NoNprofitorgaNizatioNU.S. poStage

PAIDBoulder, Co

permit No. 63

The WILD Foundation717 Poplar AvenueBoulder, CO 80304 USA www.wild.org

For Wilderness Worldwide www.ijw.org

Sponsoring Organizations

Conservation international

aldo Leopold Wilderness research institute

SUNY College of environmental Science and forestry

the WiLD foundation

the Wilderness Society

University of Montana, College of forestry and Conservation and Wilderness institute

USDa forest Service

USDi Bureau of Land Management

USDi fish and Wildlife Service

USDi National park Service

Wilderness foundation (South africa)

Wilderness foundation (UK)

Wilderness Leadership School (South africa)

Wilderness Specialist group (WCpa/iUCN)

Wilderness Science PerspectiveWilderness Social ScienceWilderness Fire ScienceWilderness Economics

4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 Golden, Colorado USA 80403Phone: +1 303-277-1623 Fax: 303-279-7111

To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:

Alphabet KingdomLauren A. ParentIllustrated by mo mcgee

This animal-centered alphabet book, offers an abundance of images and subtle surprises on every page. 10 x 10 40 pages full-color illustrations PB $8.95

Gas Trees and Car TurdsA Kids Guide to the Roots of Global WarmingKirk Johnson and Mary Ann Bonnell

This colorfully illustrated book makes carbon dioxide, an invisible odorless gas responsible for global warming and plant growth, into something that can be imagined and under-

stood by children. 7 x 10 40 pages full-color illustrations PB $9.95

Tales of the Full Moon Sue Hart Illustrated by Chris Harvey

Children of all ages love these wonderful tales of the African bush. A timeless collection of memorable stories centered on lovable characters.

71/2 x 101/2 96 pages full-color illustrations PB $16.95

Sand to Stoneand Back AgainNancy Bo Flood Photos by Tony Kuyper

A beautiful combination of photo-graphs, drawings, and text illustrates the life cycle of sandstone in the land-

scape of the desert Southwest. Written for ages 4 and up. 81/2 x 81/2 32 pages full-color photos PB $9.95

Felipe the FlamingoJill Ker Conway,Illustrated by Lokken Millis

Felipe, a young flamingo, is left behind when his flock migrates to find more food. As he awaits his parents he learns many life lessons. 101/2 x 71/2 32 pages full-color illustrations HC $12.95PB version in Spanish $9.95

Americas Ecosystem

series

A series of six books, each exploring a

different biome, its plants, and its animals

Each book is 9 x 9 48 pages full-color illustrationsmaps and glossary PB $11.95

HudsonThe Story of a River

Thomas Locker andRobert C. Baron

Rachel CarsonPreserving a Sense of Wonder

Thomas Locker and Joseph Bruchac

John MuirAmericas Naturalist

Thomas Locker

Walking with HenryBased on the Life and Works of

Henry David Thoreau

Thomas Locker

Each book is 11 x 81/2 32 pagesfull-color illustrations HC $17.95

Images ofConservationists

seriesIllustrated by award-winning

childrens book artist

Thomas Locker

John Muir Rachael Carson Henry David Thoreau

Also in Spanish !The Girl Who Married the MoonTales from Native North AmericaGayle Ross and Joseph Bruchac

This collection of traditional stories explores the significance of a young girls rite of passage into womanhood. Each of these stories originated in the oral tradition and have been carefully researched.

Joseph Bruchac, author of the best-selling Keepers of the Earth series, and noted storyteller, has been entrusted with stories from elders of other native nations which ensures that the stories collect-ed in this book are authentic.6 x 9 128 pages PB $9.95

Flying with the Eagle, Racing the Great BearTales from Native North AmericaJoseph Bruchac

In this collection of Native American com-ing-of-age tales, young men face great ene-mies, find the strength and endurance with-in themselves to succeed, and take their place by the side of their elders. Joseph

Bruchac is the award-winning author of books for children and adults.6 x 9 128 pages PB $10.95

To order or to learn more about other titles at Fulcrum Publishing, visit:4690 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 100 Golden, Colorado USA 80403

Phone: +1 303-277-1623 Fax: 303-279-7111

For the young conservationists in your family

Parks for the PeopleThe Life of Frederick Law OlmstedJulie Dunlap

Growing up on a Connecticut farm in the 1800s, Frederick Olmsted loved roaming the outdoors. A con-test to design the nations first city park opened new doors for Olmsted when his winning design became

New Yorks Central Park, just one of Olmsteds ideas that changed our nations cities. Award-winning author Julie Dunlap brings Olmsted to life in this memorable biography, featuring resource and activity sections, a time line, and a bibliography, as well as black-and-white historical photographs.7 x 9 112 pages PB $12.95

Things Natural, Wild, and FreeThe Life of Aldo LeopoldMarybeth Lorbiecki

Adventureas a child Aldo Leopold was always loking for it as he wandered over the bluffs along the Mississippi with his dog, Spud. This led Leopold to become a for-ester, wildlife scientist, author, and

one of the most important conservationists in history. Award-winning author Marybeth Loribiecki brings Leopold to life in this vivid new biography. Featuring resource and activity sections, a time line, a bibliography, and historic black-and-white photographs.7 x 9 112 pages PB $12.95

Conservation Adventures series

Hardcover, 9 x 10.5, 144 pages color photos, $35us

Wildlife art of the vast region between

Yellowstone National Park and the Arctic Circle

150 years of artistic genius

The Journey of Wildlife and Art

This lavishly illustrated book celebrates 150 years of

artistic genius and describes how art has played a

central role in providing the inspiration to protect

and conserve nature in one of the worlds best loved

mountain regions, the Northern Rocky Mountains.

Hardcover, 10 x 9, 260 pages, color photos, $35us

Boyd Norton has captured the magic of this ancient and majestic ecosystem. Through superb and deeply sensitive photographs and compelling accounts of his experiences there, he introduces its animals and people. Serengeti is profoundly movingyou will understand why it is so important to preserve this place for generations to come.

Jane Goodallfounder, the Jane Goodall Institute

and UN messenger of peace

Hardcover 6 x 9 256 pages $27.

95 US

Alaskas Rugged CoastMichael McBride

A captivating account of decades in the Alaska wilderness as Michael and Diana McBride literally respond to the call of the wild.destined to be not just an Alaskan classic but one of nature and wilderness writ large. A must for any Nature bookshelf.

Tom Lovejoy, Founder of the Public Television series NATURE

A remarkable story of pursuing a dream of living close to the land and raising a family

in wilderness isolation. In the face of incredible hardships, the McBrides not only

carried out their vision, but in the process built the world renowned Kachemak Bay

Wilderness Lodge that has become a model for eco-tourism everywhere.

A few copies of the Limited Edition are

still available

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 1

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

Journal of WildernessAUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

Disclaimer

The Soul of the Wilderness column and all invited and featured articles in IJW, are a forum for controversial, inspiring, or especially informative articles to renew thinking and dialogue among our readers. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. IJW neither endorses nor rejects them, but invites comments from our readers. John C. Hendee,

IJW Editor-in-Chief Emeritus

On the Cover

Main image:

Sunset at Mesa Arch, Canyonlands National Park,

Utah, USA.

Inset image:

An early spring thaw makes for a perfect after-

noon hiking opportunity and chance to recharge in

Colorados Roosevelt National Forest outside Fort

Collins, Colorado, USA. Photos and courtesy of

Morgan Heim, www.morganheim.com

FEATURESEdiToRiAl PERSPEcTivE

3 Take a Scientist to the Sauna! A Great Way to Keep Science and Stewardship Working Together for Another 50 Years bY AlAN e. WATSoN and H. KeN CorDell

SoUl oF ThE WildERnESS 4 Make the World a Wilder Place

WILD10, the 10th World Wilderness CongressSalamanca, Spain, 2013bY VANCe G. mArTIN and melANIe HIll

SciEncE & RESEARch 8 Wilderness Science

A Historical PerspectivebY DAVID N. Cole

14 Wilderness Social ScienceResponding to Change in Society, Policy, and the EnvironmentbY AlAN e. WATSoN and H. KeN CorDell

20 The Contribution of Natural Fire Management to Wilderness Fire Science

bY CArol mIller

26 Valuing ValuesA History of Wilderness EconomicsbY J. m. boWKer, H. KeN CorDell, and NeelAm C. PoUDYAl

PERSPEcTivES FRom ThE Aldo lEoPold WildERnESS RESEARch inSTiTUTE

34 The Wildland Research InstitutebY STeVe CArVer, mArK FISHer, and AlISoN PArFITT

inTERnATionAl PERSPEcTivES 36 Fifty Years of Wilderness Science

An International Perspective bY STeVe CArVer, STeVe mcCool, ZDeNKA KreNoVA, mArK FISHer, and STePHeN WooDleY

WildERnESS diGEST 43 Announcements

46 Book Reviews46 International Handbook on Ecotourism

eDITeD bY roY bAllANTYNe and JAN PACKerReviewed by John Shultis

47 Natures Saviours: Celebrity Conservationists in the Television Age

bY GrAHAm HUGGANReviewed By John Shultis

SPonSoRinG oRGAniZATionSAldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute Conservation International SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry The WILD Foundation The Wilderness Society University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute USDA Forest Service USDI Bureau of Land Management USDI Fish and Wildlife Service USDI National Park Service Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

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

Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One Forestry Drive, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA. Telephone: (315) 470-6567. Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: cpdawson@esf.edu.

Business Management and Subscriptions: The WILD Foundation, 717 Poplar Ave., Boulder, CO 80304, USA. Telephone: (303) 442-8811. Fax: (303) 442-8877. E-mail: info@wild.org.

Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars onlyOnline access $35; online access and printed journal $50; online access and printed journal (Canada and Mexico) $62; online access and printed journal (international) $74. We do not offer an agency discount price. No refunds.

All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright 2014 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and envi-ronmental education; wilderness-related science and research from all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilder-ness; and international perspectives describing wilderness worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are encour-aged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available-from the website: www.ijw.org.

Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed by the author.

Website: www.ijw.org.

Printed on recycled paper.

International Journal of WildernessThe International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested

citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning,management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

EdiToRiAl BoARdH. Ken Cordell, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Athens, Ga., USA

Lisa Eidson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USAGreg Kroll, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Boulder, Colo., USARebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA

John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., CanadaAlan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA

EdiToR-in-chiEFChad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

c0-mAnAGinG EdiToRSChad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA and

Robert Dvorak, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Mich., USA

EdiToR-in-chiEF EmERiTUSJohn C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

ASSociATE EdiToRSinTERnATionAlAndrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Karen Ross, The Wilderness Foundation, Capetown, South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, World Wildlife Fund, Minarut, Canada; Tina Tin, Consultant, Challes-les-Eaux, France; Anna-Liisa Ylisirni, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSociATE EdiToRSUniTEd STATESGreg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; James Barborak, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Re-search Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Joseph Flood, Minnesota State University, Mankato, Minn.; Greg Friese, Emergency Preparedness Systems LLC, Plover, Wisc.; Gary Green, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga.; Kari Gunderson, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.; Bill Hendricks, CalPoly, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Cyril Kormos, The WILD Founda-tion, Berkeley, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Id.; Yu-Fai Leung, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Christopher Monz, Utah State University, Logan, Ut.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; David Ostergren, Goshen College, Wolf Lake, In.; Trista Patterson, USFS, Sitka, Alas.; John Peden, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Ga.; Kevin Proescholdt, Wilderness Watch, Minneapolis, Minn.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Keith Russell, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Wash.; Rudy Schuster, USGS, Fort Collins, Colo.

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 3

FEATURES

E d I t o r I A l P E r S P E c t I v E S

Take a Scientist to the Sauna!A Great Way to Keep Science and Stewardship

Working Together for Another 50 YearsAlAN e. WATSoN and H. KeN CorDell

A t a workshop in Oulanka National Park in Finland, shortly after the Finnish Wilderness Act had passed in 1991, managers and scientists wrestled with how to incorporate science into protection of wildlands of northern Finland. One working group was assigned to develop a list of why managers dont apply the information scientists provide and another group worked up an impressive list of why scientists dont produce the information managers need. A third group was assigned the task of explaining why sometimes scientific information is valuable, even if it has no immediate management application.

From this session, it became clear that there was little previously shared knowledge about differences in organi-zation process (organization hierarchies are different, and scientists and managers do different things to identify priorities and move up in their hierarchies), evaluation procedures are different (scientists are often evaluated by a panel of scientists on scientific contribution, managers by their immediate supervisors on accomplishment of man-agement tasks), and even some lack of trust across these boundaries (if I dont understand your motivation or how you are evaluated, your science must be aimed at someone else; if I dont understand your motivation or how you are evaluated, your management decisions probably dont consider the science). In the end everyone shared from new understanding of each other. And, in typical Finn-ish tradition, the most promising solution that came to the top of proposals was that managers more often take the opportunity to invite scientists to the sauna, a holy place in Finnish culture, where the participants take time to think, talk, reflect, build trust, and cleanse themselves and relationships.

This issue of the International Journal of Wilderness isnt exactly a good substitute for all of us sharing time

in the sauna, but it is aimed at giving scientists an oppor-tunity to share with managers and other scientists their understanding of what has driven the science intended to help managers with their decisions during the past 50 years. For instance, David Cole, scientist emeritus of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, in telling his story of wilderness science over time suggests that it has contributed most in the areas of recreation and fire management, but it has lost some of the focus and col-laborative spirit that existed in its first couple decades. Reestablishing that focus and collaborative spirit may be very important to wilderness protection. Alan Watson and Ken Cordell strongly attribute changes in wilderness social science to changes in the questions asked by managers due to changes in society, technology, and public use patterns. All of these things will certainly continue to change into the future. In this issue, Carol Miller also explains how a history of natural fire management contributed a great deal of knowledge to wilderness fire science and the social science surrounding public response to natural fire pro-grams. And through Mike Bowker and others explanation of the development of wilderness economics, we may also develop new appreciation for the many components of wilderness that the public values, and that is maybe more important than the total value estimate itself.

Wilderness as we know it is often thought of as an American ideal. Scientists from the UK, the United States, the Czech Republic, and Canada, in this issue, however, suggest that in Europe there is the perception that the wil-derness idea is really attributable to European influences on our society, and now they are ready to reimport the concept to the European landscape. They readily acknowledge the many benefits afforded by the long history of wilderness

Continued on page 13

4 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

S o u l o f t h E W I l d E r n E S S

Make the World a Wilder PlaceWILD10, the 10th World Wilderness Congress

Salamanca, Spain, 2013bY VANCe G. mArTIN and melANIe HIll

BackgroundThe World Wilderness Congress (WWC) was initiated in South Africa in 1977 and has since become a global process occurring approximately every three or four years in a different region. It is the worlds longest-running, interna-tional public environmental program. A project of The WILD Foundation and its colleagues in The Wilderness Network (Wilderness Foundations in the UK and Africa), with many hundreds of collaborators and partners, the WWC focuses on the interface between human society and wild nature defined broadly as wildlands and seas, including designated wilderness. Intensive collaboration over two years leads to an actual gathering (Congress of Delegates) and involves science, policy, communications, the arts, and humanities, boasting delegates and leaders from governments, the private sector, communities, civil society, and the public. It produces positive and practical solutions that protect wild nature and address the needs of human communities, and it helps inspire the passion and commitment required to create a new relationship between nature and people.

WIld10The WILD10 collaborative process was endorsed by Spains Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Environment, and its honorary president was Queen Sofia of Spain. It surpassed all of its conservation goals during a very challenging time of economic collapse in Spain and financial recession in the eurozone. The planning was coordinated over two years by an Executive Committee, an international secretariat at The WILD Foundation offices in the United States, and a small team of profes-sionals and volunteers in Spain (headed by Executive Director Maria Feduchi), plus scores of partners from around the world.

The Congress itself involved more than 1,100 del-egates from more than 65 nations conservationists, scientists, government officials, Indigenous leaders, artists, and others with many additional participants from the general public in Spain. It convened in the medieval city center of Salamanca, Spain (October 2013) to explore, debate, connect, and forge partnerships and implement targeted actions to value and protect wild nature around the world, and to protect its benefits for human society (see Figure 1). They were joined by approximately 25,000 people from 85 countries who followed the proceedings online. The Global Intergovernmental Forum on Wilder-ness met for two days prior to the plenary opening of WILD10. At wild10.org, a full archive of videos, presen-tations, outcomes, resolutions, and images is available, plus an upbeat, three-minute summary video.

The WILD10 communications and media program led by Mar Ramirez (Spain) and Karl Wagner (Austria) was structured around our bilingual (English/Spanish) websites and social media platforms, and extensive on-site media pool during the congress. Prior to the congress, the program focused on informing and uniting delegates

figure 1 Salamanca, Spain, during WIld10. Photo by Melanie hill.

FEATURES

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 5

located throughout the world on the key points of the congress by way of monthly/biweekly newsletters, numerous interactive web platforms, and daily social media posts. People who were not able to join us in per-son at WILD10 were able to follow along with the presentations and fes-tivities through our WILD10 Live/en Vivo video stream, live tweet-ing, and daily Facebook posts. Our messaging proved effective both for delegates in Salamanca and individu-als following from abroad. Because of our live video streaming, multiple followers from afar joined in on the live tweeting! In addition to our communications updates, we urged followers to share their WILD10 experience with us by posting images, videos, inspirational quotes, memorable moments, and more with the common hashtag #WILD10.

As part of the communications and media program, and to demon-strate commitment to the purposes of WILD10, several groups of hikers walked long distances across Europe and Spain to arrive in Salamanca the day before WILD10 convened. In addition to the 45 youth leaders from eastern Europe who walked from Madrid to Salamanca (400 km/249 miles, organized by Nathan Spees of WWF Austria), Lisa Klimek and her dog, Jala, trekked from Austria, and Geoff Dalglish of South Africa hiked from Geneva, Switzerland, to Sala-manca more than 2,500 km (1,553 miles) on the Trail to Salamanca.

WILD10 occurred at a very appropriate time in European and global history. We know the prob-lems; the focus now needs to be on solutions, said Magnus Sylven (co-chair of WILD10 with Odile Rodrguez de la Fuente and Vance G. Martin). Sylven continued, Not only has WILD10 produced good

conservation outcomes, practical and realistic, weve generated a sense of hope, inspiration and cooperation the very elements that our world needs to have a new relationship with nature and between nations.

Global GatheringMany new initiatives developed as part of the WILD10 collaborative planning process were officially launched from the Global Gathering (plenary) platform (see Figure 2), which was then followed by the Global Forum (working sessions).

WILD10 issued two major policy initiatives: 1. The Statement from Sala-

manca endorsed by 10 of the leading global conserva-tion organizations and now being communicated directly to international development institutions and environmental organizations emphasizes that wild nature is essential to human health and prosperity by provid-ing critical services such as fresh water, clean air, and biodiversity; and supporting sustainable

livelihoods, culture, identity, and spiritual well-being. It calls for changing the development paradigm that regards nature as a storehouse to be looted for short-term gain, to one that integrates a new imperative to protect the life-supporting services and the beauty, mystery and magic of wild nature. The Statement calls for actions to reverse major threats to a healthy planet, such as biodiversity loss, deforesta-tion, climate change, population growth, ocean acidification, warming, and overfishing. It includes 10 solution-oriented and specific recommendations.

2. A Vision for a Wilder Europe

the result of 18 months of thor-ough research and debate among a group of 15 leading European experts, has been endorsed by leading conservation organi-zations. Backed by a 17-page technical paper, the 3-page sum-mary contains an action agenda for how a wilder (and healthier, more prosperous) Europe could be a reality by 2023.

figure 2 WIld10 opening ceremony. Photo by Jaime rojo.

6 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

Connected to this Vision for a Wilder Europe and a major focus of the first day of WILD10 was the comeback of selected spe-cies of wildlife across Europe due to developing and implementing better conservation policies and programs, depopulation of rural areas by people moving from the country to the city, and better regulated hunting. The findings of a special study done by the Zoological Society of London and Birdlife International (com-missioned by Rewilding Europe), Wildlife Comeback in Europe, were summarized in plenary ses-sion. Both of these reports and their recommendations were presented in person to senior representatives of the European Union, Council of Europe, and the World Commission on Protected Areas/IUCN.

The voice and action of WILD10 delegates individual experts, agencies, and organizations were expressed as they debated and adopted 33 plenary Resolu-tions recommending positive, solution-oriented actions on local, regional, and international conser-vation concerns.

The Rewilding Europe initia-tive, which aims to rewild 1 million hectares (2.4 million acres) of land by 2020, increased their program by 100% at WILD10 by targeting a total of 10 wildlife and wilderness areas of international quality for re-creating wild nature for better environmental quality, to stimulate local economies, and to create new opportunities for experiencing and gaining benefit from a healthy resource of wilderness on land and sea. They also announced a new rewilding partnership com-munity to further strengthen their ambitious and important goals.

In a special meeting of lead-ing global experts, the essential and

unique role of primary forests of all types temperate, boreal, and tropi-cal was reviewed and reaffirmed, and a strategy was created to more effectively advance their protection for the benefit of a healthier and wilder planet.

Two other initiatives were offi-cially launched on Day Three of the Global Gathering:

1. Conservation Capital, the private investment fund for conservation-related projects, detailed the basis for such activ-ity in Europe and announced formation of a new Conservation Fund for Europe geared toward attracting private investors and aligning their funds with proj-ects that increase conservation results across Europe, while also creating return on investment for investors.

2. Miquel Rafa of the Fundacin Catalunya-la Pedrera (the largest private landowner in Catalonia, Spain) announced the formation of the European Landowners Alliance for Wild Nature, a continent-wide net-work of private landowners to support and inspire each other in ways to strategically manage their landholdings to enhance biodiversity and other conserva-tion values.

Global forumFollowing the Global Gathering of plenary sessions, about 125 workshops, technical sessions, and roundtable discussions comprised the Global Forum (October 810, 2013). This complex and substance-rich array of working sessions involved more than 500 presenters during three days, organized into 17 program areas. According to Julie Anton

Randall (Global Forum manager and vice president for programs, The WILD Foundation), The Global Forum produced lasting networks and new initiatives recognizing what nature needs in the context of human livelihoods, values, and culture. A full report on all Global Forum sessions is available.

Science & Stewardship Sympo-sium (S&SS) sessions confirmed how scientists and other engaged parties are scaling up research on the global impacts of climate change on wilder-ness and on the importance of intact wild areas on land and sea to mitigate climate change. Wilderness is our baseline, and ideal for researching and monitoring impacts as it is least affected by other influences, said S&SS coordinator Dr. Alan Watson of the Leopold Wilderness Research Institute .

The Indigenous and Commu-nity Lands and Seas (ICLS) Forum advanced a vision for conservation that recognizes the rights of Indig-enous Peoples to protect and sustain wild nature according to their own biocultural diversity and values of local community stewardship. Responding to the dramatic increase the past decade in mining and other destructive extractive activity notably in protected areas, World Heritage Sites, and Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas and Territories, often taking place in defi-ance of national and international law the ICLS called for No-Go Areas for mining in order to protect these wildlands and the local cultures dependent on them.

Change-making youth and ris-ing leaders launched CoalitionWILD (see Figure 3), forging a community and platform for vision, new voices, communication outreach, and prac-tical projects to Make the World

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 7

a Wilder Place. Sanctuary Asia founder and president Bittu Sahgal remarked,

We were born of the wilderness, and though our generation seems to have lost its way and is remorselessly attacking the very source of life, nature ... a vibrant new generation is determined to right every wrong. With natures self-repair systems on their side it looks increasingly like the larger CoalitionWILD will end up not

merely re-wilding the world, but, in the process, finding the soul we lost while pillaging our only home.

Emphasizing a maxim of the WWC and The WILD Foundation that culture is an important part of the conservation solution, numer-ous artists such as Asher Jay (United States), Richard Green (Australia), and Beatriz Padilla (Mexico) pre-sented their works and how they are used to advanced specific conser-vation agendas. The International League of Conservation Photogra-phers convened some of the worlds top conservation photographers and filmmakers at the WiLDSpeak Forum three days of dynamic pre-

sentations, trainings, and planning in the area of conservation communications. The International League of Conservation Writ-ers hosted a series of training sessions that were standing room only. Baba Brinkman, the Canadian rap art-ist, produced the song GoWILD! especially for WILD10, funded by The WILD Founda-tion. Other WILD10

cultural events such as flamenco fusion by Ral Cobo, the music of David Rothenberg, artworks, film festival, a video shorts festival shown outdoors in the Plaza, a youth-driven flash-mob howl-in, and tree planting drew crowds throughout Salamanca.

A tradition of the WWC is to leave the host community a gift. The Executive Committee selected, and The WILD Foundation funded, Boa Mistura, the urban art collective from Madrid, to paint for the entire week of the Congress and to finalize and

present a gift from WILD10 to the people of Salamanca a 27-meter-high (90 foot) mural/wall painting in the middle of downtown Salamanca (see Figure 4).

WILD10 programs often inte-grated the Nature Needs Half (NNH) vision launched at WILD9 (Mexico, 2009) to protect and interconnect at least half of the planet. Referred to as a common-sense vision and science-based practice of a new relationship between human society and wild nature, NNH principles show that intact natural areas must comprise at least half of the land and sea, and be connected, for both people and planet to be healthy and prosperous.

WILD10 was the official launch of the WILD Cities Project, a new concept of urbanism where wild nature is highly valued space, and its conser-vation a conscious part of human life in cities worldwide. The WILD Cities Collaborative brings together a diverse group of leaders representing cities from all over the world and identify-ing successful urban initiatives that are aligned with the principles of NNH. This collaborative will work together to formulate common criteria for defining WILD Cities parameters and international guidelines for city plan-ning, and create effective strategies for communicating to the general public that there is space for nature in mod-ern cities.

The new Nature Strategy for Sustainability concept launched at WILD10 bridged the international conservation and development sectors toward forging an under-standing, common goal, and action plans to alleviate human suffering, enhance human security, and enable economic prosperity while prioritiz-ing the protection of wild nature.

figure 3 coalition WIld at WIld10 session. Photo by Jaime rojo.

figure 4 Mural painted by Boa Mistura in Salamanca, Spain, during WIld10. Photo by Melanie hill. Continued on page 48

8 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

Wilderness ScienceA Historical Perspective

bY DAVID N. Cole

Wilderness is a relatively new and powerful idea that is still finding its footing in the world of science. Although the intellectual history of wilderness can be traced farther back in time (Nash 2001), as a land classification wilderness is less than a century old, and it was just 50 years ago that wilderness was codified in legislation in the United States. While much of the attention over the past 50 years has been given to the growth and development of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the issue of how much and which lands should be protected as wilderness, it is clear that wilderness must be managed and that sound management should be built on a foundation of wilderness science. Without stewardship and management, wilderness designation will not necessarily result in wilderness protection. And without science, management is little more than trial and error, varying with the worldviews and beliefs of whoever happens to have management responsibility at any point in time. Therefore, wilderness science is critical to the success of the wilderness idea. The importance of science to the protection of wilderness values will only increase with time, as the contrast between wilderness and developed lands widens, as the diversity of wilderness values expands, and as the threats to those values intensify.

Antecedents of Wilderness ScienceAlthough systematic wilderness science is only about as old as the Wilderness Act, there were some important antecedents to wilderness research. In the biological sciences, there has long been a tradition of research into the ecology of natural systems and landscapes, often using study sites that were eventually designated as wilderness. In fact, at the same time The Wilderness Society was working to establish, define, and promote the concept of wilderness, largely for its primitive recreational values, a committee within the Ecological Society of America was working to establish a system of natural areas,

representative of all major ecosystem types that would be preserved for study (Sutter 2002). Also in this vein, in the late 1920s, the National Park Service instituted a number of studies of wildlife relationships in the national parks, either broad faunal surveys (Wright et al. 1933) or studies of individual species, such as the wolves of what is now Denali National Park (Murie 1944). Although the focus of this research was primarily on developing a basic understanding of natural systems, it provided a foundation for more applied work on mitigating threats to the wilderness values of such systems. Basic and applied ecological studies continue to be conducted in wilderness by both federal scientists and academics; however, the focus is typically management of the plants, animals, and ecosystems being studied not management of wilderness.

One of the threats to wilderness values that has been widely studied for many years is fire and its management. Although research originally focused largely on damage caused by fire and how to improve fire suppression tech-niques, there were also early challenges to the notion that all fires are bad (Harper 1913). By the 1960s, research had shown that in many forests, frequent low-intensity fires were critical to ecosystem function (Kilgore 1987).

The advent of recreation research in the 1960s contributed significantly to the development of wilder-ness science. Early development was largely spurred by recognition within the Forest Service that burgeoning recreational use of public lands needed to be managed scientifically and that to do so, a discipline of recreation science needed to be developed and stimulated. To do this, Forest Service Research created a recreation research

SCIENCE & RESEARCH

david cole: Photo by liese dean.

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 9

program, starting in 1958, which included placing recreation scientists at five universities, where they could develop curricula, conduct recreation research, and teach and advise stu-dents to become recreation scientists (Camp 1983). By 1962, there were 20 scientists working full-time in for-est recreation research, probably five to six times as many as remain work-ing today. These scientists and others that followed conducted much of the seminal early work in recreation, with international repercussions.

toward Systematic Wilderness ScienceTo a substantial degree the catalyst for systematic wilderness science came from within Forest Service recreation research. In the late 1950s, the Lake States Forest Experiment Station cosponsored research in the Boundary Water Canoe Area, Minnesota the first study of wilderness visitors and their experiences (Taves et al. 1960). At the same time, Bob Lucas, a graduate student in geography at the University of Minnesota, began his dissertation work on visitors, their perceptions of wilderness, and the carrying capacity of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. The Lake States Station subsequently hired Lucas in 1960 to lead their recreation research program. Several of the earliest publications from that program came from Lucass dissertation work (Lucas 1964a, b). Although the mission of that program was broad, much of the research was focused on the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, not because the Boundary Waters was wilderness but because it was among the most unique and valued recreation resources in the forests of the north-central United States.

With passage of the Wilder-ness Act in 1964, however, interest

in studying wilderness because it was wilderness increased. Again, leadership came from Forest Service Research, which decided to charter, in 1967, a Wilderness Management Research Unit. The unit was located in Missoula, Montana, as a field office of the Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, with Bob Lucas as project leader. As noted above, there were a few other studies conducted in or about wilderness at this time, but this work was neither systematic nor cumulative. With the creation of the Wilderness Manage-ment Research Unit, for the first time scientists were able to devote a career to wilderness science. Forest Service wilderness scientists could pick research projects strategically, replicate studies in different places to test the generalizability of findings, and establish long-term longitudinal studies. They could devise research programs from which knowledge could build cumulatively, collaborate with other scientists, and sponsor the work of other scientists, who thereby were encouraged to do long-term, cumulative research. Of particular importance, they could synthesize results; advance concepts, principles, and frameworks; and apply these to improved wilderness management.

One myth about Forest Service wilderness research and about wilderness management generally is that it has been focused exclu-sively on recreation issues. This is not true. Bob Lucass initial staff-ing at the Lake States included Dr. Miron Heinselman, who conducted pioneering wilderness fire ecol-ogy work in the Boundary Waters (Heinselman 1973), as well as eco-logical scientists who studied the native vegetation of the Boundary Waters (Ohmann and Ream 1971). In developing the research agenda

for the new Wilderness Management Unit, Lucas continued to support fire ecology research, research on wilderness vegetation, and wildlife and wilderness economics. However, since economists, fire, vegetation, and wildlife scientists were plentiful both within Forest Service research and academia, and recreation sci-ence was sparse, Lucass initial hire was another geographer, George Stankey, a social scientist who could work on recreation issues. The initial agenda for in-house work included studies designed to (1) better mea-sure wilderness use; (2) understand wilderness visitors, their experiences, their attitudes, and their preferences; and (3) explore ways to manage wil-derness within its carrying capacity.

Early Wilderness visitor ScienceThe three most prominent themes of early wilderness science involved research on wilderness visitors, recreational impacts on the environment, and fire ecology. Prior to establishment of the Wilderness Management Research Unit, as noted earlier, several studies of visitors to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area had been conducted. In addition, in 1960, visitor surveys were conducted, under the auspices of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, in seven wildernesses: Mount Marcy in the Adirondacks, Great Smoky Mountains, Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Yellowstone-Teton, Bob Marshall, Gila, and High Sierra (Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 1962). The other studies conducted in the early 1960s were a 1962 study of social characteristics of camping groups in the Three Sisters (Burch 1966; Burch and Wenger 1967); a 1964 study of visitors to the Bob Marshall,

10 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

Mission Mountains, and Glacier Park (Merriam and Ammons 1967); and a 1965 study of visitors to the Three Sisters, Eagle Cap, and Glacier Peak wildernesses (Hendee et al. 1968).

One of the earliest contributions of wilderness visitor science was the ability to more accurately measure amount of visitor use. This involved improved sampling and statistical techniques (e.g., questions about how to efficiently distribute sam-pling effort), as well as technological development (e.g., better automatic data collectors [Lucas and Oltman 1971]). Much of this work laid the foundation for the vastly improved measurement techniques of today.

As with most sciences, the first step toward improved knowledge is largely descriptive. Building on earlier work, Lucas (1980) studied visitors to nine different wilderness and roadless areas. This work pro-vided foundational information about who wilderness visitors were, as well as the type, timing, and areal distribution of use; how visitors use wilderness; their motivations for visiting; and so on (see Figure 1).

By sponsoring and inspiring similar research elsewhere, it was possible to draw insightful conclusions about wilderness visitors and visits, many of which were broadly applicable and some of which varied substantially among wildernesses (Roggenbuck and Lucas 1985).

A third body of work was referred to as carrying capacity research because it was motivated by early work on recreational capacity and a belief that limiting recreation use was key to maintaining quality wil-derness experiences. In his seminal work on wilderness capacity, Stan-key (1973) explored relationships between amount of use, visitor expe-riences, and perceptions of quality, but in fact advanced science more by showing how other use attributes such as the type, timing, and location of use were even more important determinants of visitor quality than amount of use. This work, bolstered by subsequent studies undertaken elsewhere, was highly influential in developing the diverse toolbox of techniques available to wilderness managers today.

Early Wilderness recreation EcologyEarly studies of recreation impacts on the environment include Meineckes (1928) study of the effects of tourist traffic in redwood parks and Wagars (1964) early use of trampling experiments. Some of the first rigorous recreation ecology studies were conducted in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, sponsored by Bob Lucass Forest Service research project. Frissell (1963) quantified impacts on campsites that received different levels of use. Although Frissell did not recognize their significance, these data were the first used by Cole (1981) to advance one of the most important recreation ecology principles. For attributes as fragile as groundcover vegetation, the relationship between amount of use and impact is curvilinear. Relatively infrequent use can cause near-maximum levels of impact; therefore, concentrating use is usually more effective in minimizing impact than dispersing use (see Figure 2). Frissell (1963) did note that, since impact is inevitable with even low levels of use, the managers job is to keep impacts to acceptable levels, the genesis of what became the Limits of Acceptable Change framework (Stankey et al. 1985).

In 1978, I (David Cole) joined the Wilderness Management Research Unit, as the first scientist with a career devoted to recreation ecology in rela-tively undeveloped environments such as wilderness. As with wilderness visi-tor science, long-term and cumulative research was begun. Disparate studies were synthesized and applied directly to the stewardship of wilderness. This work contributed to the development of wilderness monitoring techniques (Cole 1989a) and the development of Leave No Trace principles (Cole 1989b). Ecological research, parallel

figure 1 A forest Service interviewer collects information from visitors as they head into the rattlesnake Wilderness, Montana. Photo by Alan Watson.

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 11

to the visitor capacity research being conducted, identified the factors that influence amount of impact, such as amount and type of use and environmental durability, providing further insight into the effectiveness of wilderness management techniques (Cole et al. 1987).

Early Wilderness fire EcologyAlthough progress in wilderness fire science was as critical to the mission of the Wilderness Management Research Unit as progress in recreation research, this work was conducted by fire scientists elsewhere within Forest Service research, other federal agencies particularly the National Park Service and academia. Perhaps the most profound outcome of early research was the conclusion that most wilderness ecosystems are dependent on recurrent fire. Fire controls plant community composition and structure; regulates ecological processes; and impacts wildlife, insects, and disease and the productivity, diversity, and stability of the ecosystem (Kilgore 1987). Consequently, actions to suppress fires or otherwise intervene in the natural role of fire in wilderness conflict with the fundamental wilderness goal of preserving wilderness in its natural condition.

Given that fire suppression and management were adversely affect-ing wilderness values, considerable research attention turned to under-standing natural fire regimes and exploring means of reintroducing fire in wilderness ecosystems. The work of Heinselman (1973) in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area is an important early example of fire history work. He developed stand origin and fire year maps for the 1-million-acre (404,685 ha) wilderness, assessed fire history since 1595 and developed the concept

of the natural fire rotation. Kilgore (1987) summarizes the considerable knowledge that has developed about fire effects, organized by fire regimes that vary in the frequency and inten-sity of fires, along with whether fires were stand replacing or surface fires. This early research has had a dramatic impact on fire management both in and outside wilderness. Lightning fires are often allowed to burn in wilderness, and human ignitions are sometimes used, even in wilderness, to reduce high fuel loads that have accumulated after years of fire sup-pression and to more closely mimic natural fire regimes.

More recent themes in Wilderness ScienceIn the 50 years of systematic wilderness science, the diversity of research themes has increased. In the 1990s, the Wilderness Management Research Unit was transformed into the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and spread its resources across a much wider range of topics. Early wilderness science was focused on threats to wilderness values, particularly those posed by recreation use and fire management.

More recently, studies have explored such threats as air pollution (Tonnessen 2000), invasive species (Randall 2000), grazing of domestic livestock (McClaran 2000), wildlife management (Kammer 2013), and climate change (Stephenson and Millar 2012). Attention has also turned to monitoring these threats and their effects on wilderness values. Recently, there has been considerable excitement about what has been called wilderness character monitoring (Landres et al. 2008). This involves monitoring a number of indicators of the attributes we care about in wilderness, aggregating them, and then assuming that the overall trend in these aggregated measures is correlated with trends in wilderness character the holistic, perceptual essence of what wilderness preservation is all about. While some critics argue that this approach does not adequately capture wilderness character (e.g., Watson 2004), it is an extension of earlier wilderness monitoring science and has the positive benefit of advancing wilderness monitoring generally.

In addition to studying threats to wilderness as a basis for more

figure 2 Measuring the response of vegetation to restoration treatments on highly impacted campsites in the Eagle cap Wilderness, oregon. Photo by dave Spildie.

12 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

effective wilderness stewardship, science has also explored the values associated with wilderness (Cordell et al. 2005). At the last wilderness science conference (held in Mis-soula, Montana, in 1999), one of the themes was Wilderness for Sci-ence: a Place for Scientific Inquiry, in recognition that science has much to learn by studying both wilderness ecosystems and how people inter-act with wilderness (McCool et al. 2000a). Another theme was Science for Understanding Wilderness in the Context of Larger Systems. Research papers explored the connections between wilderness and surrounding lands linkages to social and eco-logical systems at regional, national, and international scales (McCool et al. 2000b). As the wilderness idea has spread around the globe, it has evolved. For example, in many coun-tries, preservation of biodiversity is a higher priority than it is in the United States, while concerns about solitude, lack of permanent habita-tion, and untrammeled ecosystems are less important. The International Journal of Wilderness provides an important forum for papers that explore wilderness internationally.

the State of Wilderness Science at the 50th AnniversarySo what is the state of wilderness science on the eve of the Wilderness Acts anniversary? We can celebrate the significant contributions that science has made to improved wilderness stewardship, particularly in the realms of recreation and fire management. Some of this work has impacted stewardship of wilderness around the world and even of nonwil-derness lands. Wilderness science has increased in breadth, examining diverse threats to wilderness values, as well as understanding those values

and the place of wilderness in society and the world. As wilderness science has expanded it has also lost, perhaps necessarily, some of the focus and collaborative spirit that existed in its first couple decades. Even those few scientific disciplines that considered wilderness to be an important category of research, primarily recreation and fire, no longer do so. This suggests the need to reinvigorate wilderness as an organizing subject of study as we move forward after the 50th.

referencesBurch, W. R. Jr. 1966. Wilderness the life cycle

and forest recreational choice. Journal of Forestry 64: 606610.

Burch, W. R. Jr., and W. D. Wenger. 1967. The Social Characteristics of Participants in Three Styles of Family Camping. Research Paper PNW-48. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Camp, H. W. 1983. An Historical Sketch of Recreation Research in the USDA Forest Service. PSW-H-1. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Cole, D. N. 1981. Managing ecological impacts at wilderness campsites: An evaluation of techniques. Journal of Forestry 79: 8689.

. 1989a. Wilderness Campsite Monitoring Methods: A Sourcebook. General Technical Report INT-259. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

. 1989b. Low-Impact Recreational Practices for Wilderness and Backcountry. General Technical Report INT-265. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Cole, D. N., M. E. Petersen, and R. C. Lucas. 1987. Managing Wilderness Recreation Use: Common Problems and Potential Solutions. General Technical Report INT-259. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Cordell, H. K., J. C. Bergstrom, and M. K. Bowker. 2005. The Multiple Values of Wilderness. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Frissell, S. S. Jr. 1963. Recreational use of campsites in the Quetico-Superior canoe country. Masters thesis, University of Minnesota.

Harper, R. M. 1913. A defense of forest fires. Literary Digest 47: 208.

Heinselman, M. L. 1973. Fire in the virgin forests of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, Minnesota. Quaternary Research 3: 329382.

Hendee, J. C., W. R. Catton Jr., L. D. Marlow, and C. F. Brockman. 1968. Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest, Their Characteristics, Values and Management Preferences. Research Paper PNW-61. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Kammer, S. 2013. Coming to terms with wilderness: The Wilderness Act and the problem of wildlife restoration. Environ-mental Law Review 43(83): 83124.

Kilgore, B. M. 1987. The role of fire in wilderness: a state-of-knowledge review. In Proceedings National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions. (pp. 70-103). USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: Intermountain Research Station.

Landres, P., C. Barns, J. G. Dennis, T. Devine, P. Geissler, C. S. McCasland, L. Merigliano, J. Seastrand, and R. Swain. 2008. Keeping It Wild: An Interagency Strategy to Monitor Trends in Wilderness Character across the National Wilderness Preser-vation System. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-212. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Lucas, R. C. 1964a. The Recreational Use of the Quetico-Superior Area. Research Paper LS-8. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station.

. 1964b. The Recreational Capacity of the Quetico-Superior Area. Research Paper LS-15. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, Lake States Forest Experiment Station.

. 1980. Use Patterns and Visitor Charac-teristics, Attitudes and Preferences in Nine Wilderness and Other Roadless Areas. Research Paper INT-253. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Lucas, R. C., and J. Oltman. 1971. Survey sampling wilderness visitors. Journal of Leisure Research 3: 2843.

McClaran, M. P. 2000. Improving livestock management in wilderness. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5 Wilderness Ecosystems Threats and Management, comp. D. N.

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 13

Cole et al. (pp. 4963). Proceedings-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

McCool, S. F., D. N. Cole, W. T. Borrie, and J. OLoughlin. 2000a. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry. Proceedings-P-15-VOL-3. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

. 2000b. Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 2: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems. Proceedings-P-15-VOL-2. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Meinecke, E. P. 1928. The Effect of Excessive Tourist Traffic on the California Redwood Parks. Sacramento: California Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks.

Merriam, L. C. Jr., and R. B. Ammons. 1967. The Wilderness User in Three Montana Areas. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, School of Forestry.

Murie, A. 1944. The Wolves of Mount McKinley. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States. Fauna Series 5. Washington, DC: USDI National Park Service.

Nash, R. F. 2001. Wilderness and the American Mind, 4th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ohmann, L. F., and R. R. Ream. 1971. Wilderness Ecology: Virgin Plant Communities of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Research Paper NC-63. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station.

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1962. Wilderness and Recreation A Report on Resources, Values, and Problems. ORRRC Study Report 3. Washington, DC.

Randall, J. M. 2000. Improving management of nonnative invasive species in wilderness and other natural areas. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5 Wilderness Ecosystems Threats and Management, comp. D. N. Cole et al. (pp. 6473). Proceedings-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Roggenbuck, J. W., and R. C. Lucas. 1985. Wilderness use and user characteristics: A state-of-knowledge review. In Proceedings National Wilderness Research Conference: Issues, State-of-Knowledge, Future Directions, comp R. C. Lucas (pp. 204245). General Technical Report INT-220. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Stankey, G. H. 1973. Visitor Perception of Wilderness Recreation Carrying Capacity. Research Paper INT-142. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Stankey, G. H., D. N. Cole, R. C. Lucas, M. E. Petersen, and S. S. Frissell. 1985. The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning. General Technical Report INT-176. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Stephenson, N. L., and C. I. Millar. 2012. Climate change: Wildernesss greatest challenge. Park Science 28(3): 3438.

Sutter, P. S. 2002. Driven Wild: How the Fight against Automobiles Launched the Modern Wilderness Movement. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Taves, M., W. Hathaway, and G. Bultena. 1960. Canoe Country Vacationers. Miscellaneous Report 39. St. Paul, MN: Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota.

Tonnessen, K. A. 2000. Protecting wilderness air quality in the United States. In Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 5 Wilderness Ecosystems Threats and Management, comp. D. N. Cole et al. (pp. 4963). Proceedings-P-15-VOL-5. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Wagar, J. A. 1964. The Carrying Capacity of Wildlands for Recreation. Forest Science Monograph No, 7. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters.

Watson, A. E. 2004. Human relationships with wilderness: The fundamental definition of wilderness character. International Journal of Wilderness 10(3): 47.

Wright, G. M., J. S. Dixon, and B. H. Thompson. 1933. Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: A Preliminary Survey of Faunal Relations in National Parks. Fauna Series 1. Washington, DC: USDI National Park Service.

DAVID N. COLE is stewardship chair for the Society for Wilderness Stewardship and emeritus scientist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute; email: dncole.work@gmail.com.

Continued from TAKE A SCIENTIST TO THE SAUNA!, page 3

research in the United States and other counties.

This issue could not include a complete review of all wilderness research. The executive editors and the readers of IJW, however, would welcome additional reviews of rel-evant research on wilderness issues at this, an important watershed moment in wilderness history: the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Wilder-ness Act. The history, debate, and future of wilderness restoration pur-

pose and methods could be reviewed; the role of wildlife in wilderness is an important topic; the role of wilder-ness in off-site water benefits; and how the public has responded to both management-ignited fire in wil-derness and restoration of natural fire are all important topics not covered as well as they could be in these short, applied articles. We hope the reader-ship will like the summaries provided and be inspired to contribute further to current efforts to strategically plan

the direction for the next 50 years of wilderness science and stewardship.

ALAN E. WATSON is the supervisory research social scientist at the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Montana; email: awatson@fs.fed.us.

H. KEN CORDELL is emeritus scientist, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute and retired pioneering research scientist and project leader, Southern Research Station, Athens, Georgia.

14 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

Wilderness Social ScienceResponding to Change in Society, Policy,

and the EnvironmentAlAN e. WATSoN and H. KeN CorDell

Abstract: Wilderness social science has changed over the 50 years since passage of the Wilderness Act. This research was initially heavily influenced by the need to operationalize definitions contained in the Wilderness Act, the desire to report use levels, and the need for better understanding of the important values American people attached to wilderness. Over the past three decades, however, wilderness science was guided by new questions asked by managers due to changes in society, technology, and use patterns. Scientists have collaborated with managers to provide solutions to changing science needs and changing relationships between the U.S. population and wilderness. This article summarizes these changes and highlights contributions to wilderness and other protected area management solutions.

IntroductionEven before the Wilderness Act passed and provided a definition of wilderness, social scientists explored how people defined wilderness and how those perceptions might help managers once Congress legally defined it. At the Boundary Waters Canoe Area in Minnesota, for example, Lucas (1964) initiated research to understand various ways people described the wilderness character of places. He was exploring differences between motor boaters and canoeists in an area where both user types were well established, antici-pating the challenges of changing use in areas protected for their wilderness character, and maybe even the possibility of special provisions that enabled some nonconforming uses to continue in wilderness (see Figure 1).

For many years after passage of the Wilderness Act, research by Stankey (1973) and others (e.g., Roggenbuck et al. 1993; Williams et al. 1992), was strongly driven by a passage in the Wilderness Act that indicated the visitor should be able to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities. Early scientists operationalized this legal definition by exploring how numbers of encounters with others in wilderness influ-enced trip satisfaction. The potential implication was that managers should consider controlling visitor numbers or distribution so that visitors would not feel excessively

crowded in wilderness (a surrogate for solitude). In this approach, other recreation users were initially perceived as a threat (to solitude). The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) (Stankey et al. 1985) planning process was introduced by Stankey (1973) as an alternative way to systematically address recreation carrying capacity in wilderness by focusing on how recreation use threatened specific attributes of the wilderness environment (social and biological).

This Limits of Acceptable Change concept greatly influenced research efforts and planning approaches, was

SCIENCE & RESEARCH

Peer reVIeWeD

h. Ken cordell: Photo by Babs Mcdonald.

Alan E. Watson: Photo courtesy of the AlWrI.

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 15

eventually incorporated into the For-est Service handbook and generated similar National Park Service efforts (see NPS 1997) to implement an indi-cator-based planning system. With LAC there is less focus on numbers of people (unless numbers are truly the problem) and more emphasis on the levels of impact people have on attributes of the wilderness resource. A great deal of research occurred across wilderness and other wildlands to help managers obtain input from visitors in selecting specific indicators and determining how much change in these indicators (defined by stan-dards) they might allow.

Today, these indicator-based planning systems are widely used in wilderness planning in the United States (McCool and Cole 1998) and in other countries. Just since the turn of the century, however, social scien-tists (see Glaspell et al. 2003) have invested great effort in developing understanding of wilderness experi-ences in previously understudied Arctic areas to allow development of indicators and support indicator-based applications that may be distinct from past applications. More than half of our National Wilderness Pres-ervation System (NWPS) is in Alaska, and its distance from population centers, difficult access, challenging conditions, and special provisions for transportation and subsistence use by rural people add dimensions to the wilderness experience. Watson et al. (2007) presented the culmination in an Arctic and sub-Arctic initiative and the most complete exploration of how this type of indicator-based planning system fits into other ecological indi-cator systems being employed, as well as other human wellbeing indicator systems around the world. Academ-ics and managers have been able to replicate some of the Arctic studies,

particularly the one at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve (Glaspell et al. 2003), to make good use of this line of research in aiding selection of indicators and proposing standards for a broad range of pub-lic uses and both contributing and threatening forces on wilderness char-acter. Benefits extended well beyond Arctic and sub-Arctic applications.

Recreation use monitoring was also an important wilderness social science effort with roots in the 1960s, and it continues to be an important application function of wilderness social science today. Forest Service scientists (see James 1967) initiated efforts to address manager needs to estimate recreation use to all dis-persed outdoor recreation sites and eventually with specific applications to wilderness (Lucas et al. 1971). Managers often ask for assistance with sampling issues, deciding on methods of measurement, what to measure, and how often to develop monitoring estimates. A manual was developed to help managers identify their use and user monitoring objectives, the type of system that could provide this information, technology and sam-pling considerations, and data analysis methods (Watson et al. 2000).

Beyond Solitude, crowding, and Monitoring Part 2Many factors drove change in wilderness social science beyond solitude protection and use monitoring in the 1980s and 1990s. Changes in science personnel in Forest Service Research, political challenges to the integrity of wilderness through introduction of expanded access proposals, and, in general, increased demand on limited outdoor resources saw expansion of the Forest Service wilderness research program to an interagency research

unit in 1993. Development of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute was a response to rapid expansion of the wilderness research program into new topics and to areas not previously studied.

While conflict between motor-boaters and canoeists seemed an important research issue in the 1960s, this particular conflict was not wide-spread in the NWPS due to normal exclusion of motorized and mecha-nized transportation in wilderness. In the recreation literature, however, scientists drew on this research and other efforts to understand conflict between recreationists and proposed a model to explain conflict by the early 1980s (Jacob and Schreyer 1980). This model was commonly used in manager training, and it influenced a long line of research in recreation, with various elements of the model actually becoming major research top-ics themselves. It wasnt until the late 1980s and early 1990s that research had advanced to the point that full applications of the model were pos-sible in developing potential solutions to conflict and propose long-term monitoring of conflict levels.

figure 1 At the Boundary Waters canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, conflict research between canoeists and motorboats preceded wilderness designation.

16 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

A rash of conflict research in the early 1990s was precipitated by two events. First, while there was no specific amendment to the Wilderness Act ever developed or submitted to a congressional vote, in subcommittee there was discus-sion of opening up wilderness to bicycle use. With the advent of mountain bicycle technology, some advocates felt that opening wilder-ness to bicycle access could increase wilderness use, relevance, and sup-port. This movement never really caught traction, although it did gen-erate lots of questions that research had not addressed up to that point. The wilderness science community responded with some of the first research on conflicts between bicycle use and other uses (Watson et al. 1991), with some speculation about how bicycle use in wilderness might impact other users. This research was never used to help manage bicycle use in wilderness, but it provided a foundation for expanded wilderness conflict research and many manager applications outside of wilderness at outdoor recreation sites popular for mountain biking.

Second, with a limited amount of wilderness attracting increasing use and varied types of users, other conflicts were becoming more com-mon, and managers were strongly motivated to address them. Rather than purposes of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation experiences, there was increasing interest in the Wilderness Acts stated purpose of enjoying wilderness as wilderness. When in conflict with other users or their impacts, it was difficult to enjoy wilderness visits, particularly if some experienced users felt new users were invading their spaces with activities or attitudes not considerate of wilderness purposes.

The most visible conflict in wilderness around 1990 was between hikers and recreational stock users. This precipitated coor-dinated research on a large scale to understand issues such as (1) what the contributors to conflict are, (2) differences between the eastern and western United States, (3) differences between conflict with outfitted and nonoutfitted stock use, (4) conflicts between hikers and both day stock use and overnight stock use, (5) conflict with stock use in national parks and on national forest wilder-ness, and (6) conflict with different types of recreational stock (Watson et al. 1993). This research has often been quoted in efforts to solve con-flict issues, particularly in the Sierra Nevada Wildernesses of California, where this research reappears peri-odically and is reexamined to help managers look for new solutions to persistent conflict issues. Recreation stock use is down in these areas, how-ever, and more recent research in this region no longer tends to focus on an issue so important in the 1990s.

Another indication of how societal change can influence wilder-ness social science was the response of managers and scientists to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Pro-gram. When Congress voted to allow federal agencies to collect more user fees for public land access, with the intent of keeping more receipts for local use, there was great uncertainty about where to charge fees, how much to charge, and how to evalu-ate the effect on visitor experiences. Many felt that wilderness users were possibly the most threatened by new user fees, but they could also benefit substantially from proper use of fees for restoration or information pro-grams. There was a flurry of research at the time of initiation of these

fees that was not focused solely on wilderness but rather on how wilder-ness use fees might be different from other recreation use fees (Watson and Herath 1999). Research articles were generated to assist all interests in learning about fee issues that could help shape policy, and entire theme issues of journals were produced and opinion pieces generated that shaped academic research programs and manager knowledge and opinion about fee programs in wilderness. This research was important to mak-ing decisions about wilderness fee uses (based on public preferences) and whether to charge them at all. Inquiries have found very little recent fee research connected to wilderness.

It was not only changes in soci-ety and policy, however, that drove changes in research during this era. Beginning with research by Patterson et al. (1998) and Borrie and Roggen-buck (1998), wilderness social science became more grounded in visitor experiences themselves and less driven by the Wilderness Act. A very small wilderness in Florida became the single area we seemed to know the most about for several years, although Juniper Prairie could hardly be described as the typical wilderness. It was small, mostly water-based, and mostly comprised of day use. A her-meneutic approach to data collection and interpretation focused on under-standing the experience of visitors as it unfolded, while an in situ study of trip focus identified the ebbs and flows of the experience. These refresh-ing open book approaches provided managers with understanding of how they might define and protect not only solitude or primitive and uncon-fined recreation experiences but also challenge, way-finding, immersion in nature, and other dimensions of the experience not well-defined in

16 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

A rash of conflict research in the early 1990s was precipitated by two events. First, while there was no specific amendment to the Wilderness Act ever developed or submitted to a congressional vote, in subcommittee there was discus-sion of opening up wilderness to bicycle use. With the advent of mountain bicycle technology, some advocates felt that opening wilder-ness to bicycle access could increase wilderness use, relevance, and sup-port. This movement never really caught traction, although it did gen-erate lots of questions that research had not addressed up to that point. The wilderness science community responded with some of the first research on conflicts between bicycle use and other uses (Watson et al. 1991), with some speculation about how bicycle use in wilderness might impact other users. This research was never used to help manage bicycle use in wilderness, but it provided a foundation for expanded wilderness conflict research and many manager applications outside of wilderness at outdoor recreation sites popular for mountain biking.

Second, with a limited amount of wilderness attracting increasing use and varied types of users, other conflicts were becoming more com-mon, and managers were strongly motivated to address them. Rather than purposes of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation experiences, there was increasing interest in the Wilderness Acts stated purpose of enjoying wilderness as wilderness. When in conflict with other users or their impacts, it was difficult to enjoy wilderness visits, particularly if some experienced users felt new users were invading their spaces with activities or attitudes not considerate of wilderness purposes.

The most visible conflict in wilderness around 1990 was between hikers and recreational stock users. This precipitated coor-dinated research on a large scale to understand issues such as (1) what the contributors to conflict are, (2) differences between the eastern and western United States, (3) differences between conflict with outfitted and nonoutfitted stock use, (4) conflicts between hikers and both day stock use and overnight stock use, (5) conflict with stock use in national parks and on national forest wilder-ness, and (6) conflict with different types of recreational stock (Watson et al. 1993). This research has often been quoted in efforts to solve con-flict issues, particularly in the Sierra Nevada Wildernesses of California, where this research reappears peri-odically and is reexamined to help managers look for new solutions to persistent conflict issues. Recreation stock use is down in these areas, how-ever, and more recent research in this region no longer tends to focus on an issue so important in the 1990s.

Another indication of how societal change can influence wilder-ness social science was the response of managers and scientists to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Pro-gram. When Congress voted to allow federal agencies to collect more user fees for public land access, with the intent of keeping more receipts for local use, there was great uncertainty about where to charge fees, how much to charge, and how to evalu-ate the effect on visitor experiences. Many felt that wilderness users were possibly the most threatened by new user fees, but they could also benefit substantially from proper use of fees for restoration or information pro-grams. There was a flurry of research at the time of initiation of these

fees that was not focused solely on wilderness but rather on how wilder-ness use fees might be different from other recreation use fees (Watson and Herath 1999). Research articles were generated to assist all interests in learning about fee issues that could help shape policy, and entire-theme issues of journals were produced and opinion pieces generated that shaped academic research programs and manager knowledge and opinion about fee programs in wilderness. This research was important to mak-ing decisions about wilderness fee uses (based on public preferences) and whether to charge them at all. Inquiries have found very little recent fee research connected to wilderness.

It was not only changes in soci-ety and policy, however, that drove changes in research during this era. Beginning with research by Patterson et al. (1998) and Borrie and Roggen-buck (1998), wilderness social science became more grounded in visitor experiences themselves and less driven by the Wilderness Act. A very small wilderness in Florida became the single area we seemed to know the most about for several years, although Juniper Prairie could hardly be described as the typical wilderness. It was small, mostly water-based, and mostly comprised of day use. A her-meneutic approach to data collection and interpretation focused on under-standing the experience of visitors as it unfolded, while an in situ study of trip focus identified the ebbs and flows of the experience. These refresh-ing open book approaches provided managers with understanding of how they might define and protect not only solitude or primitive and uncon-fined recreation experiences but also challenge, way-finding, immersion in nature, and other dimensions of the experience not well-defined in

AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2 International Journal of Wilderness 17

the Wilderness Act. They are obvi-ously important aspects of enjoying the wilderness as wilderness and are heavily influenced by visitor manage-ment, visitor numbers, and visitor behaviors.

More than half of the National Wilderness Preservation System is located in Alaska. Wilderness research, beyond some simple rep-lications of recreation preference studies, was nearly nonexistent in Alaska until after 2000. Building on Juniper Prairie success, studies at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, Denali National Park and Preserve, and WrangellSt. Elias National Park and Preserve provided new insights into contributing and threatening influences on visitor experiences. This research approach quickly led to expanded efforts to also apply such methods to under-stand how experiences among other users of the resource were different from recreation users and how their experiences could be protected, whether directed to do so by the Wil-derness Act or not. There are several outstanding examples of expansion of wilderness social science to study Indigenous communities to under-stand contributions of wilderness to their well-being. Along the Situk River on the Tongass National For-est (Christensen et al. 2007), on the Togiak National Wildlife Refuge (Kluwe and Krumpe 2003), and in the Western Arctic Parklands (Whit-ing 2004), enjoyment of wilderness as wilderness took on new meaning for a local, rural, indigenous user. It wasnt only about recreation or sub-sistence, it also included expression of humility, contribution to iden-tity, and protection of traditional skills. New knowledge emerged through changing to a more inclusive research question and applying more

qualitative research methods. This research paradigm still exists and is now applied at a growing number of places with new contributions to solving conflicts. Alaska Native and American Indian perceptions of wilderness meanings are important expansions of the previously narrow social science focus on recreation participation in wilderness (Watson 2011). Expanding our understand-ing of the trade-offs involved in wilderness designation and steward-ship has been an important role of social science.

Society-level valuesAn important line of wilderness social science research to address society-level awareness and values attached to wilderness has also evolved from its start in the 1960s. The U.S. public has been asked what they value about wilderness protection and whether they support designating more federal land as wilderness. The importance of this research is that of informing legislators, land-management agencies, designation advocates, and other interests about public support for wilderness. Until the early 1960s, little research was conducted to evaluate the public sentiment toward protected wilderness. One study, commissioned by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC 1962) highlighted two broad classes of wilderness values: recreation and indirect. Indirect values were defined to include conservation ethics, scientific uses, and the wilderness idea. The wilderness idea established the roots of the concept of existence value valuable because it is there and has been designated for protection from development and exploitation.

Early economic value studies of recreation benefits were primar-

ily aimed at valuing recreation visits to wilderness. The ORRRC study, and others that followed, often attempted to estimate the per-acre value of wilderness and to provide a framework for considering allocation of additional public land to wilder-ness status. Behind the ORRRC recreation-demand study was a sur-vey of wilderness users who reported that among the 21 benefits of wil-derness visits asked about, the most important values (appeals) were to observe natural beauty, get away from sights and sounds, and get away from work pressures.

Throughout the 1970s a vari-ety of studies and articles appeared that further illuminated the range of values attributed to wilderness protection, beyond on-site rec-reation experiences. In part this advancement sprang from the work of natural resource economists who advanced the notion that on-site recreation visit values captured only a part of the total value. Krutilla and Fisher (1985) were among a number of thought leaders in the concept of total value. Whether seen through the research eyes of economics, or other disciplines, the idea that the societal, total value of wilderness is multidimensional was taking shape.

In 1980, Haas et al. (1986) took the idea of multiple values further by developing and applying a 13-item wilderness values scale. The emphasis was on moving past the idea that the only value of wilderness is its recre-ational use value. Most highly valued by respondents were protection of water quality, wildlife habitat, and air quality. Next were bequest (future generations) and option (future own use) values. Following these values were those of seeing wilderness as a contemporary recreation opportu-nity and scenic beauty.

18 International Journal of Wilderness AUGUST 2014 VolUme 20, NUmber 2

this expansion, however, recreation use of wilderness has remained a chief focus of both managers and researchers.

This line of research remains important today. Further study was con-ducted to identify whether there were detectable trends in how Americans value wilderness (Cordell et al. 2008). Two val-ues stood out: 90% of Americans indicated that protection of air quality and water quality were extremely important (see Figure 2). Four additional values (protecting wildlife habitat, having wilderness for future generations [bequest value], protecting rare plant and animal spe-cies, and preserving unique

plants and animals) also stood out, as more than 80% indicated very important to extreme importance.

Wilderness Social Science: full MaturityWilderness social science research in 2014 doesnt much resemble wilderness social science research in 1964. Those of us who trained in forestry or recreation management or forest economics were a big part of the transfor