The Links between Protected Areas, Faiths, and Sacred Natural Sites

Essay

The Links between Protected Areas, Faiths, andSacred Natural SitesNIGEL DUDLEY,∗ LIZA HIGGINS-ZOGIB,† AND STEPHANIE MANSOURIAN‡∗Equilibrium, 47 The Quays, Cumberland Road, Bristol BS1 6UQ, United Kingdom, email [email protected]†WWF International, Avenue du Mont Blanc, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland‡36 Mont d’Eau du Milieu, 1276 Gingins, Switzerland

Abstract: Most people follow and are influenced by some kind of spiritual faith. We examined two ways in

which religious faiths can in turn influence biodiversity conservation in protected areas. First, biodiversity

conservation is influenced through the direct and often effective protection afforded to wild species in sacred

natural sites and in seminatural habitats around religious buildings. Sacred natural sites are almost certainly

the world’s oldest form of habitat protection. Although some sacred natural sites exist inside official protected

areas, many thousands more form a largely unrecognized “shadow” conservation network in many countries

throughout the world, which can be more stringently protected than state-run reserves. Second, faiths have a

profound impact on attitudes to protection of the natural world through their philosophy, teachings, invest-

ment choices, approaches to land they control, and religious-based management systems. We considered the

interactions between faiths and protected areas with respect to all 11 mainstream faiths and to a number of

local belief systems. The close links between faiths and habitat protection offer major conservation opportuni-

ties, but also pose challenges. Bringing a sacred natural site into a national protected-area system can increase

protection for the site, but may compromise some of its spiritual values or even its conservation values. Most

protected-area managers are not trained to manage natural sites for religious purposes, but many sacred nat-

ural sites are under threat from cultural changes and habitat degradation. Decisions about whether or not to

make a sacred natural site an “official” protected area therefore need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Such

sites can play an important role in conservation inside and outside official protected areas. More information

about the conservation value of sacred lands is needed as is more informed experience in integrating these

into wider conservation strategies. In addition, many protected-area staff need training in how to manage

sensitive issues relating to faiths where important faith sites occur in protected areas.

Keywords: conservation, protected areas, religions, sacred natural sites

Enlaces entre Areas Protegidas, Creencias y Sitios Naturales Sagrados

Resumen: La mayorıa de la gente sigue y esta influıda por algun tipo de creencia espiritual. Examinamos

dos formas en que las creencias religiosas pueden influir en la conservacion de la biodiversidad en areas

protegidas. Primero, la conservacion de la biodiversidad esta influıda por la proteccion directa y a menudo

efectiva de especies silvestres en sitios naturales sagrados y en habitats seminaturales alrededor de edificios

religiosos. Los sitios naturales sagrados son la forma de proteccion de habitat mas antigua en el mundo.

Aunque algunos sitios naturales sagrados existen dentro de areas protegidas oficiales, muchos miles mas

forman una red de conservacion “sombra” no reconocida en muchos paıses, que pueden estar mas rigurosa-

mente protegidas que las areas protegidas administradas por el gobierno. Segundo, las creencias tienen un

profundo impacto sobre las actitudes de proteccion del mundo natural a traves de su filosofıa, ensenanzas,

opciones de inversion, acercamientos a la tierra que controlan y sistemas de gestion basadas en religion.

Consideramos las interacciones entre creencias y areas protegidas con respecto a las 11 creencias estableci-

das y un numero de sistemas de creencias locales. Las estrechas relaciones entre creencias y proteccion del

habitat ofrecen mayores oportunidades de conservacion, pero tambien plantean retos. La inclusion de un

Paper submitted January 16, 2007; revised manuscript accepted August 6, 2008.

568Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 3, 568–577C©2009 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01201.x

Dudley et al. 569

sitio natural sagrado en un sistema nacional de areas protegidas incrementa la proteccion para el sitio, pero

puede comprometer algunos de sus valores espirituales o sus valores de conservacion. La mayorıa de los

administradores de areas protegidas no esta entrenada para manjar sitios naturales para fines religiosos,

pero muchos sitios naturales sagrados estan amenazados por cambios culturales y degradacion del habitat.

Por lo tanto, se requiere que las decisiones sobre hacer o no que un sitio natural sagrado sea area protegida

“oficial” se tomen caso por caso. Tales sitios pueden jugar un papel importante en la conservacion dentro y

fuera de areas protegidas oficiales. Se requiere mucha informacion sobre el valor de conservacion de sitios

sagrados, ası como mas experiencia informada para integrarlos en estrategias de conservacion mas amplias.

Adicionalmente, el personal de las areas protegidas necesita capacitacion en el manejo de temas sensibles

relacionados con creencias en areas protegidas con presencia de sitios sagrados importantes.

Palabras Clave: areas protegidas, conservacion, religiones, sitios naturales sagrados

Introduction

The interplay between belief systems and nature is com-plex and deeply rooted, and provides opportunities andchallenges to biodiversity conservation. Recognition ofthe importance of conservation issues has grown enor-mously within religious communities in recent years,with statements of support coming from all 11 of theworld’s “mainstream faiths” (Palmer & Findlay 2003). Ad-ditionally, conservation institutions are recognizing therole of faiths in implementing conservation. The UN Ed-ucational, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)Man and the Biosphere Programme stresses this link (e.g.,Lee & Schaaf 2003); the UN Environment Programmecarried out a survey of sacred values in nature (Posey2002); and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Akwe2004) and The World Bank (Whitten & Morgan 2006) ad-dress faith issues. The International Union for Conserva-tion of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on ProtectedAreas has a task force on cultural and spiritual values;WWF has launched a series of “Sacred Gifts for a LivingPlanet” with faith groups to link sacred sites with con-servation; Conservation International, Flora and FaunaInternational, and The Nature Conservancy all have ini-tiatives linking conservation with religions; and the Al-liance of Religions and Conservation runs projects withfaith groups throughout the world.

Given that little over 10% of the world’s populationclaims to be nonreligious (Encyclopedia Brittanica 2005),most environmental damage is caused by faith members,and one should not exaggerate the benefits of religiousleaders espousing green issues. But this does not meanfaiths are without influence in shaping attitudes to the en-vironment. For all their appearance of constancy, mostfaiths respond to the secular world and alter aspects oftheir teachings in line with changing attitudes. One of thefastest-changing concepts within many faiths is about hu-mankind’s relationship with and responsibilities towardthe natural world (Orr 2003).

We looked at one specific but important aspect of thisrelationship: the connections between faiths and pro-

tected areas. These come in two main forms. First, thereis a tradition in many faiths of protecting sacred species,sacred natural sites, or natural landscapes around reli-gious buildings. Sacred natural sites are probably the old-est method of habitat protection, forming a large andmainly unrecognized network of sanctuaries. There hasbeen no overall survey of the world’s sacred natural sites,but regional surveys (e.g., Chatterjee et al. 2004 for In-dia) suggest that in some countries sacred natural sitesoutnumber officially protected areas, although most aremuch smaller. Participants at a UNESCO workshop inChina (UNESCO 2003) concluded that such sites oftenhave high conservation values and better protection thanlegally protected areas. Second, faiths relate to protectedareas through the more general influence they have onthe way their followers view the natural world. Faithsmay teach or require specific forms of conservation andmany manage large land areas themselves. We proposeways in which faith and conservation groups could worktogether to protect biologically important areas.

Relationship between Faiths and the Natural World

Although there are innumerable faiths and belief systems,most people subscribe to one of the 11 “mainstreamfaiths”: in alphabetical order these are Bahai, Buddhism,Christianity, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism,Shinto, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism. Currently, aroundhalf the world’s population is Christian or Muslim, al-though there are many different traditions within both.

At the risk of simplification, the mainstream faiths di-vide into two broad philosophical streams with respectto nature. Faiths originating in Central and South Asia,China, and Japan (Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism, Jain-ism, Shinto, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism) regard natureas a critical aspect of the divinity that should be treatedwith reverence (Nasr 1996). In contrast, the three mainmonotheistic faiths that originated in the Middle East andestablished cultural domination over the Western hemi-sphere (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all have strong

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

570 Protected Areas, Faiths, and Conservation

teaching against idolatry and reject the concept of sacredspecies or sacred sites. Sacred groves were sometimes de-stroyed by Christian missionaries (Adler 2006) because oftheir identification with idolatry, to destroy sacred com-petitors, or even as a punishment. In an article in Science

Lynn White (1967) (a Christian) argued that Christians,Jews, and Muslims have tended to abuse the environmentbecause it has been interpreted as God’s creation to serveHumankind (White 1967). This created a strong reaction,particularly among Christians, who were the main tar-gets of White’s critique, which led among other things tostrong statements of support for the environment fromreligious leaders (e.g., Pope John Paul II [1990] and PopeBenedict XVI [2008]).

The differences between the two faith groups are sig-nificant but should not be exaggerated; there has beenmuch environmental damage in countries where faithsrevere nature as an aspect of the sacred. Conversely,monotheistic faiths have sometimes advocated forms ofland management similar to those promoted by conserva-tionists, as in the hima system, a land protection systemoriginating in the Arabian Peninsula some 1400 years agoand adopted by many Islamic societies (Kilani et al. 2007).

In recent years a large body of knowledge has built upabout links between faiths and the environment (Tucker& Grimm 1994; Tucker & Berling 2003), and studies of in-dividual faiths have been conducted (Bahai, Landau 2002;Buddhism, Tucker & Williams 1998; Christianity, North-cott 1996; Daoism, Girardot et al. 2001; Snyder 2006;Hinduism, Narayanan 2001; Islam, Bagader et al. 1994;Folz et al. 2003; Jainism, Singhvi 1990; Judaism, Vogel1999).

Sacred Nature and Biodiversity Conservation

The full meaning of sacred has challenged thinkers formillennia. Fortunately, we do not have to understand theconcept in its entirety to recognize its conservation signif-icance. But it is important to agree what might constitutesacredness in this context. For the purposes of consider-ing aspects of the natural world worthy of protection bytacit covenant within faith-based doctrine, we proposethree dimensions: sacred nature, sacred species, and sa-cred natural sites.

Sacred Nature

The most direct link between faiths and nature is thatmany faiths regard nature as imbued with sacred value.For thousands of years, humans venerated the cyclesof nature manifested in a number of ways, including aMother goddess. This tradition persists, for instance inHinduism, and the emphasis on the Virgin Mary in the or-thodox and catholic Christian faiths has also been linkedto the Mother Goddess (Warner 1976). Faiths emanat-

ing from Asia regard all nature as sacred (Gadgil & Ra-machandra 1993). Similar human-nature links have longbeen recognized in the Pacific and today are being usedto understand the environmental history of the region(Nunn 2001). The sacred aspect of nature plays an impor-tant role in Australian aboriginal worldviews and some oftheir views are crossing into the mainstream environmen-tal movement (Mulligan 2001). In the Americas the sepa-ration between humans and the rest of nature was largelyabsent in faith systems. The complex sacrificial rituals ofthe Aztecs were aimed partly at maintaining the eternalrebirth of nature (Soustelle 1961). Many North AmericanFirst Nation groups have strong regard for the naturalworld through their faiths and revere species such as thebear (Kellert et al. 1996). Recognition of sacred natureexists throughout Africa and the western Indian Oceanand is increasingly being used in conservation efforts, forexample through encouragement of taboos (e.g., Lingardet al. 2003).

Sacred Species and Individuals

Many faiths also attach importance to individual species,which are regarded as sacred or particularly sacred. Manysacred species have practical value: game animals are of-ten sacred, as are valuable plants, such as the olive (Rosen-blum 1996). Species become sacred because they arelarge or unusual, such as the baobab trees in Africa andMadagascar (Pakenham 2004) and the leopard in WestAfrica (Olupona 1993). Sacredness can be attached toa particularly old or large individual (Anderson 1969;Chandrakanth & Romm 1991). “Inspirational” speciesare sometimes regarded as sacred. For Hindus the cowdemonstrates valued attributes, such as patience, ma-ternal instincts, and gentleness. Sacredness can also besymbolic. The ancient Egyptians adopted the scarab bee-tle (Scarabaeus) as the emblem of creation because therolling dung ball that it pushed across the sand was sym-bolic of the sun’s passage in the sky (Frankfort et al.1946).

That a plant or animal is sacred does not necessarilymean humans leave it alone, but it does imply somehuman responsibility toward the species. Sacrednesscan lead directly to protection, such as that given tocrocodiles in sacred pools in Mali (Borrini-Feyerabendet al. 2004). Other sacred species are used, and manyhunting societies still believe the animals they kill are sa-cred (Lewis-Williams & Biesele 1978). For 20,000 yearsthe hunt was depicted in cave paintings that scholarslink with sacred rituals because after agriculture reducedthe necessity of the hunt painting on cave walls ceased(Mithen 2003). The hunting of the bowhead whale (Bal-

aena mysticetus) by the Inuit people of Alaska is sur-rounded by complex beliefs (Lantis 1938). The Mayorof the North Slope Borough summed these beliefs up:“The taking and sharing of the whale is our Eucharist and


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

Dudley et al. 571

Passover . . .” (Hopson 1978). Links between hunting andsacred values are not confined to indigenous peoples orpoor, rural societies. Some of the rituals associated withfox hunting in the United Kingdom stretch back to pre-Christian traditions (Howe 1981). As traditional beliefsystems break down, however, the responsibilities asso-ciated with the sacred hunt also weaken and many sacredhunt animals have suffered severe population declines.An analysis of 70 existing species-specific taboos foundthat around half apply to reptile and mammal speciesidentified as threatened in the IUCN Red List (Colding &Folke 1997). Revitalizing traditional protection strategiescan be an important conservation strategy and, for exam-ple, has recently been revived in Madagascar (Jones et al.2008).

The role of sacred trees, such as the banyan (Ficus

benghalensis) throughout southern Asia (Ingles 1995)and the kauri (Agathis australis) in New Zealand (Lew-ington & Parker 1999), has particular significance for con-servation because sacred species or individuals are oftenprotected for hundreds or even thousands of years inplaces where old-growth forests have otherwise disap-peared. Sacredness conserves both the trees themselvesand associated populations of symbiotic and parasiticspecies.

Sacred Natural Sites

The third way in which faiths contribute to conservationis through protection of “sacred natural sites.” Becausesuch sites are often maintained free from all human in-terference, their ecology can closely resemble that foundin strictly protected areas. Sacred natural sites are of-ten small, although large sacred landscapes exist (Wild& McLeod 2008). Access can be totally forbidden butis more commonly restricted, for example, to religiousleaders, although sometimes access is open to anyonewho shows respect (Wild & McLeod 2008). Not all sitesare wholly natural. The tembawang gardens of Kaliman-tan, Indonesia, are planted fruit gardens with up to 400species and also function as burial sites. In the region’sheavily modified landscapes they are the main reposi-tory of wild biodiversity and have practically the samerange and mixture of species as mature natural forests(Marjokorpi & Ruokolainen 2003). Some sacred naturalsites are important to several faiths: for example the PeakWilderness Park in Sri Lanka has significance to Muslims,Christians, Buddhists, and Hindus (Lee & Schaaf 2003).

A Survey of Sacred Natural Sites in Protected Areas

We identified sacred natural sites in over 100 countriesand focused on those in protected areas (Dudley et al.2006, see Table 1 for a subset). Sacred natural sites oc-cur in protected areas throughout the world and are not

confined to one faith, culture, or level of economic devel-opment: we found examples from Bon, Buddhist, Daoist,Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, and Shinto faiths as wellas many from traditional faiths. Although our survey wasillustrative, it is clear that traditional faiths have the mostnumerous links with protected areas. We found manyplaces of global significance to biodiversity conservation.We also found that many traditional sacred natural siteshave survived in places where most of the population hasconverted to other faiths, suggesting that the traditionalspiritual values are often retained even when people arenominally members of a mainstream faith group.

Artificial sacred sites, such as temples or shrines, cansupport important biodiversity if the surrounding area isprotected. Examples include the Angkor temple complexin Cambodia, containing the last mature forest in the re-gion, and Christian churches in Ethiopia surrounded byold trees. Sometimes, faiths recognize the conservationvalues of these areas. In Egypt the area around St. Cather-ine’s monastery, a World Heritage site, has been managedas a nature reserve since 1977, protecting several speciesendemic to the Sinai (Kamil 2002).

Importance of Sacred Natural Sites to Conservation

Over the past few years, the assumption that sacred natu-ral sites were good for biodiversity has been backed by agrowing body of evidence (Dudley et al. 2006), althoughmost research currently focuses on sacred groves.

For example, sacred groves have been assessedthroughout India. In the Jaintia Hills a sacred grove con-tains 82 tree species in 0.5 ha (Upadhaya et al. 2003)and higher than average levels of vascular plant diver-sity in three sacred groves, including 54 endemic speciesand 31 rare species (Jamir & Pandey 2003). Similarly,in the Manipur valley, there are 166 sacred groves withhigh diversity and several species confined to the groves(Devi Khumbongmayum et al. 2005). Comparable diver-sity and endemism occurs in sacred groves in south India(Ramanujam & Kadamban 2001; Ramanujam et al. 2003).Density of medicinal plants in the Western Ghats is ap-proximately twice as high in sacred groves as in govern-ment forest reserves (Boraiah et al. 2003). Sacred groveshave the highest sporocarp fungi abundance of all foresttypes (Brown et al. 2006).

Many sacred groves survive in Ghana (Chouin 2002).They are of conservation importance, but they are gen-erally less diverse than larger protected forests. Compar-ison of four sacred groves and eight unprotected treestands showed far less deforestation in the former (O’NealCampbell 2004) and higher plant diversity and fewer in-vasive species (O’Neal Campbell 2005). Although sacredgroves in Ghana have higher mammal densities than for-est reserves, they hold fewer species (Decher & Bahian


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009


Tabl

e1.

Sele

cted

prot

ecte

dar

eas

that

are

also

sacr

edna

tura

lsite

s.a

Cou

ntr

yN

am

eIU

CN

cate

gory

bSiz

e(h

a)

Lin

ks

tofa

ith

s

Arg

enti

na

Lan

inN

atio

nal

Par

kII

&IV

379,

000

trad

itio

nal

;lan

do

fth

eM

apu

che

Ind

ian

so

rth

e“E

arth

peo

ple

”A

ust

ralia

Kat

aT

juta

Nat

ion

alP

ark,

(wit

hA

yers

’Ro

cko

rU

luru

)

IIan

dW

orl

dH

erit

age

Site

132,

566

trad

itio

nal

;Ulu

r um

on

olit

his

of

relig

iou

ssi

gnif

ican

ceto

Ab

ori

gin

es;s

ymb

oliz

esfe

rtili

tyan

dco

nsi

der

edth

efa

ther

and

mo

ther

of

allf

orm

so

flif

e;A

nan

gub

elie

veth

ear

eaar

ou

nd

Aye

rsR

ock

isin

hab

ited

by

do

zen

so

fan

cest

ralb

ein

gsw

ho

seac

tivi

ties

are

reco

rded

atm

any

sep

arat

esi

tes

Bh

uta

nJi

gme

Do

rjiW

ildlif

eSa

nct

uar

yIV

790,

495

Bo

nan

dB

ud

dh

ist;

Mas

ang

Kh

ang

on

eo

fm

any

ho

lym

ou

nta

ins

inB

hu

tan

,sac

red

toth

eM

asan

g,w

ho

may

hav

eo

rigi

nat

edfr

om

sou

ther

nT

ibet

Ch

ina

Xis

hu

angb

ann

aN

atio

nal

Par

kV

and

UN

ESC

OM

AB

247,

439

Bu

dd

his

t;re

serv

eis

ho

me

toa

nu

mb

ero

fm

ino

rity

gro

up

s,in

clu

din

gH

anan

dD

ai;

ever

yD

aivi

llage

con

tain

sit

so

wn

sacr

edgr

ove

;sac

red

gro

ves

pro

tect

up

to10

0,00

0h

a;X

ish

uan

gban

na

com

pri

ses

the

larg

est

and

mo

stco

mp

reh

ensi

vetr

op

ical

fore

stin

Ch

ina

Co

lom

bia

Lagu

na

de

laC

och

aR

amsa

rsi

te39

,000

trad

itio

nal

;sit

eh

asim

po

rtan

tcu

ltu

ralv

alu

efo

rth

ein

dig

eno

us

gro

up

s,w

ho

con

sid

erit

sacr

edan

du

seit

for

pu

rifi

cati

on

and

fert

ility

;lar

gely

mad

eu

po

fa

volc

anic

lake

and

surr

ou

nd

ing

hig

hla

nd

An

dea

np

eat

and

fore

st;s

ite

sup

po

rts

ad

iver

sera

nge

of

asso

ciat

edfl

ora

and

fau

na

Fin

lan

dN

ort

her

nK

arel

iaU

NES

CO

MA

Ban

d4

pro

tect

edar

eas

350,

000

Ch

rist

ian

ity;

area

con

tain

sa

nu

mb

ero

fm

on

aste

ries

fro

mth

eo

rth

od

ox

Ch

rist

ian

fait

han

dis

anim

po

rtan

tlo

cati

on

for

taig

aan

db

ore

alfo

rest

hab

itat

Ind

iaP

eriy

arT

iger

Res

erve

IIan

dIV

77,7

00H

ind

u;S

abar

imal

a,o

ne

of

Hin

du

ism

’sm

ost

po

pu

lar

pilg

rim

age

site

s,is

wit

hin

the

bo

un

dar

ies

of

sou

thIn

dia

’sP

eriy

arT

iger

Res

erve

;eac

hye

arm

illio

ns

of

dev

ote

esco

me

tow

ors

hip

Lord

Aya

pp

a;si

teis

also

anim

po

rtan

tp

rote

cted

area

Isra

elM

tC

arm

elV

and

UN

ESC

OM

AB

26,6

00Ju

dai

sm;H

a’ar

bai

mG

rove

con

tain

so

ver

80ke

rmes

oak

sw

hic

har

eco

nsi

der

edh

oly

by

loca

lres

iden

tsw

ho

gran

tth

emsp

ecia

ltre

atm

ent

and

pro

tect

ion

;are

aal

sop

rote

cts

imp

ort

ant

Med

iter

ran

ean

scru

bfo

rest

Jap

anM

ou

nt

Hak

kusa

nN

atio

nal

Par

kV

and

UN

ESC

OM

AB

14,8

26Sh

into

,Bu

dd

his

m’s

ince

717

AC

E,w

hen

Bu

dd

his

tP

ries

tT

aich

ofo

un

ded

the

Mt.

Hak

usa

nre

trea

t,kn

ow

nas

are

ligio

us

mo

un

tain

wit

ha

smal

lsec

lud

edsh

rin

eo

nto

p;n

on

wo

od

lan

dst

eep

alp

ine

scre

ensl

op

esan

dsn

ow

-slip

lan

ds

are

refu

ges

for

the

un

iqu

eA

lth

erb

osa

(co

mm

un

itie

sw

ith

tall

her

bac

eou

sp

lan

ts,e

spec

ially

ind

enu

ded

fore

star

eas)

Ken

yaM

ou

nt

Ken

yaII

142,

020

trad

itio

nal

;reg

ard

edas

ah

oly

mo

un

tain

by

the

Kik

uyu

and

Mer

ulo

cal

com

mu

nit

ies;

rem

nan

tar

eao

fra

info

rest

,wit

hh

igh

wild

life

valu

e;p

rote

cts

wat

ersh

edsu

pp

lyin

gd

rin

kin

gw

ater

toN

airo

bi

Mal

awi

Nyi

kaN

atio

nal

Par

kII

3,13

4(k

m2)

trad

itio

nal

;sev

eral

sacr

edsi

tes

imp

ort

ant

for

rain

mak

ing

cere

mo

nie

s,w

hic

hst

illta

kep

lace

;on

eo

fth

ela

rges

th

igh

gras

slan

dp

late

aus

inA

fric

a;h

asa

hig

hle

velo

fen

dem

ism

con

tin

ued


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

Dudley et al. 573

Tabl

e1.

(con

tinue

d)

Cou

ntr

yN

am

eIU

CN

cate

gory

bSiz

e(h

a)

Lin

ks

tofa

ith

s

Mal

aysi

aK

inab

alu

Nat

ion

alP

ark

II75

,370

trad

itio

nal

;Kad

azan

Du

sun

peo

ple

wh

oliv

eo

nM

tK

inab

alu

bel

ieve

mo

un

tain

issa

cred

bec

ause

itis

the

rest

ing

pla

cefo

rth

eir

ance

sto

rs’s

pir

its;

par

kco

nta

ins

ah

igh

nu

mb

ero

fen

dem

icfl

ora

Nep

alSa

garm

ath

aN

atio

nal

Par

kII

and

Wo

rld

Her

itag

eSi

te11

4,80

0B

ud

dh

ism

;Sh

erp

asb

elie

vego

ats,

yaks

,an

dsh

eep

are

un

der

the

spec

ialp

rote

ctio

no

fK

hu

mb

uY

ulL

ha,

the

pro

tect

or

dei

tyo

fth

eK

hu

mb

ure

gio

n;s

ever

alm

on

aste

ries

inth

ep

ark;

area

con

tain

sim

po

rtan

tw

ildlif

esp

ecie

s,in

clu

din

g15

2sp

ecie

so

fb

ird

so

fw

hic

h36

are

bre

edin

gsp

ecie

sfo

rw

hic

hN

epal

may

ho

ldin

tern

atio

nal

lyim

po

rtan

tp

op

ula

tio

ns

New

Zea

lan

dT

on

gari

roN

atio

nal

Par

kII

and

Wo

rld

Her

itag

eSi

te76

,504

trad

itio

nal

;fir

stn

atu

rals

ite

toal

sob

ere

cogn

ized

for

its

spir

itu

alim

po

rtan

ceto

the

Mao

rip

eop

le;s

acre

dm

ou

nta

ino

fth

eN

gati

Tu

wh

aret

oa

loca

ted

inth

ep

ark

Nig

eria

Sacr

edG

rove

so

fO

sho

gbo

Wo

rld

Her

itag

esi

te55

trad

itio

nal

;5sa

cred

spac

esin

gro

ves

and

9w

ors

hip

po

ints

alo

ng

the

rive

rth

atru

ns

thro

ugh

the

site

;40

shri

nes

and

2p

alac

es;o

ne

of

the

few

rem

nan

tso

fh

igh

pri

mar

yra

info

rest

inN

iger

ia;s

up

po

rts

ad

iver

sefl

ora

and

fau

na,

incl

ud

ing

end

ange

red

wh

ite-

thro

ated

mo

nke

y(C

erc

opit

hecu

sery

thro

ga

ster)

Per

uH

isto

ric

San

ctu

ary

of

Mac

hu

Pic

chu

VI

32,5

92tr

adit

ion

al;s

pec

tacl

edb

ear

(Tre

ma

rcto

sorn

atu

s)in

Mac

hu

Pic

chu

tho

ugh

tto

serv

eas

am

esse

nge

rb

etw

een

the

spir

its

of

the

hig

hel

evat

ion

san

dth

ose

of

the

jun

gle

and

itis

ath

reat

ened

spec

ies

Ru

ssia

nFe

der

atio

nY

uga

nsk

iyK

anth

yIa

648,

700

Ch

rist

ian

ity;

pro

tect

edar

eacr

eate

dar

ou

nd

Lake

Nu

mto

—a

Kh

anty

and

Nen

ets

sacr

edp

lace

—in

Bel

oya

rsk

regi

on

SriL

anka

Pea

kW

ilder

nes

sP

ark

IV22

,380

Isla

m,B

ud

dh

ism

,Hin

du

ism

,Ch

rist

ian

ity;

mo

un

tain

bel

ieve

dto

con

tain

asa

cred

foo

tpri

nt

that

has

valu

efo

rat

leas

t4

fait

hgr

ou

ps

and

isa

maj

or

site

of

pilg

rim

age;

on

eo

fth

eri

ches

tar

eas

of

bio

div

ersi

tyo

nth

eis

lan

dSw

eden

Lap

on

ian

area

Wo

rld

Her

itag

eSi

te94

0,00

0tr

adit

ion

al;S

amip

eop

lep

erce

ive

the

wo

rld

asa

livin

g,in

terc

on

nec

ted

enti

tyin

wh

ich

hu

man

bei

ngs

are

on

ep

art

of

man

yan

dp

ract

ice

ash

aman

isti

csp

irit

ual

ity;

lan

dit

self

con

sid

ered

sacr

ed;c

on

tain

sa

hig

hly

imp

ort

ant

net

wo

rko

fb

iod

iver

sity

rese

rves

Tan

zan

iaM

isal

iIsl

and

Mar

ine

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Are

aV

I2,

158

Isla

m;M

isal

iIsl

and

con

sid

ered

of

hig

hsa

cred

valu

eb

ecau

seit

ssh

ape

po

ints

tow

ard

Mec

caan

db

ecau

seH

adh

ara,

aM

usl

imp

rop

het

,is

bel

ieve

dto

hav

ep

raye

dth

ere

usi

ng

the

gro

un

das

ap

raye

rm

at;s

ust

ain

able

use

of

fish

ing

reso

urc

esis

per

mit

ted

Un

ited

Stat

eso

fA

mer

ica

Co

con

ino

Nat

ion

alFo

rest

VI

747,

061

trad

itio

nal

;San

Fran

cisc

oP

eaks

wit

hin

the

nat

ion

alfo

rest

are

sacr

edto

13In

dia

ntr

ibes

;am

on

gth

e4

mo

stsa

cred

pla

ces

for

the

Nav

ajo

Ind

ian

s,w

ho

use

itto

colle

ctm

edic

inal

pla

nts

and

togr

eet

thei

rsp

irit

san

dfi

nd

pat

hw

ays

for

thei

rp

raye

rs

aM

ain

sou

rce:D

udle

yet

al.

(20

06

).bK

ey:IU

CN

,In

tern

ati

on

alU

nio

nfo

rC

on

serv

ati

on

of

Na

ture

;U

NE

SC

O,U

nit

ed

Na

tion

sE

du

cati

on

al,

Sci

en

tifi

ca

nd

Cu

ltu

ralO

rga

nis

ati

on

;M

AB

,U

nit

ed

Na

tion

sU

NE

SC

OM

an

an

dth

e

Bio

sph

ere

Pro

gra

m.


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009


1999). Similarly, these Ghanian groves contain lower den-sities of butterflies than forest reserves, although both arericher than surrounding areas (Bossart et al. 2006).

Results of research elsewhere demonstrate the rich-ness of sacred natural sites. In Kalimantan, Indonesia,sacred sites play an important role in forest conserva-tion (Wadley & Colfer 2004), as do traditional Feng Shuiwoods in Hong Kong (Marafa 2003), sacred groves inmainland China (Anderson et al. 2005), and sacred forestsin Mozambique (Virtanen 2002).

Sacred groves can thus contain important remnant bio-diversity, which can be significant to conservation strate-gies in the absence of other habitat. Because they aregenerally small, their diversity is often less than in largerprotected areas, unless care has been taken to maintainparticular groups, such as medicinal plants, or if condi-tions support rare species. Studies similar to those citedabove are needed of other sacred sites that focus on whatwild species are or are not protected, whether the man-agement of sacred natural sites is secure, and how suchsites contribute to wider conservation strategies.

Managing for Faith and Nature

Protected-area managers and conservation planners needto address faith issues in three main areas. They need to(1) improve management for sacred values inside existingprotected areas where sacred natural or built sites alreadyexist, (2) look at options for integrating other sacred ar-eas more effectively within broadscale conservation ap-proaches, and (3) work out how faiths can contribute toefforts to develop ecologically representative protectedarea networks.

Sacred Sites Inside Protected Areas

Most protected-area managers are trained in natural re-source management and a systematic approach to sci-ence, which is not enough to manage sacred sites. Ap-proaches must be sensitive and based on qualitative un-derstanding, along with recognition and tolerance of be-liefs. The manager will often be of a different faith groupand therefore reliant on faith leaders to help determinehow a particular feature should be managed.

One implication of the existence of sacred sites in pro-tected areas is a potential need for trade-offs betweenconservation and spiritual values. Large-scale pilgrimagesthrough national parks, as in Cota de Donana NationalPark in Spain (Mallarach & Papayannis 2007), can createecological stress, and ritual hunting may be important fora faith group but a problem if the species is endangered.Zoning sacred sites is a challenge in faiths where theirlocation is secret, as for instance with the Baka peoplein the Congo Basin (Dudley et al. 2006). Visitors can in-terfere with sacred sites (Digance 2003). Management

for faith values can take a disproportionate amount oftime. In many cases staff will need training and access tospecialized guidelines (e.g., Wild & McLeod 2008) .

Sacred Sites and Broader Conservation Strategies

For sacred natural sites or biologically rich areas aroundbuilt sacred sites with a potential conservation role, sev-eral options exist. Sacred sites can be gazetted as part orall of a protected area or managed outside protected areasas buffer zones, corridors, or community conserved ar-eas. Ideally the most suitable option should be selected inthe context of wider regional conservation plans. A num-ber of governance approaches are available, with varyingamounts of control devolved to communities (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004).

A key decision is whether to gazette a sacred naturalsite as a protected area or to leave it as an “unofficial”community conserved area. Governments may supportgazettement because this increases protected-area cov-erage with little effort. Conservation organizations tendto be enthusiastic because sacred natural sites often rep-resent secure protected areas. But what are the costsand benefits for the faiths? Becoming an official pro-tected area can bring supportive policy and legislation,extra resources, and increased options for ecotourism.In Xishuangbanna, China recognition of biodiversity val-ues means local communities have been able to attractresources for managing holy hills that they have pro-tected for centuries (Sochaczewski 1999). Nevertheless,protected-area status often means loss of control and at-tracts more attention to the site. Even where commu-nities retain a management role, additional stakeholderscan lead to a loss of influence. In Australia Kata TjutaNational Park contains Uluru (Ayers Rock), an importantsacred site for the Anangu people (Layton 1989), but de-spite being under the control of traditional owners it hasproved difficult to stop visitors from climbing on the rock(James 2007). The benefits of recognizing a sacred natu-ral site as a protected area depends on how managementand governance are approached; the needs and strengthsof traditional owners; the site’s biological value; whetherit fits IUCN’s definition of a protected area; its potentialrole in conservation strategies; what protected area sta-tus offers; and whether the government will recognize itin the national system.

Many faith communities, however, are recognizing thebenefits of protection status. The cultures supportingmany sacred natural sites are fragile and changing fast;ancient sites are often now under pressure or disappear-ing. For example, the number of sacred groves in theKodagu District of the Western Ghats, India, declinedby 59% last century (Chandrakanth et al. 2004). Wheremembers of a community want to maintain the integrity


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

Dudley et al. 575

and values of a site, converting it into a protected areacan often help its survival. The kaya forests of coastal EastAfrica are remnants of a rich and endangered ecosystemthat also has high spiritual value. These forests are be-ing incorporated into protected areas with the supportof local communities, who are concerned about themdisappearing (Burgess & Clarke 2000).

Broader Contribution of Faiths to Conservation

Recognition and protection of sacred natural sites is animportant conservation strategy, but it is limited to a rel-atively small area in global terms. A potentially muchlarger contribution could come from cooperation be-tween mainstream faiths and conservation organizationswith respect to the former’s investment policies, landownership, and management approaches. For example,the International Interfaith Investment Group is workingwith religious organizations from many faiths to changeinvestment policies, collectively worth US$7000 billion(International Interfaith Investment Group 2007), so thatthey will include investments that favor conservation.As owners of large areas of land, faith groups can alsoembrace more conservation-oriented approaches them-selves. A network of private protected areas, owned andmanaged by faith groups, could add substantially to globalconservation efforts and help bring conservation issuesto the fore in faith communities.

Conclusions

Many sacred natural sites can contribute to biodiversityconservation strategies. Whether this is most effectivelyachieved by incorporating them inside a protected areaor integrating them less officially as part of wider con-servation strategies needs to be determined individually.Effective decisions need to involve all relevant stakehold-ers (i.e., faith groups on the impacts to sacred values andconservationists on the site’s usefulness as a protectedarea). Protecting natural areas with sacred significancealso protects cultures and traditions that have existed forcenturies.

More generally, conservation organizations need towork much more closely with faith groups to identifyeffective ways to collaborate in terms of both land man-agement and investment decisions. Further research isrequired, particularly about the location and status ofsacred natural sites and about the quantitative data onbenefits to conservation, including effective monitoringsystems. Finally, faith groups and conservation organi-zations need to continue and increase the cooperationthat has emerged recently. Protected-area managers andconservation organizations must recognize the legitimacy

of sacred values of nature, improve training in these is-sues, and work cooperatively with faith groups to ensurethat spiritual and cultural values are effectively preservedwithin protected areas. At the same time, faith leaderscould increase their contributions to the historic aim ofcompleting an ecologically representative system of pro-tected areas by committing a proportion of the land andwater they control to this purpose.

Acknowledgments

We have benefited greatly from many people withinWWF, The World Bank, and the Alliance of Religions andConservation. Case studies for the report on which thepaper is based came from S. Chatterjee, J.M. Mallarach, M.Palmer, D. Rose, S. Stolton, I. Wisbono, and He Xiaoxin,with F. Asmar, A. Githitho, H.F.M. Khalid, J. Kreidi, P.G.Krishnan, Dr. Manoharan, A.K. Thani, S. Wells, and Dayakcommunities of Gunung Lumut, Indonesia. The followingpeople commented on the text: J. Bowling, P. Chatter-ton, N. Cox, A. Ekobo, V. Finlay, P. Gerard, S. Kalem,K. MacKinnon, L. Padfield, N. Ratsifandrihamanana, K.Rakovska, J. Smith, R. Soutter, L. Usongo, and A. Whit-ten. We are grateful to three reviewers of an earlier draftwho did much to improve its coherence. Research wassupported by WWF and the World Bank as part of the “Ar-guments for Protection” project, which aims to identifyand quantify benefits from protected areas.

Literature Cited

Adler, J. 2006. Cultivating wilderness: environmentalism and legaciesof early Christian asceticism. Comparative Studies of Society andHistory 48:4–37.

Anderson, D. M., J. Salick, R. K. Moseley, and X. K Ou. 2005. Conservingthe sacred medicine mountains: a vegetation analysis of Tibetansacred sites in northwest Yunnan. Biodiversity and Conservation14:3065–3091.

Anderson, E. N. 1969. Sacred fish. Man 4:443–449.Akwe. 2004. Akwe: Kon. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.Encyclopedia Brittanica. 2005. Worldwide adherents of all religions by

six continental areas, Mid-2005. Encyclopedia Brittanica, London.International Interfaith Investment Group (IIIG). 2007. Annual Report

2006. IIIG, Amsterdam.Bagader, A. A., A. T. Al-Chirazi El-Sabbagh, M. As-Sayyid Al-Glayand, and

M. Y. Izzi-Deen Samarrai. 1994. Environmental protection in Islam.Environmental policy and law paper 20. R International Union forConservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, UnitedKingdom.

Boraiah, K. T., R. Vasudeva, S. A. Bhagwat, and C. G. Kushalappa.2003. Do informally managed sacred groves have higher richnessand regeneration of medicinal plants than state-managed reserveforests? Current Science 84:804–808.

Borrini-Feyerabend, G., A. Kothari, and G. Oviedo. 2004. Indigenous andlocal communities and protected areas. Cardiff University, Cardiff,and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Bossart, J., E. Opuni-Frimpong, S. Kuudaar, and E. Nkrumah. 2006.Complementarity of fruit-feeding butterfly species in relict sacredforests and forest reserves of Ghana. Biodiversity and Conservation15:333–359.


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009


Brown, N., S. Bhagwat, and S. Wilkinson. 2006. Macrofungal diversityin fragmented and disturbed forests of the Western Ghats of India.Journal of Applied Ecology 43:11–17.

Burgess, N. D., and G. P. Clarke, editors. 2000. Coastal Forests of EasternAfrica. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Chandrakanth, M. G., M. G. Bhat, and M. S. Accavva. 2004. Socio-economic changes and sacred groves in South India: protectinga community-based resource management institution. Natural Re-sources Forum 28:102–111.

Chandrakanth, M. G., and J. Romm. 1991. Sacred forests, secular forestsand people’s actions. Journal of Natural Resources 31:741–756.

Chatterjee, S., Y. Gokhale, K. C. Malhotra, and S. Srivastava. 2004. Sa-cred groves in India: an overview. Indira Gandhi Rashtriya ManavSangrahalaya, Bhopal.

Chouin, G. 2002. Sacred groves in history: pathways to the social shap-ing of forest landscapes in coastal Ghana. IDS Bulletin 33:39–46.

Colding, J., and C. Folke. 1997. The relations among threatened species,their protection, and taboos. Ecology and Society 1:http://www.consecol.org/vol1/iss1/art6/ (accessed February 2009).

Decher, J., and L. K. Bahian. 1999. Diversity and structure of terrestrialsmall mammal communities in different vegetation types on theAccra Plains of Ghana. Journal of Zoology 247:395.

Devi Khumbongmayum, A., K. M. L. Ashalata, and R. Tripathi. 2005.Sacred groves of Manipur, northeast India: biodiversity value, statusand strategies for their conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation14:1541–1582.

Digance, J. 2003. Pilgrimage at contested sites. Annals of Tourism Re-search 30:143–159.

Dudley, N., L. Higgins-Zogib, and S. Mansourian. 2006. Beyond be-lief: linking faiths and protected areas for biodiversity conservation.WWF and Alliance of Religions and Conservation, Gland, Switzer-land.

Foltz, R., F. M. Denny, and A. Baharuddin. 2003. Islam and ecology: a be-stowed trust. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Frankfort, H., H. A. Frankfort, J. A. Wilson, and T. Jacobsen. 1946. Theintellectual adventure of ancient man. University of Chicago Press,Chicago, Illinois.

Gadgil, M., and G. Ramachandra. 1993. This fissured land: an ecologicalhistory of India. Oxford University Press, Delhi.

Girardot, N., J. Miller, and L. Xiaogan, editors. 2001. Daoism and ecol-ogy: ways within a cosmic landscape. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Hopson, E. 1978. The people of the whales: a fight for survival. IndianAffairs 98:7–8.

Howe, J. 1981. Fox hunting as ritual. American Ethnologist 8:278–300.Ingles, A. 1995. Religious beliefs and rituals in Nepal. Page 210 in P.

Halladay and D. A. Gilmour, editors. Conserving biodiversity outsideprotected areas: the role of traditional agro-ecosystems. IUCN, For-est Conservation Programme, Gland, Switzerland, and Cambridge,United Kingdom.

James, S. 2007. Constructing the climb: visitor decision-making at Uluru.Geographical Research 45:398–407.

Jamir, S. A., and H. N. Pandey. 2003. Vascular plant diversity in thesacred groves of Jaintia Hills in northeast India. Biodiversity andConservation 12:1497–1512.

Jones, J., M. M. Andriamarovololona, and N. Hockley. 2008. The im-portance of taboos and social norms to conservation in Madagascar.Conservation Biology 22:976–986

Kamil, J. 2002. Al-Ahram Weekly July. 25–31.Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush, and A. J. Bath. 1996. Human culture

and large carnivore conservation in North America. ConservationBiology 10:977–990.

Kilani, H., A. Serhal, and O. Llewellyn. 2007. Al-Hima: a way of life.International Union for Conservation of Nature West Asia RegionalOffice, Amman, Jordan, and the Society for the Protection of Naturein Lebanon, Beirut, Lebanon.

Landau, R. 2002. The Baha’i faith and the environment. In P. Tim-

merman, editor. Encyclopedia of global environmental change. Vol-ume 5, social and economic dimensions of global environmentalchange. John Wiley and Sons, London. Available from http://bahai-library.com/articles/landau.environment.html (accessed February2009).

Lantis, M. 1938. The Alaskan whale hunt and its affinities. AmericanAnthropologist 40:438–464.

Layton, R. 1989. Uluru: an Aboriginal history of Ayers Rock. Reprintededition with additions. Aboriginal Studies Press, Canberra, Australia.

Lee, C., and T. Schaaf, editors. 2003. The importance of sacred natu-ral sites for biodiversity conservation. UN Educational, Social andCultural Organization, Paris.

Lewington, A., and E. Parker. 1999. Ancient trees: trees that live for athousand years. Collins and Brown, London.

Lewis-Williams, J. D., and M. Biesele. 1978. Eland hunting ritualsamong northern and southern San groups: striking similarities.Africa 48:117–134.

Lingard, L., N. Raharison, E. Rabakonandrianina, J. A. Rakotoarisoa, andT. Elmqvist. 2003. The role of local taboos in conservation and man-agement of species: the radiated tortoise in southern Madagascar.Conservation and Society 1:223–246.

Mallarach, J. M., and T. Papayannis, editors. 2007. Protected areasand spirituality: proceedings of the first workshop of the DelosInitiative—Montserrat 2006. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Marafa, L. 2003. Integrating natural and cultural heritage: the advantageof feng shui landscape resources. International Journal of HeritageStudies 9:307–323.

Marjokorpi, A., and K. Ruokolainen. 2003. The role of traditional forestgardens in the conservation of tree species in West Kalimantan,Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:799–822.

Mithen, S. 2003. After the ice: a global human history 20,000–5000 BC.Weidenfeld and Nicholson, London.

Mulligan, M. 2001. Re-enchanting conservation work: reflections on theAustralian experience. Environmental Values 10:19–33.

Narayanan, V. 2001. Water, wood, and wisdom: ecological perspectivesfrom the Hindu traditions. Daedalus, American Academy of Arts andScience, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Nasr, S. H. 1996. Religion and the order of nature: the 1994 Cadburylectures at the University of Birmingham. Oxford University Press,Oxford, United Kingdom.

Northcott, M. S. 1996. The environment and Christian ethics. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Nunn, P. D. 2001. On the convergence of myth and reality: exam-ples from the Pacific islands. The Geographical Journal 167:125–138.

Olupona, J. K. 1993. Some notes on animal symbolism in African religionand culture. Anthropology and Humanism 18:3–12.

O’Neal Campbell, M. 2004. Traditional forest protection and wood-lots in the coastal savannah of Ghana. Environmental Conservation31:225–232.

O’Neal Campbell, M. 2005. Sacred groves for forest conservation inGhana’s coastal savannas: assessing ecological and social dimen-sions. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 26:151.

Orr, M. 2003. Environmental decline and the rise of religion. Zygon38:895–910.

Pakenham, T. 2004. The remarkable baobab. Weidenfeld and Nichol-son, London.

Palmer, M., and V. Finlay. 2003. Faith in conservation. The World Bank,Washington, D.C.

Pope Benedict XVI. 2008. Address by his Holiness Benedict XVI. Banga-roo, Sydney, Australia. 17 July. Holy See, Vatican City. Available fromhttp://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/july/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080717_barangaroo_en.html(accessed August 2008).

Pope John Paul II. 1990. The ecological crisis: a common responsibil-ity. Peace with God The Creator, peace with all of creation. Mes-sage of His Holiness for the celebration of the World Day of Peace.


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

Dudley et al. 577

Catholic Conservation Center, Wading Bridge, New York. Avail-able from http://conservation.catholic.org/ecologicalcrisis.htm (ac-cessed May 2008).

Posey, D. A., editor. 2002. Cultural and spiritual values of biodiversity.UN Environment Programme and Intermediate Technology Publica-tions, Reading, United Kingdom.

Ramanujam, M. P., and D. Kadamban. 2001. Plant biodiversity of twotropical dry evergreen forests in the Pondicherry region of SouthIndia and the role of belief systems in their conservation. Biodiversityand Conservation 10:1203–1217.

Ramanujam, M. P., K. Praveen, and K. Cyril. 2003. Woody species di-versity of 4 sacred groves in the Pondicherry region of South India.Biodiversity and Conservation 12:289–299.

Rosenblum, M. 1996. Olives: the life and lore of a noble fruit. AbsolutePress, London.

Singhvi, L. M. 1990. The jain declaration on nature. Jainism GlobalResource Center, Alpharetta, Georgia. Available from http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/Books/Jaindecl.htm (accessed May 2008).

Snyder, S. 2006. Chinese traditions and ecology: survey article. World-views, Environment, Culture and Religion 10:100–134.

Sochaczewski, P. 1999. Life reserves, opportunities to use spiritual val-ues and partnerships in forest conservation. Pages 137–143 in S.Stolton and N. Dudley, editors. Partnerships for protection. Earth-scan, London.

Soustelle, J. 1961. The daily life of the Aztecs. George Weidenfeld andNicolson, London

Tucker, M. E., and J. Berling. 2003. Worldly wonder: religions entertheir ecological phase. Open Court Publishing, Chicago, Illinois.

Tucker, M. E., and J. Grimm. 1994. Worldviews and ecology: religion,philosophy and the environment. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, NewYork.

Tucker, M. E., and D. R. Williams, editors. 1998. Buddhism and ecology:the interconnection of Dharma and Deeds. Harvard University Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts.

UNESCO (UN Educational, Social and Cultural Organization). 2003.Linking universal and local values: managing a sustainable futurefor World Heritage. World Heritage papers 13. UNESCO, Paris.

Upadhaya, K., H. N. Pandey, P. S. Law, and R. S. Tripathi. 2003. Treediversity in sacred groves of the Jaintia hills in Meghalaya, northeastIndia. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:583–597.

Virtanen, P. 2002. The role of customary institutions in the conservationof biodiversity: sacred forests in Mozambique. Environmental Values11:227–241.

Vogel, D. 1999. How green is Judaism? University of California,Berkeley.

Wadley, R. L., and C. J. P. Colfer. 2004. Sacred forest, hunting, and con-servation in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Human Ecology 32:313–338.

Warner, M. 1976. Alone of all her sex: the myth and the cult of theVirgin Mary. Vintage, London.

White, L. 1967. Historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Science155:1203–1207.

Whitten, T., and B. Morgan, editors. 2006. Faiths and the environment:World Bank support 2000–2005. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Wild, R., and C. McLeod, editors. 2008. Sacred natural sites: guidelinesfor protected area managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.


Volume 23, No. 3, 2009

The Links between Protected Areas, Faiths, and Sacred Natural Sites

Documents

Transcript of The Links between Protected Areas, Faiths, and Sacred Natural Sites