Preface
What began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the
United States to save some areas of the cultural and natural
landscape as “wilderness” has spread to a worldwide movement. There are many ways wilderness character is protected
today, including setting aside private holdings; state, provincial, and national legislation; local land management
agency policies; collaborative, comanagement initiatives
among tribal and other government interests; and nongovernmental organization actions. The international community interested in the issues surrounding protecting wildlands as wilderness is united through the International Journal of Wilderness (in its seventh year of publication) and the
World Wilderness Congress, which has meet seven times
since 1977, in different locations around the world. Through
these media for interaction, we learn about the different sets
of values ascribed to wilderness in different cultures and the
evolving set of influences (both positive and negative) on protection of these wilderness values.
At the 5th World Wilderness Congress, in Tromsø, Norway,
in 1993, Rothenberg (1995) concluded that the only thing
agreed upon within the international group in attendance
was to disagree on the meanings of wilderness. A definition
that mostly focuses on the physical aspects of wilderness has
been developed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN):
Large areas of unmodified or slightly modified land and/or
sea, retaining its natural character and influence, which is
protected and managed to preserve its natural condition. The
stated objectives are broad, extending from (1) future generation enjoyment of areas that are relatively undisturbed
by humans to (2) maintaining natural attributes and qualities, (3) providing appropriate public access for physical and
spiritual well-being of visitors, and (4) enabling indigenous
communities to continue living at low density, and in balance with available resources.
While the above definition aims at extension across cultures, there is a need to be more specific in our understanding of the values, constraints, and contributors to wilderness protection in many regions of the world. The purpose of
the group of papers presented in these proceedings is to provide a focus on wilderness in the Circumpolar North. Invited
speakers contributed to this compilation of information to
try to understand the current and anticipated priority research and education issues surrounding wilderness protection in the Circumpolar North. This introduction is intended
to identify sponsors and participating organizations, and to
clarify the purpose of individual contributions.
Sponsors ______________________
The University of Alaska, Anchorage, hosted this gathering of scientists, managers, planners, educators, students,
and representatives of nongovernmental organizations and
the general public. Although the seminar and a followup
workshop was organized by Lilian Alessa of the University
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-26. 2002
of Alaska, Anchorage, and Alan Watson of the Aldo Leopold
Wilderness Research Institute, the meeting also represented
a long-term commitment of the University of Montana’s Wilderness Institute to supporting meetings that bring people
together to establish the current state-of-knowledge on currently important wilderness topics. The University of Montana Wilderness Institute’s (Dr. Wayne Freimund, Director)
financial contribution to support travel of some participants
to this seminar and Dr. Michael Patterson’s active participation and attendance is gratefully acknowledged.
A proposal to the National Science Foundation’s Office of
Polar Programs to support travel and facilities for this meeting was awarded to the University of Alaska, Anchorage. This
financial support and continuous encouragement and review
of ideas by Dr. Fae Korsmo is gratefully acknowledged.
Dr. Val Mezainis of the USDA Forest Service’s Office of
International Programs has shown continued interest and
support of efforts to share information across countries where
the wilderness concept is taking root. Financial support of
this international seminar from the Office of International
Programs is another indication of the strong commitment of
that office to building international cooperation to address
protected area issues.
Mr. Gary Edwards of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Alaska Regional Office, was also a positive influence on the
ability of the University of Alaska, Anchorage to host the
international guests for this seminar. A financial contribution
to help bring the wilderness science and management community in the Circumpolar North together and a commitment
by Mr. Roger Kaye to help with organizational conceptualization
is sincerely appreciated.
We also thank Mr. Neal Christensen for developing the
seminar logo, which was used for posters during the seminar and appears on the cover of this proceedings. Liisa
Morrison provided invaluable assistance in preparing for the
initial reception of international guests and assuring their
visit to Alaska was a good one.
Publication and distribution of these proceedings is sponsored by the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station; the Alaska Region of the National
Park Service; and the Alaska State Office of the Bureau of
Land Management.
Participating Organizations _______
A seminar was planned that would bring together, for the
first time, many of the scientists working in Arctic countries
toward an understanding of an array of sometimes conflicting values of wilderness. Through presentations from invited
key representatives of the Arctic Centre of the University of
Lapland, the University of Tromsø, the Danish Forest and
Landscape Research Institute, the Northern Lands Research
Institute of the University of Northern British Columbia,
iii
the Environmental Research Institute and the University of
Iceland, the University of Alaska at Anchorage and Fairbanks,
Alaska Pacific University, the University of Montana, the
Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Friends of the Siberian Forest, Komarov Botanical
Institute, the Northwest Territories Protected Areas and
Dene Nation, the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, and the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research
Institute, the latest information on trends in demands for
wilderness uses and threats posed to important human and
ecological values were summarized.
Purpose of Individual
Contributions ___________________
Originally offered by Watson and Landres (1999) and expanded by Watson (2001) (fig. 1), a general model of evolution
of wilderness values was adopted as a framework to guide
invitation of papers and presenters for the seminar and
resulting publication. In this model, there is acknowledgment
that values associated with wilderness do evolve, and some of
the influences on this evolution process are identified.
General Societal Trends and Specific
Influences on Wilderness Values
A presentation by Ginny Faye of the Alaska Department
of Community and Economic Development was on the evident trends in tourism to Alaska and the anticipated impacts
of these trends to local economies (paper not submitted for
inclusion in this proceedings). Alaska does not appear to be
a “top 10” ecotourism destination, despite its wealth of wilderness and wild lands, because of limitations posed by remoteness from population centers, the cost of travel, and the
relatively undeveloped tourism product there. As the State
works to correct these deficiencies, the resulting trends associated with travel to Alaska will have long-term influences
on the values associated with wilderness. Berit Kaae of the
Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute provided
an indepth look at tourism trends and resulting research
priorities in Greenland. Roger Kaye, of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge has studied some of the specific influences on
wilderness values in the arctic, such as changes in technology,
changes in public expectations and demands on wilderness
lands, and the evolution of management actions and lowimpact techniques of visitors (paper not submitted for inclusion in this proceedings). Paul Ongtooguk of the University
of Alaska, Anchorage, provided a native perspective of the
trends associated with places protected as wilderness in
Alaska (paper not submitted for inclusion in this proceedings). This perspective extends to well before the arrival of
the nonnative pioneer and explorer and addresses the role of
“evolving traditions” in changing attitudes toward wilderness policies.
Values (Attitudes Toward Wilderness)
While this seminar concentrated on the more objective type
of values (human and ecological meanings and services),
Angela Stadel, Raymond Taniton, and Heidi Heder of
Canada’s Northwest Territories provided an excellent introduction of how local community values, or attitudes, associated with wild places can contribute to decisions associated
with which wild places to protect. Bob Pfister of the University of Northern British Columbia also housed the argument
for more collaborative models of management within the need
for greater acknowledgement of local native community values associated with both wild places and traditional measures of national and provincial governments to protect those
places.
Legislation, Policy, and Wilderness
Protection
Andrei Laletin, of the Friends of the Siberian Forest in
Russia, explained the history of Russian policy to protect the
strict nature preserves there. The history in Russia is quite
Wilderness Values and Valuation
Resource
management
Legislation, policy,
collective action
Values—Human and
ecological meanings
Values—Attitudes
social cohesion
Valuation
social discourse
General societal trends,
specific influences
Figure 1—A general model of evolution of wilderness values (adapted from
Watson and Landres 1999).
iv
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-26. 2002
different from recent efforts in Canada to protect wild places
(presented by Bob Pfister, Angela Stadel, Raymond Taniton,
and Heidi Heder), and is in turn very different from the history of the United States and Finland, the other polar north
countries with national legislative protection of wilderness
lands and water.
Values (Human and Ecological Meanings
and Services)
Since the seminar series was mostly focused on trying to
understand the compatibility between traditional values associated with nature, growing ecotourism values associated
with wilderness protection, and the need for ecological protection of fragile arctic ecosystems, the bulk of the presentations, and thus the papers published here, concentrated on
articulation of the outcomes associated with interaction with
the wilderness resource and the associated factors of influence (the things that promote or threaten realization of those
values). Papers by Joar Vittersø of Norway, Greg Brown of
Alaska, Dave Klein of Alaska, Anna-Liisa Sippola of Finland,
Henry Huntington of Alaska, Herb Anungazuk of Alaska,
Björn Gunnarsson of Iceland, and ThóraEllen Thórhallsdóttir
of Iceland gave a broad forum for discussion of how arctic
people (and visitors to the arctic) value the wild places they
find there.
Valuation Decisions (Social Discourse on
Value Conflict and Compatibility)
The process of weighing the different values associated with
wilderness, or making management decisions that will influence the outcomes realized by different groups that place
value on wilderness protection, is a complex one. Jim Gladden of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, described the
origins of political conflict surrounding arctic wilderness, and
Dan Williams of the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Research Station delved into the social, not the psychological, construction of wilderness, in an effort to explore the
effects of place meanings, value pluralism, and globalization
on wilderness protection decisions. Mike Patterson of the
University of Montana emphasized the importance of using
appropriate research methodologies to fully understand the
different, sometimes conflicting, values associated with a
place in order to fully consider each social orientation toward the place and activities engaged in during the valuation process (paper not submitted for inclusion in this proceedings). In the final analysis, these valuation processes
greatly influence evolving societal trends and specific actions
taken that will influence the attitudes future generations
will develop toward the wild places of the Circumpolar North.
the listening session, a 1-day workshop occurred with four
primary working groups striving to bring answers to the
following questions to a larger, closing general session of
participants:
1. Identification of high priority, cross-discipline, Circumpolar North wilderness research issues.
2. Identification of ways to (a) broaden the identification
and assessment of Circumpolar North wilderness values research to reflect the unique elements of arctic and subarctic
ecosystems and cultures, and (b) improve the methods for
valuation and/or comparison among these diverse values in
ways that are sensitive to diverse cultural standards and
methods for making such valuations.
3. Identification of efficient, effective methods of conveying existing and future knowledge regarding the compatibility between human uses and ecological protection values of
wilderness to managers, academia, and society.
4. Identification of priorities and methods of development
of a Wilderness Working Group to provide infrastructure to
continue in pursuit of bringing the priorities identified in
the other groups to reality.
References _____________________
Rothenberg, David. 1995. The idea of the wild. In: Martin, Vance G.; Tyler,
Nicholas, eds. Symposium summaries, The 5th World Wilderness Congress:
Arctic Wilderness. Tronsø, Norway, 1993. Fulcrum Publishing: 255–257.
Watson, Alan; Landres, Peter. 1999. Changing wilderness values. In: Cordell,
H. Ken, principal investigator. Outdoor recreation in American life: a national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore
Publishing: 384–388.
Watson, Alan E. 2001. Goal interface and social value differences: understanding wilderness conflicts and implications for managing social density. In:
Freimund, Wayne A.; Cole, David N., comps. Visitor use density and wilderness experience; 2001 June 1–3; Missoula, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-20.
Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 62–66.
Alan Watson
Lilian Alessa
Janet Sproull
Process _______________________
The papers compiled here comprised the 2-day seminar.
The seminar was basically a listening session, intended to
provide a base for discussion after the participants had a firm
understanding of the trends, attitudes, legislation and policy,
human and ecological values, and valuation process associated with wilderness in the Circumpolar North. Following
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-26. 2002
v