leading to unforeseen trophic effects on best available scientific evidence, use other species, vegetation and even the rivers appropriate genetic stock and as far as is (Ripple and Beschta 2003). While these possible minimise the stress to the individual effects are still disputed, the recovery of the animals. Capture and release programs have wolf in Yellowstone has clearly been a been shown as one way of ensuring meta success. However, managers need to populations survive in new and suitable carefully weigh up the pros and cons of any habitat areas (Parker 2008). Captive breeding such program before engaging what will programs for especially rare and endangered most likely be a costly, and sometimes species have been successful maintaining controversial course of action, before and increasing the numbers of individuals in proceeding. a species population. Captive breeding should be carried out with the minimum Implementation amount of exposure to humans and in When passive management is not enough conditions that mimic the species natural because of climate change or other human- habitat and food sources as closely as induced environmental degradations, possible. Release sites should be carefully managers should strive to restore wilderness chosen to ensure the maximum possible areas to a level of health at which the area chances of survival and naturalisation taking can be managed passively. In extreme remoteness from human disturbance and circumstances, intervention may be required persecution, availability of suitable habitat for but managers should be aware of the feeding, breeding and cover, and complications and controversies surrounding connectivity to other suitable habitat in the climate change interventions. Restoration wider landscape. and intervention, when done in accordance with wilderness values, can help wilderness areas adapt to climate change by creating
88 more resilient ecosystems able to withstand Pearce, F. (2015) The New Wild: Why Invasive Species future climatic uncertainties. Managers must Will Be Nature’s Salvation. Boston: Beacon Press • Soulé, M. and Noss, R. (1998) ‘Rewilding and work to protect the ecological functions of Biodiversity as Complementary Goals for ecosystems within wilderness areas and can Continental Conservation’. Wild Earth 22 • Watson, A., Martin, S., Christensen, N., Fauth, G., do so by implementing the restoration and and Williams, D. (2015) ‘The Relationship between intervention key principles outlined above. Perceptions of Wilderness Character and Attitudes toward Management Intervention to Adapt Biophysical Resources to a Changing Climate and Recommended Reading Nature Restoration at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks’. Environmental Management 56, • Cole, D.N. (2010) Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking 653–663 Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Washington, D.C: Island Press • Watson, J.E.M., Iwamura, T., and Butt, N. (2013) • Cruikshank, J. (2005) Do Glaciers Listen? Local ‘Mapping Vulnerability and Conservation Adaptation Knowledge, Colonial Encounters and Social Strategies in a Time of Climate Change’. Nature Imagination. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Climate Change 3, 989–994 Press • Hilty, J.A., Chester, C.C., and Cross, M.S. (eds.) (2012) Climate and Conservation: Landscape and Seascape Science, Planning, and Action. Washington, D.C.: Island Press
89 4.8 Subsistence use and wilderness areas in the United States, formally defines subsistence as “the relationship values of customary and traditional uses by rural wilderness Alaskan residents of wild renewable resources for direct personal or family Guiding Principles consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, Subsistence users are a powerful and tools, or transportation; for the making and necessary partner for the protection and selling of handicraft articles out of non-edible stewardship of large wilderness areas. These byproducts of fish and wildlife resources constituencies, who are often but not always taken for personal or family consumption; for Indigenous People, have deep cultural and customary trade” (Alaska National Interest traditional connections to the landscape. Lands Conservation Act 1980). The meaning These close relationships with resources and of subsistence extends well beyond food and natural systems should be embraced as part has a deep level of social and cultural of the vision for wilderness areas. Traditional importance that is directly related to the subsistence practices and relationship values natural environment. of wilderness are complementary to the protection of wilderness. Subsistence use Allowable uses and the recognition of relationship values of The effective management of wild resources wilderness can help protect indigenous is critical to ensuring sustained subsistence culture and advance the conservation of uses within wilderness areas. Biological and large, intact landscapes. physical systems are multifaceted, dynamic, and often not completely understood (Ludwig et al. 1993). As such, effective Key Considerations resource stewardship requires intensive The harvest of wild resources in large monitoring and adaptive management and wilderness protected areas presents many this may be undertaken utilising Traditional unique management challenges. Allowable Ecological Knowledge or more western subsistence use is very context specific and methods. A variety of variables should be a number of variables and conditions play considered when allowing for the use of wild into resource exploitation and stewardship. resources in protected areas. Wilderness Here, allowable uses and the goals of managers should consider, among others, wilderness areas have to be effectively the following factors and circumstances to balanced. ensure ecosystem values and processes,
and subsistence resource abundance: Defining subsistence • Size of the protected area The meaning of subsistence is complex, • Natural history of the particular wild context and regionally specific, and ever resource changing. It refers to traditional means of • Level of resource abundance livelihood and can be understood as a way of • Amount of harvest and the desired level of life that involves the harvest, preparation, harvest sharing, and consumption of wild resources • Resource replacement rate for food and other cultural purposes. The • Traditional Ecological Knowledge and the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation legal rights of some Indigenous People Act (ANILCA), the law that protects subsistence resources and practices in 90 • Factors that could influence and/or the significance of conservation areas and complicate resource stewardship, such as contribute to the sustained protection of wild climate change or other anthropogenic areas. disturbances
Buffer zones Wilderness areas may sometimes surround or be within proximity to small, rural communities that rely on the larger landscape for subsistence purposes. Recognising that some elements of rural community life, such as clearing tracts of land for agriculture or cutting wood for building materials or fuel, may be counter to the goals of wilderness protection, buffer Subsistence use of wilderness in accordance zones offer an effective way to protect and with Alaska National Interest Land manage wilderness areas. In such instances, Conservation Act. © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute buffers can allow less-restrictive activities around communities and offer an effective transition area that can reduce conflict and Case Study better ensure that the goals of wilderness The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a 19.64 area management are achieved. million acre area managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in northeast Benefits Alaska. The Refuge protects a vast area and Subsistence resources and practices have encompasses entire ecosystems, from the numerous benefits for remote residents and peaks of the Brooks Range to coastal areas. help elevate the relevance and importance of In 1980, 7.16 million acres of the Refuge was conservation. While functioning ecosystems formally designated as wilderness through are a foundational determinant of the public’s the Alaska National Interest Land health and wellness everywhere, in remote Conservation Act. Recently, in January 2015, places with subsistence-based economies the United States Fish and Wildlife Service these factors are particularly valuable. completed a Comprehensive Conservation Subsistence resources and practices are Plan for the Refuge and formally directly connected to food security, familial recommended three additional tracts, and community-wide social networks and totalling 12.28 million acres, to the United relationships, cultural institutions, and mental States Congress for inclusion within the health (Loring and Gerlach 2009). Wilderness Preservation System. This Additionally, the harvest and preparation of recommendation offers a constructive case subsistence resources is often labor study for how to advance wilderness area intensive and positively contributes to an designation while incorporating the active lifestyle with physical health benefits. involvement, rights, and needs of All of these factors are drivers and mediators subsistence users. of health, and positively contribute to overall wellness (Loring and Gerlach 2009). Such The Refuge is the traditional land of the benefits, when recognised, can help increase Inupiat and Gwich’in peoples. One village is located entirely within the Refuge’s 91 boundaries and six other communities are snowmobiles and motorboats, will still be located outside of the protected area on the permitted. south and western sides. These communities, which have populations of a Implementation couple hundred people, have rich Subsistence users can be constructive and subsistence use, traditional means of powerful advocates for wilderness protection livelihood and relationship values to and for relationship values of wilderness. To wilderness that include hunting, fishing, and ensure that sound stewardship and inclusive gathering a variety of wild resources from management objectives are accomplished, within the Refuge. Wild resources include, efforts should be made to understand the among many others, caribou, moose, local, traditional land ethic. Non-Indigenous salmon, and various types of berries. decision-makers should partner with Surveys by natural resource managers have Indigenous Peoples government decision- found that hundreds of pounds of wild makers to ensure incorporation of traditional resources are gathered and consumed by means of livelihood and subsistence within residents of these communities every year the management of wilderness protected (http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/sb/CSIS/). area. Such partnership will likely expose
shared values for landscape-level protection. To complete the Comprehensive These values should be built upon to identify Conservation Plan and the associated goals for protection and stewardship. wilderness recommendation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service went through an extensive public planning process that Recommended Reading involved extensive communication and • Berkes, F. (2012) Sacred Ecology. 3rd edn. New York, N.Y.: Routledge consultation with Alaskan Native entities. • Cruikshank, J. (2005) Do Glaciers Listen? Local Over the course of plan, there were regular Knowledge, Colonial Encounters and Social Imagination. Seattle, WA: University of Washington government-to-government meetings Press between sovereign tribal governments and • Duhaylungsod, L. (2011) ‘Interpreting “Indigenous federal agencies of the United States. The Peoples and Sustainable Resource Use”: The Case of the T’Boli in the Southern Philippines’. in Beyond management of the Refuge will change little the Sacred Forest: Complicating Conservation in with the latest revised Comprehensive Southeast Asia. New ecologies for the twenty-first Conservation Plan and in the future with century. Durham: Duke University Press, 216–238 • Hathaway, M.J. (2013) ‘Making an Indigenous formal wilderness designation expansion by Space’. in Environmental Winds. Berkeley: Congress. The harvest of fish, wildlife, and University of California Press • Nadasdy, P. (2003) Hunters and Bureaucrats: other wild resources will still be regulated by Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State Relations the state of Alaska and federal agencies. This in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver, BC: University includes allowing fishing, hunting, trapping, of British Columbia Press • Peloquin, C. and Berkes, F. (2009) ‘Local berry picking, the harvesting of plant Knowledge, Subsistence Harvests, and Social- materials, and the collection of house logs Ecological Complexity in James Bay’. Human Ecology 37, 533–545 and firewood. Additionally, means of • Whiting, A. (2004) ‘The Relationship between transportation traditionally used for Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal Members) and subsistence purposes, including the Western Arctic Parklands, Alaska, United States’. International Journal of Wilderness 10 (2), 28–31
92 4.9 Managing wilderness for protection for a wilderness site with sacred values. sacred values
The major impediment to this is the secrecy Guiding Principles aspect of the site, whose custodians fear the An examination of the linkage between loss of significance, if outsiders, who do not places of high spiritual/cultural value and share the same values, know of such sites. nature conservation, in a research report by Visitors may also abuse this sacred World Wide Fund for Nature, Equilibrium, and knowledge, exploiting a Sacred Natural Site Alliance for Religions and Conservation as a spectacle or a tourist magnet (e.g. Uluru Dudley et al. (2005) concluded: “The limited (Ayers Rock), in Australia). Registering a quantitative evidence that does exist Sacred Natural Site as a formal designation suggests that sites protected by faiths for also implies some loss of control to sites that their spiritual values can indeed perform a have been protected for years by Indigenous valuable function in protecting wild nature” Peoples’ elders and leaders. The free, prior (p. 120). Since many of these sites are wild and informed consent process is imperative lands, all wilderness users and advocates when considering any new designations over need to be aware of their metaphysical indigenous land and sites. Such threats to nature and value to some faiths or traditional the sacredness of a site are severe and must cultures, and not only refrain from damaging be treated as such by the Indigenous behaviour, but be supportive of any efforts to Peoples governments and non-Indigenous protect them from sacrilegious development. governments responsible for the
management of the site. Management plans Key Considerations should include the appropriate zoning to Designation ensure proper protection and respect. Sacred natural sites that exhibit both wilderness values and sacredness values Appropriate zoning should be formally designated as IUCN Once designated as a wilderness protected protected area category 1b (see Section 1.6). area, appropriate zoning within the site is Many such sacred sites also have high necessary to give extra protection to sacred biodiversity and scenic values. Formally places. Such zoning may include exclusive designating such sites as category 1b access to areas within the wilderness site as provides extra protection and stronger part of the management plan. This may barriers against harmful development. Too include pilgrimage management devices or often the claim for the sanctity of a site regions that are ‘closed areas’ to maintain comes after a harmful development is well the sacredness and wildness of the site. into the planning stage and even into the Custodians of wilderness areas with sacred action stage. It would be better to designate values must be given the ability to not reveal the area as sacred and of high wilderness all their knowledge of a site for cultural and value before harmful development can begin. security reasons. An international conservation additional overlay may be warranted for particular Consultation wilderness sites with sacred values. Further If a government or agency that is not of the designation of a site under UNESCO’s same belief-system of those regarding the Biosphere Reserve or the World Heritage site as sacred manages a wilderness area Convention can add additional international 93 then proper and consultation-based for artificial snow that threatens the sacred interpretation of cultural values must be and wilderness values of the site. Lawsuits incorporated into every part of the have been through various levels of courts to management and governance of the site. halt what is to the tribal coalition a sacrilege, but at present skiing is winning (Benally and Personnel Hamilton 2010). The management of Sacred natural sites should be in the form of co-management, The Peak Wilderness Park (also referred to self-management or participatory as Adam’s Peak and Sri Pada) of Sri Lanka management. Where sacred values are high, has high spiritual value to Buddhists, special cultural skills are needed in managing Muslims, Christians and Hindus (Mansourian the land and associated resources. 2005). The sacredness and wilderness values Management staff should be selected from of this area have allowed wilderness local people of the belief system, and they decision-makers to ensure protection against should be given special training, involving the damaging development from mining, forest Elder Traditionalists. Such a policy has been cutting and clearing and excessive tourism. used successfully in some of the wilderness protected areas of Australia (Bauman et al. Implementation 2013). Management of a wilderness area as a sacred natural site can be done by Case Studies implementing the key considerations of Two case studies that illustrate some of the registration, designation, zoning, key tenets of sacred natural sites are the consultation, and employment mentioned Kachina Wilderness Area in the United States above. All inventory methodology undertaken and the Peak Wilderness Park in Sri Lanka. within a Sacred Natural Site must respect the traditional custodians of the site and their In the United States, the Kachina Wilderness ability to not reveal all knowledge for cultural Area incorporates the San Francisco Peaks and security reasons. Such management will of Arizona, a volcanic mountain range. The likely take the form of co-management Kachina Wilderness Areas is within the between Indigenous Peoples governments Coconino National Forest, which is and non-Indigenous governments or self- administered by the United States Forest management by Indigenous Peoples Service under a policy of multiple use. The government agencies. designated Kachina Wilderness Area recognises the sacredness of the area to the Recommended Reading Hopi Tribe and the wilderness values of the • Allendorf, T.D., Brandt, J.S., and Yang, J.M. (2014) site. The sacredness of the area and the ‘Local Perceptions of Tibetan Village Sacred Forests wilderness values are threatened by in Northwest Yunnan’. Biological Conservation 169, 303–310 encroachment of ski development in an • Bernbaum, E. (1997) Sacred Mountains of the adjacent area. At publication, these World. Berkeley: University of California Press wilderness values and the overall sacredness • Brockman, N.C. (1997) Encyclopedia of Sacred Places. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO of the entire massif to 13 Native American • Dove, M.R., Sajise, P.E., and Doolittle, A.A. (eds.) Tribes has not been sufficient to halt an (2011) Beyond the Sacred Forest: Complicating Conservation in Southeast Asia. Durham: Duke economically marginal ski resort expansion University Press using waste-water from the city of Flagstaff • Dudley, N., Bhagwat, S., Higgins-Zogib, L., Lassen, B., Verschuuren, B., and Wild, R. (2010) 94 ‘Conservation of Biodiversity in Sacred Natural Sites in Asia and Africa: A Review of the Scientific Literature’. Sacred natural sites: Conserving nature and culture. London and Washington DC: Earthscan 19–32 • Hamilton, L. and McMillan, L. (eds.) (2004) ‘The Sacred, Spiritual and Cultural Significance of Mountains’. in Guidelines for Planning and Managing Mountain Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 25–30 • Ormsby, A.A. (2011) ‘The Impacts of Global and National Policy on the Management and Conservation of Sacred Groves of India’. Human Ecology 39 (6), 783–793 • Oviedo, G. and Jenrenaud, S. (2007) ‘Protecting Sacred Natural Sites of Indigenous and Traditional Peoples’. in Protected Areas and Spirituality. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, 77–99 • Verschuuren, B. (ed.) (2010) Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. London ; Washington, D.C: Earthscan • Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008) Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected Area Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN ; UNESCO
95 4.10 Variance Case study Specific variances that are allowed on the Guiding Principles congressionally designated wilderness areas Variance from the protocols discussed within on federal lands in the state of Alaska are these guidelines are sometime permitted managed differently than other federal within wilderness areas. Variances occur for wilderness lands in the United States. These practical reasons, for political expediency, for variances stem from the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, the the rights of Indigenous Peoples, for competing legislative mandates, and for law that designated federal wilderness areas many other reasons. Permitting variances in Alaska and informs some of their unique require a well-thought and thorough elements of management. Central to the approach to appropriately manage them, variances within the Alaska wilderness while still meeting the purposes of protecting context are features that enable access and the wilderness values. maintain traditional practices within these large, remote tracts of wildlands.
Key Considerations As discussed in Section 4.8, subsistence Determining future variance practices are a unique and important part of Any variance allowed within a wilderness Alaska’s wilderness areas. Wildlands that are protected area requires a principled managed by state and federal natural decision-making process. The process for resource agencies provide rural residents the permitting variance during the establishment opportunity to harvest significant quantities of a new wilderness protected area differs of wild resources. These resources include a from the process of incorporating a variance large variety of fish, game, and berries, and into the management of an already existing other natural materials, like logs for homes. wilderness. When considering whether to The importance of these wild resources for allow variances when establishing a newly cultural purposes and rural life is the primary designated wilderness, all decisions should reason for Alaska’s access and structure be determined through an informed variances to federal designated wilderness legislative process. Variances permitted lands that are otherwise governed by the during the establishment process of a United States’ Wilderness Act. wilderness area should be decided by the governing body and written into the Unlike wilderness areas in other parts of the management plan. Decision-makers must United States, certain motorised access is permit variances that align with wilderness allowed within Alaska’s designated values. Within a site designated as a wilderness. Alaska National Interest Lands wilderness protected area decisions to allow Conservation Act specifically allows for the otherwise non-conforming uses are the use of motorboats, snow machines (or responsibility of the manager but often the snowmobiles), and fixed-wing aircraft within permission is elevated to higher levels within wilderness tracts for traditional activities, like the agency. The process to be followed for hunting and fishing, and for travel to and granting such variance is described below. It from villages, home-sites, and subsistence is important that any decisions to allow cabins. The allowable use of these machines variances should be principled and that there for access can vary between management are mechanisms in place to make sure that units and is regulated by specific placed- happens. 96 based rules. For example, depending on the that should be applied, and two tools that national park, national preserve, national are essential. forest or wildlife refuge, allowable floatplane landings can be limited to certain bodies of Principles: water and snowmobiles are often only • Respect the high standards associated permitted during particular times of year, in with this most protected, most natural designated areas, and under certain snow land-designation existing on the planet conditions. Permits that allow for recreational • Maintain a bias for protection, for and scientific access by motorised transport sustaining the highest degree of can also be granted within wilderness areas naturalness possible. in Alaska. • When the reasons for previously allowed variances no longer exist, eliminate the Subsistence cabins are another instance of variance variance within the Alaska wilderness • Respect other statutes. context. Subsistence cabins that were in • Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples existence before the passage of the Alaska • Respect implications to the cultural and National Interest Lands Conservation Act are biological systems beyond site-specific allowed to stay on the landscape; and in very decisions rare circumstances, subsistence cabins can • Ask “Is the variance necessary?” Do not be constructed in new locations. These merely ask, “Is the variance allowed?” structures are generally authorised through a renewable and nontransferable permit Tools: system that allows them to be maintained Management Plan and used by qualified claimants for A management plan for a protected area traditional activities. This exception helps to gives the manager an over-arching provide continued access to subsistence framework within which to make their resources and ensures human safety within decisions. The management plan should remote places. ensure the long-term accomplishment of the overall objective of preservation of pristine Alaska’s wilderness areas support important nature. It should include means to monitor traditional uses that are enabled and trends toward or away from that objective. It managed, among other ways, though should identify goals and objectives that will motorised transport and the use of small then direct site-specific, time-sensitive structures. These variances, which are decisions the manager must make. generally strictly enforced, help to ensure that Alaska’s unique wilderness values are Minimum Impact Analysis maintained while allowing traditional Each decision implemented by a manager on activities to continue. a site-specific, activity-specific variance demands a principled, informed decision- Implementation making process. A minimum impact analysis When granting variance, wilderness decision- should put the manager through a decision- makers must rely upon a sound, principled, making process that ensures all of the and informed process when considering non- correct variables are considered. The conforming uses. There are several principles minimum impact analysis should first answer the question if the variance is necessary.
97 Variances should be given only in instances vary by location, resources involved, and where they are necessary, not because the many other factors. At the least, variance is legally allowed. Once it has been consideration should be given to the amount determined the variance is both legally of time the impact occurs, how long the allowed and necessary, and does not pose a evidence of the impact will remain, and both significant impact to the resources and the physical resources and the experiential character of the area, then the minimum qualities of the area. By employing a impact analysis should go through a process management plan for the long-term timeline of determining the management method or and utilising a minimum impact analysis tool tool that will cause the least amount of whenever a variance is considered, a impact. manager is treating these important variance decisions with the care appropriate for our The factors to consider when determining planet’s most protected places. what method will cause the least impact will
98 4.11 Incorporating science into science for wilderness involves mapping, inventory and monitoring biophysical management decisions conditions. Much of this science needed is not specific to wilderness, but involves Guiding Principles understanding natural processes protected The systematic study of testable hypotheses, in wilderness through general hydrology science, is a necessary tenet of all inventories, wildlife and fish inventories, wilderness management decisions. As more assessment of invasive species, vegetative areas are designated as wilderness around inventories, air quality and human use the world, society’s relationship with these impacts assessments. This information is places will change. We are anticipating all of important to understand long-term trends in society will pay even more attention to the naturalness, establish baseline data, effects benefits accumulating from strict nature of protection decisions, and to establish protection with human witness. Clean water, desired future conditions descriptions. wildlife corridors for movement, air sheds, filtration of ground water, traditional cultural Social science practices in nature and wilderness- An early focus of wilderness science was the dependent recreation are important to us as need to understand recreation use and the a society. Research that is focused on flow effects of management. Although this is still of ecological services is useful to managers an important topic, research has contributed by creating understanding of the value of also to managers’ needs to understand protecting biodiversity, carbon storage general societal attitudes toward wilderness reservoirs and sources of high quality water which extend well beyond recreation values. for off-site benefits. Social science Current wilderness social science is evolving researchers from the disciplines of even farther to contribute knowledge on anthropology, political ecology and public attitudes toward adaptation practices economics provide valuable resources and to address climate change issues, attitudes understanding of wilderness that must be toward restoration to correct past human incorporated into management decisions. influences, the role of technology in wilderness experiences, and the future Key Considerations relevance of wilderness to a changing Establishing boundaries and baseline society and environment (Watson et al. conditions 2015). Beyond the contributions to public A great deal of wilderness management is wilderness values research, social science focused on protecting the resource. contributes greatly to our understanding of Agencies must often translate legislation into wilderness. The disciplines of anthropology, formal boundaries to understand exactly the political ecology and sociology all contribute land (or water) base they are protecting. They greatly to the field of wilderness management must develop signing and policies to assure and produce valuable knowledge pertinent to people know it is wilderness, let people know wilderness decision-makers. Management what uses are allowed in wilderness and decisions should be based on science and managers can begin to inventory trails, the many disciplines of natural and social needed restoration and understand the science. condition generally of impacted sites within the wilderness. Therefore, a great deal of
99 Monitoring system), set activity restrictions (e.g., set Scientists have also contributed to fines for conflicting behaviours), or timing of managers’ needs to estimate recreation use conflicting uses (temporal zoning), are aimed to all dispersed outdoor recreation sites and at only direct or interpersonal conflict eventually with specific applications to sources. Only elimination of one use or the wilderness. Researchers have been crucial in other can completely eliminate conflict, and helping managers identify use monitoring this, of course has serious implications to the objectives, the type of monitoring system group eliminated. Science can help that could provide this information, determine the level of conflict, suggest ways technology and sampling considerations, to manage conflict, provide methods to and data analysis methods (Watson et al. monitor changes in conflict levels and 2000). A science-based method of evaluate the impact of conflict on measuring use levels, distribution and trends experiences. is vital to good stewardship. Both social and natural science should be used in monitoring.
Conflict management A rich literature history also suggests several insights for managing conflict in wilderness. Research has found that where direct or interpersonal conflict is present, zoning may be an effective management strategy. Educational programs may also be an effective management approach to conflict that is based on direct or interpersonal Recreation in Galiuro Wilderness, United sources, and education may be effective States. where conflict is related to indirect causes © Sarah Csson such as alternative social values. Educational Economic value of wilderness recreation programs can be effective in two ways. First, Scientists have estimated the per acre they can help establish a basic etiquette, economic value of wilderness recreation and code of conduct, or other behavioural norms provided a framework for considering that might lessen both direct and indirect allocation of additional public land to conflict. Second, they can help address wilderness status. A variety of studies have indirect or social values-related conflict by been done to further illuminate the values increasing tolerance of recreation visitors for attributed to wilderness protection, beyond other types of groups and activities, perhaps those of on-site recreation experiences. In by explaining the reasons behind certain part, this advancement sprang from the work behaviours that might be viewed as of natural resource economists who objectionable and by emphasising similarities suggested that on-site recreation visit values that are shared by recreation groups and captured only a part of the total value of activities (Ivy et al. 1992). Most other conflict wilderness. The idea that the societal value management solutions, such as of wilderness is multi-dimensional has been management interventions to influence widely accepted. For example, research has directional flow of travel (e.g., everyone expanded the definition of wilderness values moves in a clockwise direction through a trail
100 to include option, existence and bequest These studies have asked visitors to define values (Walsh and Loomis 1989). important elements of the wilderness Fees experience and the things that threaten or Research can also guide managers in facilitate them. For instance, at Juniper decisions related to charging fees, Prairie Wilderness in Florida, United States particularly in order to understand how (Patterson et al. 1998) management was wilderness use fees might be different from focusing on numbers of intergroup other recreation use fees, can consider encounters (as a surrogate for solitude) as tradeoffs in setting prices for wilderness the primary indicator of wilderness character access, and distinguish between day user without a full understanding of how these and overnight user attitudes toward encounters (or other possible indicators) wilderness fees. Generally, research in the influenced visitor-defined experiences (e.g., United States has found wilderness visitors way-finding, challenge, and immersion in less supportive of wilderness fees than fees nature). Research here greatly expanded for more developed recreation, setting fees understanding of how management policies, for wilderness is complex due to social commercial activities, visitor behaviours and justice issues and difficult to describe costs numbers of visitors affected a range of of production issues, and wilderness visitors experience outcomes. This research was in generally express more support for fees for contrast to many previous studies that either restoring or maintaining conditions than focused narrowly on the experiences somehow “improving” them. believed to be prescribed by legislation (primarily solitude), those experiences Case Studies investigated in studies at other places Limits of acceptable change and visitor (primarily solitude), or upon a single aspect of experience the setting, such as crowding and its effect Research on wilderness recreation carrying on trip satisfaction. capacity led to the concept of "limits of acceptable change" (Stankey et al. 1985) Climate change intervention and wilderness planning process, introduced as a visitor perception way to systematically address recreation There is increasing recognition of the value of carrying capacity in wilderness through a wilderness as a baseline of relatively focus on how recreation use threatened undisturbed landscapes, and as such, specific attributes of the wilderness wilderness will be subject to more intensive environment (social and biophysical) and natural science to understand the impact of how much departure from the pristine was climate change. There are new demands on acceptable. Research to define indicators wilderness for installation of ecological and set standards has involved both measurement devices, more human activity qualitative and quantitative research in wilderness to support ecological methods. Qualitative approaches, as well as monitoring in remote locations, and more in situ place-based methods, to pressure for wilderness managers to review understanding experiences and identifying proposals for achieving the scientific values threats and contributions to wilderness of wilderness (Carver et al. 2014). Important experiences (cf., Patterson et al. 1998, questions are also emerging about public Glaspell et al. 2003, Watson et al. 2007) have attitudes toward the appropriateness of been employed in a number of studies. human intervention in wilderness to adapt to
101 climate change influences. Although wilderness ecosystems. After the large managers must comply with legislation western United States’ fires of 1988 and guidance and policy interpretations, many 2000, however, there has been renewed managers agree that understanding public interest, but limited funding, to understand a perceptions of appropriateness of variety of wildland fire issues relevant to intervention in wilderness to adapt to climate wilderness management. Shortly after the change influences may help them make 1988 fires in the Greater Yellowstone decisions about intervention and about how ecosystem, research helped uncover to explain either intervention or non- differences in public support levels between intervention decisions. Decisions about the public in the region of the fire and a whether to provide water improvements due national sample (Manfredo et al. 1990). to changes in hydrologic features or weather Those who lived in the region of the fires patterns, introduction of new genetic material were more supportive of restoration and more resistant to drought and disease in a more knowledgeable about the role of fire in changing climate, and whether to assist in nature. An additional topic explored in migration of plants or animals may be easier wilderness fire social science includes public to make outside of wilderness. Initial attitudes toward management-ignited fire in research on this topic among wilderness wilderness. For example, support was found visitors found strong opposition to these for management ignited fires and no practices in wilderness (Watson et al. 2015). difference between justifying those fires for ecological restoration or protecting adjacent Public attitudes toward ecosystem services lands resources by reducing hazardous fuels and restoration inside wilderness (Knotek et al. 2008). In addition to creating more opportunities for a more diverse public to visit wilderness our Implementation responsibility may be to promote awareness While most wilderness research has and commitment to protection of areas with occurred to understand wilderness visitors’ wilderness characteristics for other than use or potential visitors’ experiences and threat values. Public wilderness values research to those experiences, research on wilderness certainly has suggested these are values has extended across the United increasingly the values for which society States population. United States wilderness supports wilderness protection. Our management agencies wanted to know knowledge has changed about the functions public attitudes toward wilderness protection and services provided by protected lands and indications of public support for and water, and this knowledge may suggest designating more federal land as wilderness. the need to weight the contribution of This research informs legislators, land environmental well-being to human well- management agencies, designation being more than in the past (Watson 2013). advocates and other stakeholders about public support for wilderness. One early Managers are reporting more need to restore study commissioned in the 1960s (ORRRC the effects of past human intervention in 1962) in the United States highlighted two wilderness ecosystems. Scientists have broad classes of wilderness values— worked only a small amount in the past to recreation and indirect values. Indirect values understand public opinion about fire were defined to include conservation ethics, management and fire restoration in scientific uses and the wilderness idea. The 102 “wilderness idea” established the roots of the Report. Ecological Management & Restoration concept of existence value; wilderness is 13(1): 65–71. • Watson A, Roian M, Waters T, et al. (2008) valuable to society because it is there and Mapping tradeoffs in values at risk at the interface has been designated for protection from between wilderness and non-wilderness lands. Proceedings: III International Symposium on Fire development and exploitation. Economics, Planning, and Policy: Common Problems and Approaches, 29 April – 2 May, 2008. Recommended Reading Carolina, Puerto Rico. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 227. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, • Dove MR and Kammen DM (2015) Science, Society Pacific Southwest Research Station. and the Environment: Applying Anthropology and • Watson A, Matt R, Knotek K, et al. (2011) Physics to Sustainability. Earthscan, London: Traditional wisdom: protecting relationships with Routledge. wilderness as a cultural landscape. Ecology and • Dove MR, Sajise PE and Doolittle AA (eds) (2011) Society 16(1): 36. Beyond the Sacred Forest: Complicating • Watson AE and Cordell HK (2014) Take a scientist Conservation in Southeast Asia. Durham: Duke to the sauna! A great way to keep science and University Press. stewardship working together for another 50 years. • Pope K and Martin S (2011) Visitor perceptions of International Journal of Wilderness 20(2): 3–13. technology, risk and rescue in wilderness. • West P (2006) Conservation is our government International Journal of Wilderness 17(2): 19–26. now: the politics of ecology in Papua New Guinea. • Vaarzon-Morel P and Edwards G (2012) New ecologies for the twenty-first century, Incorporating Aboriginal people’s perceptions of Durham: Duke University Press. introduced animals in resource management: insights from the feral camel project: Research
103 © Igor Shpilenok / Wild Wonders of Europe
© Fiona Casson Evaluating Efectiveness of 1b Sites 5.1 Assessing ecological vegetation type (Gaston et al. 2006). Measures of inventory and condition within effectiveness in 1b sites an ecological effectiveness assessment of a wilderness area can include a gap analysis, Guiding Principles which measures the site’s ability to meet its Protecting wilderness habitat across a conservation objectives (Davis et al. 2014). broader range of ecological, geographical and geophysical occurrence of species Baseline measurements provides the greatest opportunity for Ecological effectiveness assessments can evolutionary processes to persist regardless employ different baselines, depending on the of imminent changes in the future (Aycrigg combination of measure, biological 2013). To understand and protect wilderness organisation and spatial scale. Data should areas, conservation managers need to be be collected to inform wilderness decision- able to measure what they are trying to makers on trends in the biodiversity, conserve (Stem et al. 2005). Assessing the ecosystem functions, landscape and ecological effectiveness of wilderness areas geology, and climate change resilience of the allows wilderness decision-makers to better wilderness protected area (Hockings et al. facilitate appropriate, targeted management 2015). Inventory assessments can focus on action at both local and national levels, occurrence, coverage, and abundance of improve efficiency and effectiveness of particular biological organisations at different conservation action (including future site spatial scales (Gaston et al. 2008). Condition designation). Assessment of wilderness assessments can focus on how the state of areas’ ecological effectiveness provides features have changed within one or more opportunities to learn from and respond to sites through time, how the state of features conservation successes, failures or within sites compares with that outside them, inadequacies (Gaston et al. 2006). or how the state of features has changed within sites compared with how it has Key Considerations changed outside them (Gaston et al. 2008). The IUCN PAME (Protected Area Management Effectiveness) framework is Spatial extent of ecological effectiveness commonly used by wilderness-decision- Ecological effectiveness can be addressed at makers (Hockings et al. 2015). Key areas of different spatial extents, i.e., site level to this framework are explained below. system-wide assessments. For individual sites, the principle concern is how well the Measures of inventory and condition biodiversity features for which the area has Measures of inventory concern the amount of been considered important are maintained biodiversity present, such as genetic (Gaston et al. 2006). Site-level assessments diversity, numbers of individuals, or numbers are primarily based on quantitative, fine- of species, or the area of a particular habitat scale monitoring data (Ervin 2003), type (Gaston et al. 2006). Measures of necessitating extensive fieldwork. Portfolios condition or persistence concern the status of individual sites and system-wide of biodiversity, such as the viability of assessments are concerned with how well observed levels and dynamics of genetic they represent the full range and examples of diversity, population sizes or species a particular feature across regional or occurrences, or the condition of a habitat or national landscapes (Gaston et al. 2006).
105 These assessments are primarily based on al. 2005). Several large conservation non- qualitative scoring data or broad-scale governmental organisations have developed quantitative data (Ervin 2003), and exploit stratified, eco-regional-based plans and remotely sensed datasets. approaches to formally structure the process of developing and maintaining protected area Sufficient data collection networks (Cummings et al. 2015). Data collection through monitoring can require significant investment of staff Assessment timelines resources and funds, collection of these data Responsibility for assessing ecological requires a long term commitment to the effectiveness can vary between individual assessment program (Hockings 2003). sites and networks, and a number of Without this long-term commitment, the approaches exist (cf. Hocking et al. 2006). shortness of time series for measuring Site level assessments are typically based on occupancy and abundance will limit the quantitative fine-scale monitoring data (Ervin ability to detect both directional changes and 2003a), which are collected over a period of more complex dynamics (Gaston et al. 2008). time (i.e., 5-10 years). The quickest and This is significant because species may differ cheapest assessments use established greatly in the rapidity of their responses to assessment methodologies, relying largely threats and conservation measures, and the on literature research and the informed interactions between the two (Gaston et al. opinions of site managers (Hocking et al. 2008). 2006).
Multidisciplinary teams Multidisciplinary assessment teams that include biologists and ecologists are necessary to meet the goals of the required rigorous ecological assessments. Where appropriate the assessment team should include Indigenous People trained in indigenous science, knowledge and worldviews. Ecological effectiveness assessments should not be done by individuals or a team of non-specialists who
lack the required knowledge and experience Data collection by wilderness researcher. © Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute (Parrish et al. 2003; Gaston et al. 2008). Stem et al. (2005) argue that it is important to Network wide assessments involve conservation partners in the When possible ecological effectiveness of monitoring and evaluation process because wilderness sites should include or be they can offer greater insight to what is included within network wide assessments, actually happening on the landscape. This which are primarily based on qualitative data supports the notion that an assessment scoring data or broad-scale quantitative data conducted solely by the managing agency (Ervin 2003), such as remotely sensed or may lack credibility (Heck et al. 2011). region-wide datasets, and include regular habitat and species gap analyses (Chape et
106 Implementation • Dietz, M.S., Belote, R.T., Aplet, G.H., and Aycrigg, J.L. (2015) ‘The World’s Largest Wilderness When wilderness decision-makers assess Protection Network after 50 Years: An Assessment the ecological effectiveness of a wilderness of Ecological System Representation in the U.S. National Wilderness Preservation System’. area they should: Biological Conservation 184, 431–438 • Consider the size of the wilderness area • Fielding, D., Newey, S., van der Wal, R., and Irvine, and connectivity to other protected areas in R.J. (2014) ‘Carcass Provisioning to Support Scavengers: Evaluating a Controversial Nature a network Conservation Practice’. Ambio 43 (6), 810–819 • Examine the species’ population dynamics • Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, L., and and their influence on the wilderness area’s Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008) ‘The Ecological Performance of Protected Areas’. Annual Review of Ecology, ecosystem dynamics Evolution, and Systematics 39, 93–113 • Ecosystem dynamics should be measured • Greve, M., Chown, S.L., van Rensburg, B.J., Dallimer, M., and Gaston, K.J. (2010) ‘The both from the perspective of animal Ecological Effectiveness of Protected Areas: A population ecology and predator-prey Case Study for South African Birds’. Animal relationships Conservation 14, 295–305 • Hawthorn, D., Kirik, M., and Eagles, P.F. (2002) • Work with a multidisciplinary team to ‘Evaluating Management Effectives of Parks and include inputs from a range of experts, Park Systems: A Proposed Methodology’. in organisations and stakeholders. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Science and Management of Protected Areas, 14–19 May 2000, Wolfville, NS. • Hockings, M., Leverington, F., and Cook, C. (2015) Recommended Reading ‘Protected Area Management Effectiveness’. in • Aycrigg, J.L., Tricker, J., Belote, R., Dietz, M.S., Protected Area Governance and Management. Duarte, L., and Aplet, G.H. (2015) ‘The next 50 Canberra, Australia: ANU Press, 889–928 Years: Opportunities for Diversifying the Ecological Representation of the National Wilderness • Soulé, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J., and Del Rio, Preservation System within the Contiguous United C.M. (2003) ‘Ecological Effectiveness: States’. Journal of Forestry Conservation Goals for Interactive Species’. Conservation Biology 17 (5), 1238–1250
107 5.2 Assessing social social evaluation of a wilderness protected area are described below. effectiveness in 1b sites Rights Guiding Principles When evaluating the social effectiveness of a All wilderness protected areas should be wilderness area, decision-makers must pay evaluated for their social effectiveness. To do close attention to the rights of Indigenous so, wilderness-decision makers must be Peoples. Adherence to the United Nations composed of and employ a multi-disciplinary Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous team. Anthropologists and political Peoples is required of all wilderness ecologists should lead all social effectiveness protected areas. Part of recognising the assessments and ensure Indigenous rights of Indigenous Peoples is the Peoples’ full partnership in wilderness acknowledgement of the value of traditional management and governance (Stevens knowledge in all areas of management. Such 2014). Wilderness protected areas must acknowledgement requires recognising respect Indigenous Peoples’ rights and indigenous method and including indigenous adhere to the United Nations Declaration on knowledge in all management activities from the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Free, prior planning to implementation, enforcement, and informed consent is an essential Western science studies and the use of indicator for all wilderness areas. technology. The management and governance of a wilderness protected area Key Considerations should be analysed to ensure such The Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of recognition and implementation is in place. Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) As Stevens (2014) says, “Facilitating methodology will prove useful to wilderness Indigenous Peoples’ full and effective decision-makers assessing the social participation in assessment and evaluation, effective of a protected area (Ervin 2003b; including provisions for them to report Hockings et al. 2015). Members of the independently on their findings, may ensure relevant Indigenous People community and their values, aspirations, concerns,and Tribe should have leading roles in social understanding of their rights will figure effectiveness evaluations. Social scientists prominently in governance and management like cultural anthropologists—not just natural assessments. Nothing less is likely to be scientists—should be full members of any considered legitimate by them or under decision-making team of a wilderness international law” (69). Respect for the rights protected area. Any decision-making team of Indigenous Peoples requires “promotion comprised without proper Indigenous of constructive dialogue and fair access to Peoples representation and inclusion of information; accountability in decision- social scientists will be unable to produce making; and existence of institutions and worthwhile evaluations. Assessments of procedures for fair dispute resolution” social effectiveness are typically multi-year (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013:4). endeavours that are undertaken by the individuals and institutions who have the Free, prior and informed consent mandate and responsibility to perform such Free, prior and informed consent is a key an evaluation. Key considerations in any indicator to the social effectiveness of a site. As discussed in Section 1.5, the use of free,
108 prior and informed consent is essential to all Wilderness decision-makers, including wilderness protected areas. The protected Indigenous Peoples, should either be trained area management procedures and practices in these disciplines themselves or work should be analysed to ensure that free, prior closely with such professionals. Assessing and informed consent is always sought and the adherence to United Nations Declaration given. on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires in-depth study and expertise in social Sufficient data collection science research. Such research is essential As with assessments of ecological to the effectiveness of all wilderness effectiveness, studies on the social protected areas. effectiveness of a site must have sufficient data collection. Such data must be collected Recommended Readings over multiple years, informed by multiple • Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., and Zerner, C. (eds.) (2005) Communities and Conservation: Histories academic disciplines, and comprised of both and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource qualitative and quantitative data. Management. Globalization and the environment. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press • Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, Socio-economic attributes G., and Namey, E. (2005) Qualitative Research Analysis of social effectiveness should also Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. North include evaluations of the site’s protection of Carolina: Family Health International USAID • Peterson, R.B., Russell, D., West, P., and Brosius, recreation uses, science and educational J.P. (2010) ‘Seeing (and Doing) Conservation uses, community engagement, and human Through Cultural Lenses’. Environmental Management 45 (1), 5–18 health and wellbeing (Hockings et al. 2015: • Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (2010) Approaches 908). Multi-year evaluations should seek to to Social Research. 5th edn. London: Oxford understand if these aspects are both University Press • Stevens, S. (2014) Indigenous Peoples, National protected and consistent with overarching Parks, and Protected Areas. Tucson (AZ): The wilderness values. University of Arizona Press • Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2010) ‘Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in Protected Areas:
Implementation Methodologies and Results’. Basic and Applied Research tools used in social evaluations of Ecology 11, 377–382 wilderness protected areas should include: • Timko, J. and Satterfield, T. (2008) ‘Criteria and Indicators for Evaluating Social Equity and • Ethnographic Research Ecological Integrity in National Parks and Protected • Social Network Analysis Areas’. Natural Areas Journal 28 (3), 307–319 • Triangulation Evaluation • West, P. (2006) ‘Articulations, Histories, Development’. in Conservation Is Our Government • Participatory Action Research Now. New ecologies for the twenty-first century. • Textual Analysis Durham: Duke University Press, 52–124 • West, P. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘An • Process Tracing Anthropological Perspective on Some Unexpected • Surveys Consequences of Protected Areas’. Conservation Biology 20 (3), 609–616 • West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. (2006) Cultural anthropologists and political ‘Parks and People: The Social Impact of Protected ecologists are best trained to conduct social Areas’. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 251– evaluations of wilderness protected areas. 277
109 5.3 Tools and techniques opportunities, stakeholders, and the management and political environment in for evaluation of 1b site which the area exists; effectiveness • Planning: establishing the vision, goals, objectives, and strategies for the area that Guiding Principles protect its resources and values, and Evaluating whether the attributes that are reduce or mitigate threats to these intended to be protected by legal wilderness resources and values; designation are actually being protected is • Inputs: the resources that are available to crucial for determining whether management implement the plan, including staffing, is effective and wilderness is providing its funding, equipment, and other intended benefits. Wilderness decision- management necessities; makers should use best practices tools and • Processes: the management actions and robust monitoring frameworks to evaluate systems that will be used to implement the whether the full range of wilderness plan given the available inputs; attributes are being protected (Ferraro and • Outputs: the goods and services that are Pressey 2015). Three broad categories of delivered from the management evaluating wilderness attributes are: 1) processes, including the management whether the system of wilderness plan, records of decisions, and analyses of management is effective; 2) whether impacts from proposed projects; wilderness is protecting ecosystems and • Outcomes: the impact on the land biodiversity; and 3) whether cultural and showing the results of the planning, social wilderness attributes are protected. inputs, processes, and outputs.
Hockings et al. (2015) provides detailed Key Considerations discussion about each of these six elements Evaluating management effectiveness and how to implement PAME. Many Evaluating whether management is effective protected area agencies have adapted is a basic necessity if any wilderness common methodologies or developed attributes are to be protected. Protected specific applications of PAME to fit their Area Management Effectiveness (PAME) needs, including South Africa (Timko and While developed for protected areas Satterfield 2003), Iran (Kolahi et al. 2013), generally and not specifically for wilderness, Tasmania, Australia (Tasmania Parks and to date the global database of PAME Wildlife Service 2013), Siberia (Anthony and includes records of 18,000 evaluations in Shecstockova 2015), Brazil (Carannza et al. 9300 protected areas (Coad et al. 2015, 2014), and New South Wales, Australia Leverington pers comm.). (Hockings et al. 2009).
Most of the methodologies used to evaluate Tools for evaluating protection management effectiveness are based on the of ecosystems and biodiversity framework developed by the IUCN-WCPA Protecting the integrity of ecological systems (Hockings et al. 2006), which includes and the species occurring therein is a evaluating six foundational elements of primary goal in all wildernesses. Wilderness management: decision-makers can look to evaluations of • Context: understanding the area, including the effectiveness of protected areas in its existing status, values, threats, protecting ecosystems and species, for 110 example in South Africa (Timko and readily applied at a finer spatial scale to Satterfield 2008), the United Kingdom wilderness. Last, Parrish et al. (2003) (Gaston et al. 2006), and Brazil (Pfaff et al. provided a framework for monitoring 2015). Wilderness decision-makers can also ecological integrity on privately protected look to evaluation frameworks used by areas that could be adopted for wilderness. Canada and the United States. Tools for evaluating protection of social and In an examination of Canadian wilderness cultural wilderness attributes protected areas, Woodley (2010) summarises A tool specifically designed to evaluate the the history of and methods used for trend in the condition, threats, and outcomes monitoring ecological integrity, which are from management planning, decisions, and formally described in a report by actions across a wide range of wilderness Environment Canada (2012). Trend attributes in the United States is called information is compiled for reporting across Wilderness Character Monitoring (Landres et the system of Canadian parks to be used for al. 2015). Managers evaluate trends of decision-making at the level of the park, and wilderness qualities by measuring indicator for assessing the effectiveness of national data collected every five years. This system policies for managing parks and wilderness. allows needed agency and local flexibility within a nationally consistent framework. In the United States, a variety of frameworks Stoll-Kleemann (2010) argue that more have been used to evaluate ecological emphasis needs to be placed on evaluating integrity in designated wilderness and other the protection of social, socio-economic, and protected areas. These frameworks can be socio-cultural attributes of protected areas. adapted to be used in other country’s Wilderness decision-makers should work wilderness protected areas to evaluate with social scientists, like anthropologists protection of ecosystems and biodiversity. and political ecologists, to create frameworks The National Park Service developed the that evaluation a wilderness protected area’s “vital signs” monitoring program to assess ability to effectively protect the site’s social trends in natural resources, and this program and cultural tenets (Izurieta et al. 2013). is applied to designated wilderness managed by the Service (http://science.nature.nps. Recommended Reading gov/im/monitor/). The organisation • Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, NatureServe has developed methods and J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., Kingston, N., de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Cuardros, I., Nolte, C., Burgess, resources to assess ecological integrity N.D., and Hockings, M. (2015) ‘Measuring Impact across a variety of ecosystems and these of Protected Area Management Interventions: Current and Future Use of the Global Database of could readily be applied to wilderness Protected Area Management Effectiveness’. (http://www.natureserve.org/conservation- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of tools/ecological-integrity-assessment). Biological Sciences • Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.D., Unnasch et al. (2008) developed a Hockings, M., Knights, K., Leverington, F., conceptual framework for monitoring the Cuardros, I.C., Zamora, C., Woodley, S., and trend in ecological integrity for the National Burgess, N.D. (2015) ‘Changes in Protected Area Management Effectiveness over Time: A Global Park Service, which could be applied to Analysis’. Biological Conservation 191, 692–699 designated wilderness. Theobald (2013) • Le Saout, S., Hoffmann, M., Shi, Y., Hughes, A., Bernard, C., Brooks, T.M., Bertzky, B., Butchart, mapped threats to ecological integrity in the S.H.M., Stuart, S.N., Badman, T., and Rodriques, United States and these methods could be A.S.L. (2013) ‘Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation’. Science 342, 803–805 111 • Leverington, F., Lemos Costa, K., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., and Hockings, M. (2010) ‘A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness’. Environmental Management • Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Courrau, J., Pavese, H., and Nolte, C. (2010) Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas: A Global Study. Second. University of Queensland, IUCN- WCPA, TNC, WWF, St Lucia, Australia • Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., and Whitten, T. (2007) Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Second. Gland, Switzerland: WWF • Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., and Hockings, M. (2014) ‘The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas’. Nature 515, 67–73 • West, P. (2006) Conservation Is Our Government Now: The Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. New ecologies for the twenty-first century. Durham: Duke University Press
112 References 10th World Wilderness Congress (2013) Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training WILD10 Statement from Salamanca, Center, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Spain. Research Institute, and Wilderness Institute at University of Montana (2016) Abrams, P., Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Gardner, Wilderness Management Planning J., and Heylings, P. (2003) Evaluating Toolbox. Governance--A Handbook to Accompany http://www.wilderness.net/planning a Participatory Process for a Protected Area. Report for Parks Canada and Ashley, P. (2012) ‘Confirming the Spiritual CEESP/CMWG/TILCEPA Values of WIlderness’. International Journal of Wilderness 18 (1), 4–7 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980) Public Law 96-487. Australian Conservation Foundation (1999) Policy Statement No. 64 Wilderness and Allendorf, T.D., Brandt, J.S., and Yang, J.M. Indigenous Cultural Landscapes in (2014) ‘Local Perceptions of Tibetan Australia. Village Sacred Forests in Northwest Yunnan’. Biological Conservation 169, Aycrigg, J.L., Davidson, A., Svancara, L.K., 303–310 Gergely, K.J., McKerrow, A., and Scott, J.M. (2013) ‘Representation of Ecological Anderies, J.M., Janssen, M.A., and Ostrom, Systems within the Protected Areas E. (2004) ‘A Framework to Analyze the Network of the Continental United States’. Robustness of Social–ecological Systems PLoS ONE 8, e54689 from an Institutional Perspective’. Ecology and Society 9 (1), 18 Aycrigg, J.L., Tricker, J., Belote, R., Dietz, M.S., Duarte, L., and Aplet, G.H. (2015) Anthony, B.P. and Shestackova, E. (2015) ‘The next 50 Years: Opportunities for ‘Do Global Indicators of Protected Area Diversifying the Ecological Representation Management Effectiveness Make Sense? of the National Wilderness Preservation A Case Study from Siberia’. Environmental System within the Contiguous United Management 56, 176–192 States’. Journal of Forestry
Araújo, M.B., Alagador, D., Cabeza, M., Babidge, S., Greer, S., Henry, R., and Pam, Nogués-Bravo, D., and Thuiller, W. (2011) C. (2007) ‘Management Speak: Indigenous ‘Climate Change Threatens European Knowledge and Bureaucratic Conservation Areas’. Ecology Letters 14 Engagement’. Social Analysis 51 (3), 148– (5), 484–492 164
Bacon, J., Roche, J., Elliot, C., and Nicholas, N. (2006) ‘VERP: Putting Principles into Practice in Yosemite National Park’. George Wright Forum 23 (2), 73–83
113 Barr, B.W. (2007) ‘Ocean Wilderness: Blaikie, P. (1985) The Political Economy of Interesting Idea or Ecological Imperative?’ Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. New in The Wild Planet Project, a Special York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Publication of the WILD Foundation in Cooperation with the International Journal Bohensky, E.L. and Maru, Y. (2011) of Wilderness. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum ‘Indigenous Knowledge, Science, and Publishing Resilience: What Have We Learned from a Decade of International Literature on Barr, B.W. (2012) Ocean Wilderness in “integration”’. Ecology and Society 16 (4), Theory and Practice. Fairbanks, AK: 6 University of Alaska Borrie, W.T., McCool, S.F., and Stankey, Bauman, T., Haynes, C., Lauder, G., and G.H. (1998) ‘Protected Area Planning Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Principles and Strategies’. in Ecotourism: Torres Strait Islander Studies (2013) A Guide for Planners and Managers. vol. 2. Pathways to the Co-Management of North Bennington, VT: The Ecotourism Protected Areas and Native Title in Society, 133–154 Australia. Canberra: Native Title Research Unit, AIATSIS Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Broome, N.P., Phillips, A., Benally, J. and Hamilton, L. (2010) ‘Sacred and Sandwith, T. (2013) Governance of versus Secular in the San Francisco Protected Areas: From Understanding to Peaks, Arizona, USA’. in The Sacred Action. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Dimensions of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Borrini-Feyerabend, G. and Hill, R. (2015) ‘Governance for the Conservation of Berkes, F. (2012) Sacred Ecology. 3rd edn. Nature’. Protected Area Governance and New York, N.Y.: Routledge Management 169–206
Bernbaum, E. (1997) Sacred Mountains of Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Kothari, A., Oviedo, the World. Berkeley: University of G., and Bassi, M. (2004) Indigenous and California Press Local Communities and Protected Areas: Towards Equity and Enhanced Bingham, R.D. and Felbinger, C.L. (2000) Conservation. vol. 11. Gland, Switzerland: Evaluation in Practice: A Methodological IUCN Approach. New York: Chatham House Publishers Boxall, P., Englin, J., and Adamowicz, W. (2002) ‘The Contribution of Aboriginal Blackwell, J.L. (2015) Influences of Hand- Rock Paintings to Wilderness Recreation Held Information and Communication Values in North America’. in Valuing Technology on Risk Behavior and the Cultural Heritage : Applying Environmental Experience of Wilderness Visitors. Valuation Techniques to Historic Buildings, Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State Monuments, and Artifacts. Cheltenham, University UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 105–117
114 Brewer, G.D. (1973) Politicians, Bureaucrats Carranzo, T., Manica, A., Kapos, V., and and the Consultant: A Critique of Urban Balmford, A. (2014) ‘Mismatches between Problem Solving. New York, N.Y.: Basic Conservation Outcomes and Management Books Evaluation in Protected Areas: A Case Study in the Brazilian Cerrado’. Biological Brockman, N.C. (1997) Encyclopedia of Conservation 173, 10–16 Sacred Places. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC- CLIO Carver, S. and Fritz, S. (2016) Mapping Wilderness: Concepts, Techniques and Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L., and Zerner, C. Applications. Springer Netherlands (eds.) (2005) Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Carver, S., McCool, S., Krenova, Z., Fisher, Community-Based Natural Resource M., and Woodley, S. (2014) ‘Fifty Years of Management. Globalization and the Wilderness Science: An International environment. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Perspective’. International Journal of Press Wilderness 20, 36–42
Brown, G., Koth, B., Kreag, G., and Weber, Carver, S., Tricker, J., and Landers, P. (2013) D. (2006) Managing Australia’s Protected ‘Keeping It Wild: Mapping Wilderness Areas: A Review of Visitor Management Character in the United States’. Models, Frameworks and Processes Environmental Management 131, 239–255 (Technical Report). Gold Coast, Queensland: Cooperative Research Centre Casson, S.A. (2015) ‘Socially-Just and for Sustainable Tourism, Griffith University Scientifically Sound: Re-Examining Co- Management of Protected Areas’. IK: Brown, P.J., Driver, B.L., and McConnell, C. Other Ways of Knowing 1 (2), 32–64 (1978) ‘The Opportunity Spectrum Concept and Behavioral Information in Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., and Outdoor Recreation Resource Supply Lysenko, I. (2005) ‘Measuring the Extent Inventories: Background and Application’. and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as in Integrated Inventories of Renewable an Indicator for Meeting Global Natural Resources: Proceedings of the Biodiversity Targets’. Philosophical Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-55. Fort Transactions of the Roy Society of Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Biological Sciences 360, 433–455 Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 73–84 Chavez, D.J., Winter, P.L., and Absher, J.D. (2008) Recreation Visitor Research: Cajune, J., Martin, V., and Tanner, T. (eds.) Studies of Diversity. General Technical (2008) Protecting Wild Nature on Native Report PSW-GTR-210. Albany, CA: US Lands: Case Studies by Native Peoples Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, from around the World. vol. 1. Golden, Pacific Southwest Research Station Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing Clark, P.A. (2003) Where the Ancestors Carlsson, L. and Berkes, F. (2005) ‘Co- Walked: Australia as an Aboriginal Management: Concepts and Landscape. Crows Nest NSW, Australia: Methodological Implications’. Journal of Allen and Unwin Environmental Management 75 (1), 65–76 115 Clark, R.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1979) The Cole, D.N. and Hall, T.E. (2006) ‘Wilderness Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Zoning: Should We Purposely Manage to Framework for Planning, Management, Different Standards’. in People, Places, and Research. Gen. Tech. Report PNW- and Parks: Proceedings of the 2005 98. Portland, OR: US Department of George Wright Society Conference on Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites. Northwest Research Station 33–38
Clifton, J. (2003) ‘Prospects for Co- Cole, D.N. and Landres, P. (1996) ‘Threats to Management in Indonesia’s Marine Wilderness Ecosystems: Impacts and Protected Areas’. Marine Policy 27, 389– Research Needs’. Ecological Applications 395 6 (1), 168–184
Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Cole, D.N. and McCool, S.F. (1998) ‘Limits of Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., Acceptable Change and Natural Kingston, N., de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Resources Planning: When Is LAC Useful, Cuardros, I., Nolte, C., Burgess, N.D., and When Is It Not?’ in Proceedings—limits of Hockings, M. (2015) ‘Measuring Impact of Acceptable Change and Related Planning Protected Area Management Processes: Progress and Future Interventions: Current and Future Use of Directions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. the Global Database of Protected Area Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture, Management Effectiveness’. Philosophical Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Transactions of the Royal Society of Station, 69–71 Biological Sciences Cole, D.N. and Stankey, G. (1997) ‘Historical Cohen, M.P. (1984) The Pathless Way: John Development of Limits of Acceptable Muir and the American Wilderness. Change: Conceptual Clarifications and Madison: University of Wisconsin Press Possible Extensions’. in Proceedings - Limits of Acceptable Change and Related Cole, D. (1994) The Wilderness Threats Planning Processes: Progress and Future Matrix: A Framework for Assessing Directions: From a Workshop Held at the Impacts. Research Paper INT-RP-475. University of Montana’s Lubrecht Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Experimental Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT- Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain GTR-371. Ogden, UT: US Department of Research Station Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Cole, D. (2009) ‘Ecological Impacts of Wilderness Recreation and Their Cole, D.N., Watson, A.E., Hall, T.E., and Management’. in Wilderness Management: Spildie, D.R. (1997) High Use Destinations Stewardship and Protection of Resources in Wilderness: Social and Biophysical and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Impacts, Visitor Responses, and Fulcrum Publishing, 395–436 Management Options. Research Paper INT-RP-496. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department Cole, D.N. (2010) Beyond Naturalness: of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rethinking Park and Wilderness Intermountain Research Station Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change. Washington, D.C: Island Press 116 Cole, D.N. and Wright, V. (2003) Wilderness Cruikshank, J. (2005) Do Glaciers Listen? Visitors and Recreation Impacts: Baseline Local Knowledge, Colonial Encounters and Data Available for Twentieth Century Social Imagination. Seattle, WA: University Conditions. General Technical Report of Washington Press RMRS-GTR-117. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cumming, G.S., Allen, C.R., Ban, N.C., Rocky Mountain Research Station Biggs, D., Biggs, H.C., Cumming, D.H.M., De Vos, D., Epstein, G., Etienne, M., Colorado Natural Areas Program (2000) Maciejewski, K., Mathevet, R., Moore, C., Creating an Integrated Weed Management Nenadovic, M., and Shoon, M. (2015) Plan: A Handbook for Owners and ‘Understanding Protected Area Resilience: Managers of Lands with Natural Values. A Multi-Scale, Social-Ecological Denver, CO: Colorado Natural Areas Approach’. Ecological Applications 25, Program, Colorado State Parks, Colorado 299–319 Department of Natural Resources; and Division of Plant Industry, Colorado Davis, M., Naumann, S., McFarland, K., Graf, Department of Agriculture A., and Evans, D. (2014) Literature Review, the Ecological Effectiveness of the Natural Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 2000 Network. ETC/BD Report to the EEA. (2005) Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness: A Case Study. Native Lands Dawson, C., Cordell, K., Watson, A.E., and Wilderness Council Ghimire, R., and Green, G.T. (2015) ‘The US Wilderness Managers Survey: Charting Conover, M.R. (2002) Resolving Human- a Path for the Future’. Journal of Forestry Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife 114 Damage Management. New York: Lewis Publishers Dawson, C. and Hendee, J. (2009a) ‘Managing for Appropriate Wilderness Cordell, H.K. (2012) Outdoor Recreation Conditions: The Limits of Acceptable Trends and Futures: A Technical Change Process’. in Wilderness Document Supporting the Forest Service Management: Stewardship and Protection 2010 RPA Assessment. General Technical of Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Report SRS-150. Asheville, NC: US Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 218–249 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009b) ‘Chapter 7: Principles of Wilderness Cordell, H.K., Betz, C.J., and Green, G.T. Management’. in Wilderness Management: (2008) ‘Nature-Based Outdoor Recreation Stewardship and Protection of Resources Trends and Wilderness’. International and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Journal of Wilderness 14, 7–13 Fulcrum Publishing, 179–194
Cordell, H.K., Tarrant, M.A., and Green, G.T. Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009c) (2003) ‘Is the Public Viewpoint of ‘Chapter 8: Wilderness Management Wilderness Shifting?’ International Journal Planning’. in Wilderness Management: of Wilderness 9, 27–32 Stewardship and Protection of Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 195–216 117 Dawson, C.P. and Hendee, J.C. (2009d) Dove, M.R., Sajise, P.E., and Doolittle, A.A. Wilderness Management: Stewardship and (eds.) (2011) Beyond the Sacred Forest: Protection of Resources and Values. 4th Complicating Conservation in Southeast edn. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Asia. Durham: Duke University Press Publishing Dudley, N. (ed.) (2013) Guidelines for Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, Applying Protected Area Management G., Stolton, S., and Wells, S. (2012) Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Dudley, N., Bhagwat, S., Higgins-Zogib, L., Marine Protected Areas. Best practice Lassen, B., Verschuuren, B., and Wild, R. protected area guidelines series 19. Gland, (2010) ‘Conservation of Biodiversity in Switzerland: IUCN Sacred Natural Sites in Asia and Africa: A Review of the Scientific Literature’. Sacred Deville, A. and Harding, R. (1997) Applying natural sites: Conserving nature and the Precautionary Principle. Sydney, culture. London and Washington DC: Australia: The Federation Press Earthscan 19–32
Dietz, M.S., Belote, R.T., Aplet, G.H., and Dudley, N., Higgins-Zogib, L., Mansourian, Aycrigg, J.L. (2015) ‘The World’s Largest S., and WWF (Organization), E. Wilderness Protection Network after 50 (Organization) Alliance of Religions and Years: An Assessment of Ecological Conservation (2005) Beyond Belief: Linking System Representation in the U.S. Faiths and Protected Areas to Support National Wilderness Preservation System’. Biodiversity Conservation : A Research Biological Conservation 184, 431–438 Report. [United Kingdom]: WWF
Dove, M.R. (2005) ‘Knowledge and Power in Dudley, N., Kormos, C., Locke, H., and Pakistani Forestry: The Politics of Martin, V. (2012) ‘Defining Wilderness in Everyday Knowledge’. in Political Ecology the IUCN’. International Journal of Across Spaces, Scales, and Social Wilderness 18 (1), 9–14 Groups. ed. by Paulson, S. and Gezon, L. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Duhaylungsod, L. (2011) ‘Interpreting Press “Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Resource Use”: The Case of the T’Boli in Dove, M.R. (2006) ‘Indigenous People and the Southern Philippines’. in Beyond the Environmental Politics’. Annual Review of Sacred Forest: Complicating Conservation Anthropology 35 (1), 191–208 in Southeast Asia. New ecologies for the twenty-first century. Durham: Duke Dove, M.R. and Kammen, D.M. (2015) University Press, 216–238 Science, Society and the Environment: Applying Anthropology and Physics to Dunbar-Ortiz, R. (2014) An Indigenous Sustainability. Earthscan. London: Peoples’ History of the United States. Routledge Boston: Beacon Press
118 Dvorak, R.G., Watson, A.E., Christensen, N., Ervin, J. (2002) WWF Rapid Assessment and Borrie, W.T., and Schwaller, A. (2012) The Prioritization of Protected Area Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness: Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. Gland, Switzerland: WWF Examining Changes in Use, Users, and
Management Challenges. Res. Pap. Ervin, J. (2003a) ‘Protected Area RMRS-RP-91. Fort Collins, CO: US Assessments in Perspective’. BioScience Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 53 (9), 819–822 Rocky Mountain Research Station
Ervin, J. (2003b) ‘Rapid Assessment of Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Protected Area Management Effectiveness Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., in Four Countries’. BioScience 53 (9), 833– Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, 842 A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D.,
Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T., Davey, M., European Commission, Directorate-General Edgar, S.C., Försterra, G., Galván, D.E., for the Environment, Alterra, Eurosite, and Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., PAN Parks Foundation (2013) Guidelines Parnell, P.E., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., on Wilderness in Natura 2000 Strain, E.M.A., and Thomson, R.J. (2014) Management of Terrestrial Wilderness and ‘Global Conservation Outcomes Depend Wild Areas within the Natura 2000 on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Network. Luxembourg: Publications Office Features’. Nature 506 (7487), 216–220 Ferraro, P.J. and Pressey, R.L. (2015) Eidsvik, H.K. (1990) ‘Wilderness ‘Measuring the Difference Made by Classification and the World Conservation Conservation Initiatives: Protected Areas Union’. Paper presented to Society of and Their Environmental and Social American Foresters National Convention, Impacts’. Philosophical Transactions of the San Francisco, California Royal Society of Biological Sciences 370 (1681) EKW (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife) (2011) Wilderness Management Plan: Fielding, D., Newey, S., van der Wal, R., and uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Irvine, R.J. (2014) ‘Carcass Provisioning to Heritage Site. Pietermaritzburg, South Support Scavengers: Evaluating a Africa: Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife Controversial Nature Conservation Practice’. Ambio 43 (6), 810–819 Ens, E.J., Finlayson, M., Preuss, K., Jackson, S., and Holcombe, S. (2012) ‘Australian Folke, C. (2004) ‘Traditional Knowledge in Approaches for Managing “country” Using Social-Ecological Systems’. Ecology and Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Society 9 (3), 7 Knowledge’. Ecological Management & Restoration 13 (1), 100–107 Fox, S., Phillippe, C., Hoover, V., and Lambert, L. (2015) Celebrating the 50th
Anniversary of the Wilderness Act. October Environment Canada (2012) Data Sources 15-19. Albuquerque, NM. Proceedings of and Methods for the Park Ecological the National Wilderness Conference. Integrity Indicator. Franklin, J.F. and Aplet, G.H. (2009)
‘Wilderness Resources, Values and
119 Threats to Them’. in Wilderness Glaspell, B., Watson, A., Kneeshaw, K., and Management: Stewardship and Protection Pendergrast, D. (2003) ‘Selecting of Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Indicators and Understanding Their Role in Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing Wilderness Experience Stewardship at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Frissell, S.S. and Stankey, G.H. (1972) Preserve’. George Wright Forum 20 (3), ‘Wilderness Environmental Quality: Search 59–71 for Social and Ecological Harmony’. in Proceedings of the Society of American Graber, D.M. (2003) ‘Ecological Restoration Foresters. Hot Springs, AR: Society of in Wilderness: Natural versus Wild in American Foresters, 170–183 National Park Service Wilderness’. The George Wright Forum 30 (3) Gaston, K.J., Charman, K., Jackson, S.F., Armsworth, P.R., Bonn, A., Briers, R.A., Greve, M., Chown, S.L., van Rensburg, B.J., Callaghan, C.S.Q., Catchpole, R., Dallimer, M., and Gaston, K.J. (2010) ‘The Hopkins, J., Kunin, W.E., Latham, J., Ecological Effectiveness of Protected Opdam, P., Stoneman, R., Stroud, D., and Areas: A Case Study for South African Tratt, R. (2006) ‘The Ecological Birds’. Animal Conservation 14, 295–305 Effectiveness of Protected Areas: The United Kingdom’. Biological Conservation Gundersen, V., Tangeland, T., and 132, 76–87 Kaltenborn, B.P. (2015) ‘Planning for Recreation along the Opportunity Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, Spectrum: The Case of Oslo, Norway’. L., and Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008) ‘The Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 14, Ecological Performance of Protected 210–217 Areas’. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39, 93–113 Hamilton, L. and McMillan, L. (eds.) (2004) ‘The Sacred, Spiritual and Cultural Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, Significance of Mountains’. in Guidelines I.D., Hockings, M., Knights, K., for Planning and Managing Mountain Leverington, F., Cuardros, I.C., Zamora, Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: C., Woodley, S., and Burgess, N.D. (2015) IUCN, 25–30 ‘Changes in Protected Area Management Effectiveness over Time: A Global Hanna, P. and Vanclay, F. (2013) ‘Human Analysis’. Biological Conservation 191, Rights, Indigenous Peoples and the 692–699 Concept of Free, Prior and Informed Consent’. Impact Assessment and Project Giifford, M.E. and Kozak, K.H. (2012) ‘Islands Appraisal 31 (2), 146–157 in the Sky or Squeezed at the Top? Ecological Causes of Elevational Range Hathaway, M.J. (2013a) ‘Making an Limits in Montane Salamanders’. Indigenous Space’. in Environmental Ecography 35 (3), 193–203 Winds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 116–151
120 Hathaway, M.J. (2013b) ‘Making an Hill, R., Grant, C., George, M., Robinson, Indigenous Space’. in Environmental C.J., Jackson, S., and Abel, N. (2012) ‘A Winds. Berkeley: University of California Typology of Indigenous Engagement in Press Australian Environmental Management: Implications for Knowledge Integration Hauer, F.R., Baron, J.S., Campbell, D.H., and Social-Ecological System Fausch, K.D., Hostetler, S.W., Leavesley, Sustainability’. Ecology and Society 17, 1– G.H., Leavitt, P.R., McKnight, D.M., and 17 Stanford, J.A. (1997) ‘Assessment of Hill, R., Walsh, F., Davies, J., and Sandford, Climate Change and Freshwater M. (2011) Our Country Our Way: Ecosystems of the Rocky Mountains, USA Guidelines for Australian Indigenous and Canada’. Hydrological Processes 11 Protected Area Management Plans [online] (8), 903–924 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Australian Government Department of Hawthorn, D., Kirik, M., and Eagles, P.F. Sustainability, Environment, Water, (2002) ‘Evaluating Management Effectives Population and Communities. of Parks and Park Systems: A Proposed Methodology’. in Proceedings of the Hilty, J.A., Chester, C.C., and Cross, M.S. Fourth International Conference on (eds.) (2012a) Climate and Conservation: Science and Management of Protected Landscape and Seascape Science, Areas, 14–19 May 2000, Wolfville, NS. Planning, and Action. Washington, D.C.: Island Press Heck, N., Dearden, P., McDonald, A., and Carver, S. (2011) ‘Stakeholder Opinions on Hilty, J.A., Chester, C.C., and Cross, M.S. the Assessment of MPA Effectiveness and (eds.) (2012b) Climate and Conservation: Their Interests to Participate at Pacific Rim Landscape and Seascape Science, National Park Reserve, Canada’. Planning, and Action. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Management 47 (4), 603– Island Press 613 Hockings, M., Cook, C.N., Carter, R.W., and Heller, N.E. and Zavaleta, E.S. (2009) James, R. (2009) ‘Accountability, ‘Biodiversity Management in the Face of Reporting, or Management Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Improvement? Development of a State of Recommendations’. Biological the Parks Assessment System in New Conservation 142 (1), 14–32 South Wales, Australia’. Environmental Management 43, 1013–1025 Hendee, J. and Stankey, G.H. (1973) ‘Biocentricity in Wilderness Management’. Hockings, M., Leverington, F., and Cook, C. BioScience 23 (9), 535–538 (2015) ‘Protected Area Management Effectiveness’. in Protected Area Hendee, J., Stankey, G.H., and Lucas, R.C. Governance and Management. Canberra, (1990) Wilderness Management. Golden, Australia: ANU Press, 889–928 Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing
121 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Johnson, C.Y., Bowker, J.M., Bergstrom, Dudley, N., and Courrau, J. (2006) J.C., and Cordell, H.K. (2004) ‘Wilderness Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Values in America: Does Immigrant Status Assessing Management Effectiveness of or Ethncity Matter?’ Society and Natural Protected Areas. 2nd edn. Gland, Resources 17, 611–628 Switzerland: IUCN Johnson, R. (1996) ‘Grandfather Mountain: A International Indigenous Commission (1991) Private U.S. Wilderness Experiment’. Indigenous Peoples’ Traditional International Journal of Wilderness 2 (3), 10–13 Knowledge and Management Practices: A Jonas, H., Makagon, J.E., Booker, S., and Report Prepared for the United Nations Shrumm, H. (2012) Report No 1. in An Conference on Environment and Analysis of International Law, National Development. International Indigenous Legislation, Judgements, and Institutions Commission as They Interrelate with Territories and
Areas Conserved by Indgienous Peoples IUCN (1978) Categories, Objectives and and Local Communities. Delhi: Natural Criteria: Final Report of the Committee and Justice and Kalpavriksh Criteria of the CNPPA/IUCN. Morges:
IUCN Knotek, K., Watson, A.E., Borrie, W.T.,
Whitmore, J.G., and Turner, D. (2008) IUCN (2012) Resolution 5.094 Respecting, ‘Recreation Visitor Attitudes towards Recognizing, and Supporting Indigenous Management-Ignited Prescribed Fires in Peoples’ and Community Conserved the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex, Territories and Areas. 5th World Montana’. Journal of Leisure Research 40 Conservation Congress, Jeju, South Korea (4), 608–618
IUCN World Parks Congress (2014) Promise Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Makhdoum, of Sydney. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN M.F., and Koyama, L. (2013) ‘Assessment
of the Effectiveness of Protected Area Ivy, M., Stewart, W., and Lue, C. (1992) Management in Iran: Case Study in Khojir ‘Exploring the Role of Tolerance in National Park’. Environmental Recreational Conflict’. Journal of Leisure Management 52, 514–530 Research 24, 348–360
Izurieta, A., Petheram, L., Stacey, N., and Kormos, C. F. (2011) ‘We Need to Scale Up Garnett, S.T. (2013) ‘Costs of Participatory Marine Wilderness Protection’. Monitoring and Evaluation of Joint International Journal of Wilderness 17 (3), Management of Protected Areas in the 12–15 Northern Territory, Australia’. Journal of Environmental Management 20, 21–33 Kormos, C.F. (ed.) (2008) A Handbook on International Wilderness Law and Policy. Johns, D. (2016) ‘Rewilding’. in Reference Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier
122 Kormos, C.F., Bertzky, B., Jaeger, T., Shi, Y., Landres, P., Barns, S., Boutcher, S., Devine, Badman, T., Hilty, J.A., Mackey, B.G., T., Dratch, P., Lindholm, A., Merigliano, L., Mittermeier, R.A., Locke, H., Osipova, E., Roeper, N., and Simpson, E. (2015) and Watson, J.E.M. (2015) ‘A Wilderness Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Approach under the World Heritage Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Convention: World Heritage and Character across the National Wilderness Wilderness’. Conservation Letters Preservation System. Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-340. Fort Kothari, A., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H., Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Neumann, A., Shrumm, H., and Secretariat Mountain Research Station of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Recognising and Supporting Landres, P., Barr, B., and Kormos, C. (2008) Territories and Areas Conserved by ‘The Matrix: A Comparison of International Indigenous Peoples and Local Wilderness Laws’. in A Handbook on Communities: Global Overview and International Wilderness Law and Policy. National Case Studies. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing
Kowari, I. (2013) ‘Cities and Wilderness’. Landres, P., Boutcher, S., Merigliano, L., International Journal of Wilderness 19 (3), Barns, C., Davis, D., Hall, T., Henry, S., 32–36 Hunter, B., Janiga, P., Laker, M., McPherson, A., Powell, D., Rowan, M., Krahe, D. (2005) Last Refuge: The Uneasy and Sater, S. (2005) Monitoring Selected Embrace of Indian Lands by the National Conditions Related to Wilderness Wilderness Movement, 1937–1965. Character: A National Framework. General Washington State University Technical Report RMRS-GTR-151. Fort
Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Landres, P., Barns, C., Boutcher, S., Devine, Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky T., Dratch, P., Lindholm, A., Merigliano, L., Mountain Research Station Roeper, N., and Simpson, E. (2015)
Keeping It Wild 2: An Updated Interagency Landres, P., Marsh, S., Merigliano, L., Ritter, Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness D., and Norman, A. (1998) ‘Boundary Character across the National Wilderness Effects on Wilderness and Other Natural Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. Areas’. in Stewardship Across Boundaries. RMRS-GTR-340. Fort Collins, CO: US Covelo, CA: Island Press, 117–139 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac
and Sketches Here and There. London: Landres, P., Barns, C., Dennis, J.G., Devine, Oxford University Press T., Geissler, P., McCasland, C.S.,
Merigliano, L., Seastrand, J., and Swain, Le Saout, S., Hoffmann, M., Shi, Y., Hughes, R. (2008) Keeping It Wild: An Interagency A., Bernard, C., Brooks, T.M., Bertzky, B., Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Butchart, S.H.M., Stuart, S.N., Badman, Character across the National Wilderness T., and Rodriques, A.S.L. (2013) Preservation System. Gen. Tech. Rep. ‘Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: US Conservation’. Science 342, 803–805 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station 123 Leung, Y.F. and Marion, J.L. (2000) Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., ‘Recreation Impacts and Management in Guest, G., and Namey, E. (2005) Wilderness: A State-of-Knowledge Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Review’. Wilderness science in a time of Collector’s Field Guide. North Carolina: change conference 5, 23–48 Family Health International USAID
Leverington, F., Lemos Costa, K., Pavese, Manfredo, M.J., Fishbein, M., Haas, G.E., H., Lisle, A., and Hockings, M. (2010) ‘A and Watson, A.E. (1990) ‘Attitudes toward Global Analysis of Protected Area Prescribed Fire Policies: The Public Is Management Effectiveness’. Widely Divided in Its Support’. Journal of Environmental Management Forestry 88 (7), 19–23
Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Courrau, J., Manning, R. (2001) ‘Visitor Experience and Pavese, H., and Nolte, C. (2010) Resource Protection: A Framework for Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Managing the Carrying Capacity of Protected Areas: A Global Study. Second. University of Queensland, IUCN- WCPA, National Parks’. Journal of Park and TNC, WWF, St Lucia, Australia Recreation Administration 19 (1), 93–108
Lindberg, K., McCool, S., and Stankey, G. Manning, R.E. (1997) ‘Social Carrying (1997) ‘Rethinking Carrying Capacity’. Capacity of Parks and Outdoor Recreation Annals of Tourism Research 24 (2), 461– Areas’. Parks and Recreation 32, 32–38 465 Manning, R.E. (2004) ‘Recreation Planning Li, T.M. (2001) ‘Masyarakat Adat, Difference, Frameworks’. in Society and Natural and the Limits of Recognition in Resources: A Summary of Knowledge. Indonesia’s Forest Zone’. Modern Asian Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho, 83–96 Studies 35 (3), 645–676 Mansourian, S. (2005) ‘Peak Wilderness Park, Sri Lanka’. in Beyond Belief: Linking Lockwood, M., Worboys, G., and Kothari, A. Faiths and Protected Aras to Support (eds.) (2006) Managing Protected Areas: A Biodiversity Conservation. Gland, Global Guide. London ; Sterling, VA: Switzerland: WWF Earthscan Marlon, J.R., Bartlein, P.J., Walsh, M.K., Loring, P.A. and Gerlach, S.C. (2009) ‘Food, Harrison, S.P., Brown, K.J., Edwards, Culture, and Human Health in Alaska: An M.E., Higuera, P.E., Power, M.J., Integrative Health Approach to Food Anderson, R.S., Briles, C., Brunelle, A., Security’. Environmental Science and Carcaillet, C., Daniels, M., Hu, F.S., Policy 12, 466–478 Lavoie, M., Long, C., Minckley, T., Richard, P.J.H., Scott, A.C., Shafer, D.S., Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., and Walters, C. Tinner, W., Umbanhowar, Jr., C.E., and (1993) ‘Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, Whitlock, C. (2009) ‘Wildfire Responses to and Conservation: Lessons from History’. Abrupt Climate Change in North America’. Science 260, 17–36 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2519-2524 (106), 8
124 Martin, G.J., Benavides, C.I.C., García, McCool, S.F. and Cole, D.N. (eds.) (1998) C.A.D.C., Fonseca, S.A., Mendoza, F.C., Limits of Acceptable Change and Related and Ortíz, M.A.G. (2011) ‘Indigenous and Planning Processes: Progress and Future Community Conserved Areas in Oaxaca, Directions: Proceedings of a Workshop Mexico’. Management of Environmental May 20–22 1997, Missoula, MT. Gen. Quality: An International Journal 22 (2), Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-371. Ogden, UT: US 250–266 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Martin, V. (ed.) (1982) Wilderness. Scotland: Findhorn Press McCool, S.F., Freimund, W.A., and Breen, C. (2015) ‘Benefiting from Complexity Martin, V. and Inglis, M. (eds.) (1984) Thinking’. in Protected Area Governance Wilderness, the Way Ahead. Scotland: and Management. Canberra, Australia: Findhorn Press ANU Press, 291–326
Martin, V. and Sarathy, P. (eds.) (2001) McCool, S.F. and Lime, D.W. (2001) ‘Tourism Wilderness and Humanity—The Global Carrying Capacity: Tempting Fantasy or Issue: Proceedings of the 6th World Useful Reality?’ Journal of Sustainable Wilderness Congress. Golden, Colorado: Tourism 9 (5), 372–388 Fulcrum Publishing McCool, S.F., Nkhata, B., Breen, C., and Martin, V. and Sloan, S.S. (2012) Protecting Freimund, W. (2013) ‘A Heuristic Wild Nature on Native Lands: Case Studies Framework for Reflecting on Protected by Native Peoples from around the World. Areas and Their Stewardship in the 21st vol. 2. Boulder, CO: The Native Lands and Century’. Journal of Outdoor Recreation Wilderness Council and Tourism 1 (1-2), 9–17
Martin, V. and Watson, A. (2009) McKelvey, K.S., Copeland, J.P., Schwartz, ‘International Wilderness’. in Wilderness M.K., Littell, J.S., Aubry, K.B., Squires, Management: Stewardship and Protection J.R., Parks, S.A., Elsner, M.M., and of Resources and Values. 4th edn. Golden, Mauger, G.S. (2011) ‘Climate Change Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, 50–88 Predicted to Shift Wolverine Distributions, Connectivity, and Dispersal Corridors’. McCool, S.F., Clark, R.N., and Stankey, G.H. Ecological Applications 21 (8), 2882–2897 (2007) An Assessment of Frameworks Useful for Public Land Recreation Planning Mech, L.D. and Boitani, L. (eds.) (2010) (General Technical Report PNW-GTR-705). Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Seattle, WA: USDA Forest Service Pacific Conservation. Chicago: University of Northwest Research Station Chicago Press
Menzies, C.R. (ed.) (2006) Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Natural Resource Management. Omaha, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press
125 Merigliano, L. and Krumpe, E. (1986) Moore, S.A. and Hockings, M. (2013) ‘Scientists Identify, Evaluate Indicators to ‘Australian Protected Areas and Adaptive Monitor Wildernes Conditions’. Park Management: Contributions by Visitor Science 6 (3), 19–20 Planning Frameworks and Management Effectiveness Assessments’. Australasian Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, Journal of Environmental Management 20 S.L. (2007) ‘Climate Change and Forests (4), 270–284 of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty’. Ecological Applications 17 Moore, S.A., Smith, A., and Newsome, D. (8), 2145–2151 (2003) ‘Environmental Performance Reporting for Natural Area Tourism: Meyer, S.S. (2000) ‘Legislative Interpretation Contributions by Visitor Impact as a Guiding Tool for Wilderness Management Frameworks and Their Management’. in Wilderness Science in a Indicators’. Journal of Sustainable Tourism Time of Change. Conference May 23– 27, 11 (4), 348–375 2000; Missoula, MT. Volume 5: Wilderness Ecosystems, Threats, and Management. Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, Morton, J.F. (2007) ‘The Impact of Climate UT: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Change on Smallholder and Subsistence Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Agriculture’. Proceedings of the National Station Academy of Sciences 104 (50), 19680– 19685 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well- Nadasdy, P. (1999) ‘The Politics of TEK: Being: Current State and Trends. Findings Power and the “Integration” of of the Conditions and Trends Working Knowledge’. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1-2), Group. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1–18 Series. vol. 1. London: Island Press Nadasdy, P. (2003) Hunters and Bureaucrats: Miller, K.A. (ed.) (2008) ‘A Commentary on Power, Knowledge, and Aboriginal-State the Origins of the Category System’. in Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Defining Protected Areas: An International Vancouver, BC: University of British Conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Columbia Press 18–20 Nadasdy, P., Goldman, M., and Turner, M. Minimum Requirement Decision Guide (eds.) (2011) Knowing Nature: (MRDG) (2014) Online Instructions for Conversations at the Intersection of Minimum Requirement Analysis. Arthur Political Ecology and Science Studies. Carhart National Wilderness Training Chicago: University of Chicago Press Center. available from
126 Nelson, D.M. (2004) ‘Anthropologists Oviedo, G. and Jenrenaud, S. (2007) Discovers Legendary Two-Faced Indian!: ‘Protecting Sacred Natural Sites of Margins, the State, and DUplicity in Indigenous and Traditional Peoples’. in Postwar Guatemala’. in Anthropology in Protected Areas and Spirituality. Gland, the Margins of the State. Santa Fe: School Switzerland: IUCN, 77–99 of American Research Press, 117–140 Papworth, S.K., Rist, J., Coad, L., and Newsome, D., Moore, S.A., and Dowling, Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2009) ‘Evidence for R.K. (2013) Natural Area Tourism: Ecology, Shifting Baseline Syndrome in Impacts and Management. Clevedon, Conservation’. Conservation Letters 2 (2), England: Channel View Publications 93–100
Nickas, G. and Proescholdt, K. (2005) Parker, K.A. (2008) ‘Translocations: Providing ‘Keeping the Wild in Wilderness: Outcomes for Wildlife, Resource Minimizing Nonconforming Uses in the Managers, Scientists, and the Human National Wilderness Preservation System’. Community’. Restoration Ecology 16 (2), International Journal of Wilderness 11 (3), 204–209 13–18 Parks Canada (2010) Nahanni National Park Nie, M. (2008) ‘The Use of Co-Management Reserve of Canada Park Naha Dehé and Protected Land-Use Designations to Management Plan. Protect Tribal Cultural Resources and Reserved Treaty Rights on Federal Lands’. Parrish, J.D., Braun, D.P., and Unnasch, R.S. Nat. Resources J. 48, 585 (2003) ‘Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity Nilsen, P. and Tayler, G. (1997) ‘A within Protected Areas’. BioScience 53 (9), Comparative Analysis of Protected Area 851–860 Planning and Management Frameworks’. in Proceedings – Limits of Acceptable Patterson, M.E., Watson, A.E., Williams, D.R., Change and Related Planning Processes: and Roggenbuck, J.R. (1998) ‘An Progress and Future Directions (General Hermeneutic Approach to Studying the Technical Report INT-GTR-371). Rocky Nature of Wilderness Experiences’. Mountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah: Journal of Leisure Research 30 (4), 423– USDA Forest Service, 49–57 452
Ormsby, A.A. (2011) ‘The Impacts of Global Pauly, D. (1995) ‘Anecdotes and the Shifting and National Policy on the Management Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries’. Trends in and Conservation of Sacred Groves of Ecology & Evolution 10 (10), 430 India’. Human Ecology 39 (6), 783–793 Pearce, F. (2015) The New Wild: Why Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Invasive Species Will Be Nature’s Commission (ORRRC) (1962) Wilderness Salvation. Boston: Beacon Press and Recreation—a Report on Resources, Values and Problems. Washington, D.C: Pease, J.L. (2015a) ‘Parks and Underserved U.S. Government Printing Office Audiences: An Annotated Literature Review’. Journal of Interpretation Research 20 (1), 11–56 127 Pease, J.L. (2015b) ‘Parks and Underserved Pope, K. and Martin, S. (2011a) ‘Visitor Audiences: An Annotated Literature Perceptions of Technology, Risk and Review’. Journal of Interpretation Rescue in Wilderness’. International Research 20 (1), 11–56 Journal of Wilderness 17 (2), 19–26
Peloquin, C. and Berkes, F. (2009) ‘Local Pope, K. and Martin, S. (2011b) ‘Visitor Knowledge, Subsistence Harvests, and Perceptions of Technology, Risk and Social-Ecological Complexity in James Rescue in Wilderness’. International Bay’. Human Ecology 37, 533–545 Journal of Wilderness 17 (2), 19–26, 48
Peres, C.A. (2000) ‘Effects of Subsistence Reichel-Domatoff, G. (1976) ‘Cosmology as Hunting on Vertebrate Community Ecological Analysis: A View from the Rain Structure in Amazonian Forests’. Forest’. Man 11 (3), 307–318 Conservation Biology 14 (1), 240–253 Ripple, W.J. and Beschta, R. (2003) ‘Wolf Peterson, R.B., Russell, D., West, P., and Reintroduction, Predation Risk, and Brosius, J.P. (2010) ‘Seeing (and Doing) Cottonwood Recovery in Yellowstone Conservation Through Cultural Lenses’. National Park’. Forest Ecology and Environmental Management 45 (1), 5–18 Management 184 (1), 299–313
Pfaff, A., Robalina, J., Sandoval, C., and Roggenbuck, J.W. and Watson, A.E. (1993) Herrera, D. (2015) ‘Protected Area Types, ‘Defining Acceptable Conditions in Strategies and Impacts in Brazil’s Amazon: Wilderness’. Environmental Management Public Protected Area Strategies Do Not 17 (2), 187–197 Yield a Consistent Ranking of Protected Area Types by Impact’. Philosophical Salerno, F., Viviano, G., Manfredi, E.C., Caroli, Transactions of the Royal Society of P., Thakuri, S., and Tartari, G. (2013) Biological Sciences 370 ‘Multiple Carrying Capacities from a Management-Oriented Perspective to Phillips, A. (ed.) (2008) ‘A Short History of the Operationalize Sustainable Tourism in International System of Protected Areas Protected Areas’. Journal of Environmental Management Categories’. in Defining Management 128, 116–125 Protected Areas: An International Conference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. Salmón, E. (2000) ‘Kincentric Ecology: 13–17 Indigenous Perceptions of the Human- Nature Relationship’. Ecological Pierotti, R. and Wildcat, D. (1997) ‘Evolution, Applications 10 (5), 1327–1332 Creation and Native Traditions’. Winds of Change 12 (2), 73–77 Savory, A. and Butterfield, J. (1999) Holistic Management: A New Framework for Poole, D. (2011) ‘Mestizaje, Distinction and Decision Making. Washington, D.C: Island Cultural Recognition: The View from Press Oaxaca’. in Histories of Race and Racism: The Andes and Mesoamerica from Scott, J. (1998) Seeing Like a State: How Colonial Times to the Present. Durham: Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Duke University Press, 170–203 Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press 128 Simpson, L. (2005) ‘Traditional Ecological Stankey, G.H. and Clark, R.N. (1996) Knowledge among Aboriginal Peoples in ‘Frameworks for Decision Making in Canada’. in Encyclopedia of Religion and Management’. in Proceedings of the 1996 Nature. London and New York: Thoemmes World Congress on Coastal and Marine Continuum Tourism. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Singleton, R.A. and Straits, B.C. (2010) Approaches to Social Research. 5th edn. Stankey, G.H., Cole, D.N., Lucas, R.C., London: Oxford University Press Petersen, M.E., and Frissell, S.S. (1985) The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Sippola, A. (2002) ‘Biodiversity in Finnish System for Wilderness Planning. United Wilderness Areas: Historical and Cultural States Department of Agriculture: Forest Constraints to Preserve Species and Service Habitats’. in Wilderness in the Circumpolar North: Searching for Compatibility in Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., and Ecological, Traditional, and Ecotourism Brown, M. (2005) ‘Monitoring and Values. Anchorage, AK: US Department of Evaluation in Conservation: A Review of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Trends and Approaches’. Conservation Mountain Research Station Biology 19, 195–309
Smith, D.W., Peterson, R.O., and Houston, Stevenson, M.G. (2006) ‘The Possibility of D.B. (2003) ‘Yellowstone after Wolves’. Difference: Rethinking Co-Management’. BioScience 53 (4), 330–340 Human Organization 65, 167–180
Sobrevilla, C. (2008) The Role of Indigenous Stevens, S. (2010) ‘Implementing the UN Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Natural but Often Forgotten Partners. Peoples and International Human Rights Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Law through the Recognition of ICCAs’. Policy Matters 17, 181–194 Soulé, M.E., Estes, J.A., Berger, J., and Del Rio, C.M. (2003) ‘Ecological Effectiveness: Stevens, S. (2014) Indigenous Peoples, Conservation Goals for Interactive National Parks, and Protected Areas. Species’. Conservation Biology 17 (5), Tucson (AZ): The University of Arizona 1238–1250 Press
Soulé, M. and Noss, R. (1998) ‘Rewilding and Stevens, S. and De Lacy, T. (eds.) (1997) Biodiversity as Complementary Goals for Conservation through Cultural Survival: Continental Conservation’. Wild Earth 22 Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas. Washington, DC: Island Press Stankey, G.H. (1984) ‘Limits of Acceptable Change: A New Framework for Managing Stevens, S. and Pathak-Broome, N. (2014) the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex’. Appropriate Recognition and Respect for Western Wildlands 10 (3), 33–37 Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Conserved Territories and Areas Which Overlap Protected Areas. Draft manuscript for the ICCA Consortium
129 Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2010) ‘Evaluation of Theobald, D.M. (2013) ‘A General Model to Management Effectiveness in Protected Quantify Ecological Integrity for Areas: Methodologies and Results’. Basic Landscape Assessments and US and Applied Ecology 11, 377–382 Application’. Landscape Ecology 28, 1859–1874 Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., and Whitten, T. (2007) Thomas, L. and Middleton, J. (2003) Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Guidelines for Management Planning of Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Second. Gland, Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Switzerland: WWF Timko, J. and Satterfield, T. (2008) ‘Criteria Stumpff, L.M. (2013) ‘Living Waters: Linking and Indicators for Evaluating Social Equity Cultural Knowledge, Ecosystem Services, and Ecological Integrity in National Parks and Wilderness’. International Journal of and Protected Areas’. Natural Areas Wilderness 19, 21–25 Journal 28 (3), 307–319
Sylven, M., Martin, V., and Schenck, C. Tsing, A. (2005) ‘This Earth, This Island (2014) ‘A Vision for a Wilder Europe’. Borneo’. in Friction. Princeton, N.J: International Journal of Wilderness 20 (1) Princeton University Press, 155–170
Tarlock, A.D. (2003) ‘Slouching Toward Eden: Turner, J.M. (2002) ‘From Woodcraft to The Eco-Pragmatic Challenges of “Leave No Trace’: Wilderness, Ecosystem Revival’. in Symposium, The Consumerism and Environmentalism in Pragmatic Ecologist: Environmental Twentieth-Century America’. Protection as Jurisdynamic Experience. Environmental History 7 (3), 462–484 97. Minn. L. Rev. 1173 Turner, W.R., Nakamura, T., and Dinetti, M. Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service (2013) (2004) ‘Global Urbanization and the Evaluating Management Effectiveness: The Separation of Humans from Nature’. Monitoring and Reporting System for BioScience 54 (6), 585–590 Tasmania‘s National Parks and Reserves. Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Primary UNESCO (2005) The Precautionary Principle: Industries, Parks, Water and Environment A Report by the World Commission on Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and The Deh Cho First Nations, The Government Technology. of Canada, and The Government of the Northwest Territories (2001a) The Deh Cho UNESCO World Heritage Committee (2011) First Nations Framework Agreement. ‘Nahanni National Park North West Territories, Canada’. Report on the 26th The Deh Cho First Nations, The Government Session of the Committee, Paris of Canada, and The Government of the Northwest Territories (2001b) The Deh Cho UN General Assembly (2007) ‘United Nations First Nations Interim Measures Agreement. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)’. United Nations
130 United Nations (2013) World Population Walsh, R.G. and Loomis, J.B. (1989) ‘The Ageing. New York: Department of Non-Traditional Public Valuation of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Wilderness’. in Proceedings of the Division Wilderness Benchmark 1988. General Technical Report SE 61. Asheville, NC United Nations (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Highlights. Watson, A. (2013) ‘The Role of Wilderness World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Protection and Societal Engagement as Revision, Highlights. (ST/ESA/SER.A/352) Indicators of Well-Being: An Examination of Change at the Boundary Waters Canoe United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Area Wilderness’. Soc Indic Res 110, 597– Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (2015) 611 Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Final Environmental Impact Watson, A., Alessa, L., and Glaspell, B. Statement, Executive Summary. (2003) ‘The Relationship between Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Unnasch, R.S., Braun, D.P., Comer, P.J., and Evolving Cultures and Wilderness Eckert, G.E. (2008) The Ecological Integrity Protection in the Circumpolar North’. Assessment Framework: A Framework for Conservation Ecology 8 (1), 1–13 Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Biological and Ecological Resources of the Watson, A., Carver, S., Matt, R., Gunderson, National Park System. Report to the K., and Davis, B. (2013) ‘Place Mapping to National Park Service Protect Cultural Landscapes on Tribal Lands’. in Place-Based Conservation. U.S. Department of the Interior (1993) Visitor Springer Netherlands, 211–222 Impact and Resource Protection: A Process for Addressing Visitor Carrying Watson, A., Cordell, H.K., Manning, R., and Capacity in the National Park Service Martin, S. (2015) ‘The Evolution of System. Denver: National Park Service Wilderness Social Science and Future Research to Protect Experiences, U.S. Department of the Interior (1997) VERP: Resources, and Societal Benefits’. Journal A Summary of the Visitor Experience and of Forestry Resource Protection (VERP) Framework. Denver: National Park Service Watson, A.E., Cole, D.N., Turner, D.L., and Reynolds, P.S. (2000) Wilderness Vaarzon-Morel, P. and Edwards, G. (2012) Recreation Use Estimation: A Handbook of ‘Incorporating Aboriginal People’s Methods and Systems. Gen. Tech. Rep. Perceptions of Introduced Animals in RMRS-GTR-56. Ogden, UT: US Resource Management: Insights from the Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Feral Camel Project: RESEARCH Rocky Mountain Research Station REPORT’. Ecological Management & Restoration 13 (1), 65–71 Watson, A.E. and Cordell, H.K. (2014) ‘Take a Scientist to the Sauna! A Great Way to Verschuuren, B. (ed.) (2010) Sacred Natural Keep Science and Stewardship Working Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. Together for Another 50 Years’. London ; Washington, D.C: Earthscan International Journal of Wilderness 20 (2), 3–13 131 Watson, A.E., Patterson, M., Christensen, N., Watson, A., Roian, M., Waters, T., Puttkammer, A., and Meyer, S. (2004) Gunderson, K., Carver, S., and Davis, B. ‘Legislative Intent, Science and Special (2008) Mapping Tradeoffs in Values at Risk Provisions in Wilderness: A Process for at the Interface between Wilderness and Navigating Statutory Compromises’. Non-Wilderness Lands. Proceedings: III International Journal of Wilderness 10 (1), International Symposium on Fire 22–26 Economics, Planning, and Policy: Common Problems and Approaches, 29 Watson, A., Glaspell, B., Christensen, N., April – 2 May, 2008. Carolina, Puerto Rico. Lachapelle, P., Sahanatien, V., and Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-227. US Gertsch, F. (2007) ‘Giving Voice to Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Wildlands Visitors: Selecting Indicators to Pacific Southwest Research Station Protect and Sustain Experiences in the Eastern Arctic of Nunavut’. Environmental Watson, A., Schwaller, A., Dvorak, R.G., Management 40, 880–888 Christensen, N., and Borrie, W.T. (2013b) ‘Wilderness Managers, Wilderness Watson, A., Martin, S., Christensen, N., Scientists, and Universities: A Partnership Fauth, G., and Williams, D. (2015c) ‘The to Protect Wilderness Experiences in the Relationship between Perceptions of Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness’. Wilderness Character and Attitudes International Journal of Wilderness 19 (1), toward Management Intervention to Adapt 41–42 Biophysical Resources to a Changing Climate and Nature Restoration at Sequoia Watson, A., Stumpff, L.M., and Meidinger, J. and Kings Canyon National Parks’. (2012) ‘Traditional Wisdom and Climate Environmental Management 56, 653–663 Change: Contribution of Wilderness Stories to Adaptation and Survival’. Watson, A., Martin, V., and Lin, C.C. (2009) International Journal of Wilderness 18 (2), ‘Wilderness: An International Community 21–25 Knocking on Asia’s Door’. Journal of National Park 19 (4), 1–9 Watson, J.E.M., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B., and Hockings, M. (2014) ‘The Performance and Watson, A., Matt, R., Knotek, K., Williams, Potential of Protected Areas’. Nature 515, D.R., and Yung, L. (2011) ‘Traditional 67–73 Wisdom: Protecting Relationships with Wilderness as a Cultural Landscape’. Watson, J.E.M., Iwamura, T., and Butt, N. Ecology and Society 16 (1), 36 (2013c) ‘Mapping Vulnerability and Conservation Adaptation Strategies in a Time of Climate Change’. Nature Climate Change 3, 989–994
Watson, J.E.M., Iwamura, T., and Butt, N. (2013d) ‘Mapping Vulnerability and Conservation Adaptation Strategies in a Time of Climate Change’. Nature Climate Change 3, 989–994
132 Weick, K. (1995) Sensemaking in Wilderness Act (1964) Public Law 88-577 (16 Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage USC 1131-1136). 88th Congress, 2nd Publications Session
West, P. (2006a) ‘Articulations, Histories, Wilderness Watch (2009) Wilderness Development’. in Conservation Is Our Stewardship Concepts & Principles. [ Government Now. New ecologies for the 2009] twenty-first century. Durham: Duke University Press, 52–124 Wild, R. and McLeod, C. (eds.) (2008) Sacred Natural Sites: Guidelines for Protected West, P. (2006b) Conservation Is Our Area Managers. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN ; Government Now: The Politics of Ecology UNESCO in Papua New Guinea. New ecologies for the twenty-first century. Durham: Duke Wilson, E.O. (2003) The Future of Life. New University Press York: Vintage Books
West, P. and Brockington, D. (2006) ‘An Woodley, S. (2010) ‘Ecological Integrity and Anthropological Perspective on Some Canada’s National Parks’. George Wright Unexpected Consequences of Protected Forum 27, 151–160 Areas’. Conservation Biology 20 (3), 609– 616 Worboys, G.L., Lockwood, M., Kothari, A., Feary, S., and Pulsford, I. (eds.) (2015) West, P., Igoe, J., and Brockington, D. Protected Area Governance and (2006) ‘Parks and People: The Social Management. Canberra: ANU press Impact of Protected Areas’. Annual Review of Anthropology 35, 251–277 Zinn, H.C. and Graefe, A.R. (2007) ‘Emerging Adults and the Future of Wild Nature’. International Journal of Wilderness 13 (3), Whiting, A. (2004) ‘The Relationship between 16–22 Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal
Members) and the Western Arctic
Parklands, Alaska, United States’.
International Journal of Wilderness 10 (2), 28–31
133
International Union for Conservation of Nature Global Protected Areas Programme Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland Switzerland Tel +41 22 999 0000 Fax +41 22 999 0002 WILDERNESS www.iucn.org/publications SPECIALIST GROUP