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