Understanding Wilderness and Subsistence
in Gates of the Arctic National Park
and Preserve, Alaska
Chad E. Dear
Abstract—Recreationists’ understanding of subsistence in Gates
of the Arctic National Park (GAAR) was examined using Structural
Developmental Theory. This perspective contends that people universally differentiate three major domains of social issues—moral,
conventional, and personal—by how they reason about them. Seventy-five percent of respondents understood subsistence use of
GAAR as a moral issue. Further, respondents maintained conflicting moral judgments when justice, welfare, and naturalism values
associated with subsistence were juxtaposed with human and
nonhuman welfare values associated with wilderness. The high
incidence of conflicting judgments suggests the existence of conflict,
or cognitive disequilibrium, between values associated with subsistence and values associated with wilderness. Respondents attempted
to coordinate their judgments in ways that can be described as
overriding, contradictory, and contextual. No respondents had hierarchical integrated understandings of subsistence and wilderness
values. Implications of these findings are discussed.
Introduction ____________________
Gates of the Arctic National Park & Preserve (GAAR), one
of the 10 park units created by the Alaskan National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980, was established
with a management mandate to preserve wilderness values
that is unparalleled in any other U.S. National Park (USDI/
NPS 1986). This mandate, however, must be understood in
the context of the other purposes for which the park was
established, allowed uses, and prior existing rights. GAAR
and other National Parks created by ANILCA, unlike parks
in the lower forty-eight United States, allow for the continuation of “customary and traditional” subsistence uses by
rural Alaskan residents of wild, renewable resources for
direct personal or family consumption (Willis 1985).
Although the allowance of subsistence in GAAR diverges
from previous legislative definitions of wilderness, the human presence and subsistence culture in the park was
initially thought to complement the wilderness purposes of
the park (USDI/NPS 1986). Such a complimentary relationship would successfully harmonize the GAAR management
mandates to allow for the continuation of subsistence and to
Chad E. Dear received his master’s degree in geography from Western
Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225, U.S.A. He is currently a
Fulbright Fellow in Swaziland, Southern Africa. E-mail: chaddear@
hotmail.com
In: Watson, Alan; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2003. Science and stewardship
to protect and sustain wilderness values: Seventh World Wilderness Congress symposium; 2001 November 2–8; Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Proc.
RMRS-P-27. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station.
90
“provide for the enjoyment” of the wilderness qualities of the
park. The actual relationship between the subsistence culture and the wilderness purposes of GAAR, however, has not
been adequately studied and is, therefore, not yet well
understood. Understanding recreationists’ perspectives regarding subsistence in GAAR is important for two primary
reasons: (1) to determine if the aforementioned GAAR management mandates conflict, and (2) to empirically examine
the influence interactions with subsistence may have on
psychological developmental aspects of recreationists’ understanding of nature, indigenous people, the human role in
wilderness, and the human-nature relationship. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to identify, classify and
analyze recreationists’ understanding of subsistence in the
context of their experience in GAAR.
Theoretical Framework ___________
Such an analysis requires an approach that accounts for
the complexities inherent in the coordination of the socialpsychological constructions of wilderness and subsistence.
In other words, recreationists’ behaviors and reactions to
subsistence can not be taken at face value because such
behaviors and reactions are underlain by complex patterns
of understanding and active efforts to balance personal
judgments about the issues the situation in GAAR provokes.
Structural Developmental Theory, the perspective employed in this study, explains human understanding through
the nature and functions of psychological structures
(Ginsburg and Opper 1969). These structures are comprised
of the various ideas people develop and maintain regarding
social issues. Structures also include patterns of thinking, or
schemas, that situate ideas within more or less well-organized wholes. Ideas are organized within these schemas
through the process of reasoning about social issues. Ideas
and schemas regarding social issues can be differentiated
depending on the perceived moral, conventional, or personal
nature of issues (Turiel 1998). In other words, if a person
thinks morally about an issue, they will employ different
ideas and reason about the issue differently than a person
who thinks about the same issue as governed by conventional
or personal considerations. Specific qualities of individuals’
judgments and supporting justifications are the criteria for
determining into which “social domain” the individual conceptualizes an issue.
Identification, classification, and analysis of ideas and
schemas within moral, conventional, and personal social
domains provide a basis for understanding the interrelations between thought, action, and cultural context (Kahn
1999). The premise here is that forms of reasoning make a
difference in how different possibilities are weighed and
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Dear
calculated by an individual. The link between thought,
action, and cultural context is complicated, however, by the
psychological fact that people develop and simultaneously
maintain multiple and, at times, conflicting judgments regarding the same issue (Turiel and others 1991). Such cases
may result in judgment/action inconsistencies.
Turiel and others (1991) note that judgment/action inconsistencies require explanations that take judgment coordination into account. Judgment coordination occurs when an
individual’s experience simultaneously activates psychological structures supporting conflicting judgments. These
structures, which were not brought into relation before, are
forced into a psychological relationship. The relationship
established through judgment coordination generally involves a compromising of structures. Identifying, classifying, and analyzing ideas and schemas related to an issue
within moral, conventional, and personal domains aid in
understanding an individual’s or group’s progress through
the process of judgment coordination.
Finally, hierarchical integration, or structural development, happens when previously held psychological structures are, through interaction with the social and physical
world, transformed into more comprehensive and adequate
ways of understanding the world and acting upon it. This
process involves the development of a new understanding of
conflicting values that preserves the integrity of both values,
but transforms their relationship from one of conflict to one
of integration under some superordinate concept. This process is distinct from judgment coordination in that it does
not involve a compromising of judgments, but instead
involves an integration of judgments at a hierarchically
elevated level.
Methods _______________________
Semistructured interviews including hypothetical scenarios describing interactions between recreational and
subsistence use of GAAR were posed to GAAR recreationists.
Qualitative methods were employed to (1) identify recreationists’ initial and secondary judgments and justifications of
the issue; (2) classify respondents’ initial judgments within
moral, conventional, or personal social domains; and (3) analyze the coordination efforts between recreationists’ multiple and conflicting judgments and justifications.
The respondent group was composed of 24 males and 6
females ranging from 19 to 66 years of age with an average
age of 42. Seventy-six percent had received or were working
on four-year college degrees. Forty-six percent had attained
or were working on graduate or professional degrees. Fortyeight percent of respondents identified their homes as being
in urban areas, 30 percent in suburban areas, and 22 percent
in rural areas. Thirty-three percent of respondents were
from the contiguous United States east of the Rocky Mountains, 26 percent west of the Rocky Mountains, 22 percent
were from Alaska, and 18 percent from Europe. Ninetythree percent of respondents identified themselves as being
Caucasian. Respondents had been planning their trips to
GAAR for an average of 7.5 months.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Understanding Wilderness and Subsistence in Gates of the Arctic...
Findings _______________________
Sixty-one percent of respondents were accepting of subsistence in GAAR and conceptualized the issue as moral.
Fourteen percent were not accepting of subsistence in GAAR
and also conceptualized the issue as moral. Justifications of
both positive and negative moral judgments referred to
concepts of justice (rights and fairness), welfare (of humans
and/or nature), and naturalism (perceived harmonious and
respectful relationship between subsistence user and nature). Twenty-five percent of respondents were accepting of
subsistence in GAAR and conceptualized the issue as
conventional.
A broad finding of this study is that respondents’ psychological structures associated with wilderness generally developed exclusively of psychological structures associated
with subsistence, and vice versa. In other words, there was
a lack of coordination between wilderness and subsistence
structures. These structures may have developed separately
because they were never before forced together through
experience.
While previous experience may have rarely done so, the
scenarios presented to respondents in interviews did simultaneously activate recreationists’ psychological structures
regarding wilderness and subsistence. Questions in the
interview forced respondents to reason about the issue of
subsistence use of GAAR Wilderness in a way that connects
these previously disconnected structures. Respondents’ attempts to reason about the hypothetical scenario resulted in
respondents maintaining multiple and conflicting judgments
in the interview. The high percentage of individual respondents who maintained conflicting judgments suggests the
existence of conflict, or cognitive disequilibrium, between
values associated with subsistence and values associated
with wilderness.
The psychological discomfort associated with states of
disequilibrium led respondents to attempt to resolve or coordinate their conflicting judgments. Respondents were identified as coordinating their judgments in ways that can be
described as overriding, contradictory, and contextual. Each
major coordination type and subtype, as well as their implications, are described below. In many cases, individuals
coordinated their conflicting judgments in multiple ways.
Judgment Coordinations
Overriding—In overriding coordinations, a moral judgment supporting subsistence trumped conflicting secondary
judgments supporting wilderness values. The 37 percent of
respondents classified in this category lacked a developed
moral understanding of wilderness values. This allowed the
well-established moral content and structure of respondents’ judgments supporting subsistence to override emerging, still tentative, and not as widely shared judgments
supporting wilderness values. For example, Doug, a 55year-old from New Jersey, stated that an interaction with
subsistence in GAAR would make his experience “less of a
wilderness experience, but in the kind of situations we are
91
Dear
talking about its okay…that is part of the balancing of
interests that I’m prepared to accept and that I believe is
just.” The moral value Doug associates with subsistence,
what he “believes is just,” overrode values he associated
with wilderness experience. Doug’s judgment coordination,
as well as others in this category, may be explained by the
general acknowledgment that social justice moral schemas
are much stronger in society than wilderness/biocentric
ones. The lack of strength of wilderness values also may have
to do with the tendency of these subjects to frame wilderness
values as mostly grounded in self-interested references
relating to “wilderness experience”—an argument perceived
as much weaker than social justice as grounds for moral
justification.
The implication of this finding is that the subsistence
community, as well as land managers, can rely on a significant amount of support for subsistence use of GAAR. Overriding coordinations, however, foreclose any attempts at
integration between wilderness and subsistence values.
Recreationists’ support of subsistence, therefore, is at the
expense of wilderness values.
Contradictory—In contradictory coordinations, two contradictory judgments were simultaneously upheld. The 25
percent of respondents classified in this category conceptualized the issue of subsistence in wilderness as being conventional rather than moral. Psychologically structuring the
issue as conventional allowed these respondents to maintain
contradictory judgments because their final judgment ultimately depended upon the social norms of the area established by custom, laws, and regulations. This group of
recreationists does not need to be persuaded to accept
subsistence for any reason besides the fact that there is a law
allowing subsistence use of GAAR.
Contextual—In contextual coordinations, respondents’
judgments depended on the specific context, as specified by
them. Four major types were identified: ecological impact,
naturalism, race, and frequency of interaction. Each contextual coordination subtype, as well as its implications, is
detailed below.
Eighty-three percent of respondents’ support for subsistence use of GAAR was contingent upon subsistence users’
impact on what was perceived as the more important moral
value of ecological health. If subsistence was determined to
degrade the ecological health of the environment, then
subsistence would not be acceptable. For example, Eric, a 19year-old from England, claimed that he would support
subsistence “as long as the other concerns for the ecology of
the area…are being met.” If this category of respondents is
added to the 14 percent of respondents who were initially not
accepting of subsistence for reasons including ecological
impact, then nearly all (97 percent) respondents can be
understood to value ecological welfare when set in competition with justice, welfare, and naturalism values associated
with subsistence. The implication of this finding is that if
recreational and subsistence activities occur in the same
geographic area, and psychological conflict is to be kept at a
minimum, perceived environmental impact must be kept
low. The greater the perceived environmental impact, the
greater the difficulty of eventually integrating wilderness
and subsistence values.
92
Understanding Wilderness and Subsistence in Gates of the Arctic...
Seventy percent of respondents made contextual coordinations referring to naturalism, or a perceived harmonious
and respectful relationship with nature. In such cases,
respondents supported subsistence; however, this support
was contingent upon subsistence users’ ability to exemplify
a harmonious and respectful relationship with nature.
Recreationists required that subsistence users conduct their
activities according to an environmental ethic that, in most
cases, was assumed to be part of the subsistence culture.
Recreationists’ support for subsistence was withdrawn if
this ethic was not perceived.
This pattern of support—and withdrawal of support—for
subsistence, depending on respondents’ perceptions of local
peoples’ relationships with nature, is characteristic of the
stereotype of the “ecologically noble savage” (Buege 1996).
This requirement of “authenticity,” Buege claims, is oppressive in that it forces Natives to conform to non-Native
conceptions of how they should live and relate to nature.
Very few respondents overtly acknowledged that the right to
self-determination—a prominent justification supporting
subsistence in the park—contradicts and could possibly
override the naturalistic reasoning pattern described above.
Respondents’ support of subsistence was also dependent
on race. Thirty-three percent of respondents were less likely
or unwilling to judge subsistence acceptable if the subsistence user was a non-Native. For example, Dave, a 47-yearold Hispanic from California, claimed that “if a non-Native
person...had the right to [subsist in the park] through...a
government permit or something like that then I would be
more adverse to that than if it was a person who through
family generations acquired that right.”
The ANILCA mandate “to provide the opportunity for
rural resident people engaged in a subsistence way of life to
continue to do so” (emphasis added) is a colorblind mandate
(Willis 1985). A significant portion of subsistence activities
in and around GAAR is undertaken by non-Native rural
residents. The condition of race described by this group of
respondents reveals a potential for increased conflict between recreational users and non-Native subsistence users
of GAAR.
Frequency of interaction was the final major type of
contextual coordination identified. Thirty percent of respondents claimed that their support for subsistence would
deteriorate with increased encounters with subsistence or
signs of subsistence activities. The implication of this finding is that conflict between recreation and subsistence users
of GAAR could be avoided by regulating recreational visitation to keep frequency of contact with subsistence low. If
high frequency of contact is unavoidable, stronger justifications supporting subsistence may be needed to minimize
conflict.
A less prominent, but interesting, contextual coordination
referred to a distinction between subsistence being acceptable in the park and subsistence being acceptable in respondents’ experience in the park. In other words, subsistence is
acceptable, but “Not In My Wilderness Experience” (NIMWE).
The enormous size of GAAR, coupled with the fact that
recreational and subsistence activities generally occur in
separate areas of the park, suggests that a large majority of
visitors to GAAR never see subsistence activity or signs of it.
These physical realities currently allow for the continuation
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Dear
of NIMWE thinking. The finding that NIMWE thinking
was apparent in at least 17 percent of respondents suggests
that a partitioning of the park through a zoning scheme,
where recreationists would know that they have a lesser
chance of encountering subsistence, would be accepted and
appreciated by this segment of recreationists. The separation of users or perpetuation of NIMWE thinking would not,
however, contribute to a more adequate understanding of
the unresolved conflicts in recreationists’ understanding of
subsistence in GAAR. In other words, this practice would
avoid psychological and social conflict rather than attempting to resolve conflict.
Toward an Integrated
Understanding of Wilderness and
Subsistence Values ______________
Respondents generally lacked the ability to coherently
reason about or understand subsistence use of GAAR.
Through the interview process, many respondents showed
signs that they were becoming aware of the inadequacy of
their understanding of the issue. This awareness of their
inadequacy of understanding, or state of disequilibrium, led
in this case to judgment coordination efforts. Such efforts
involved certain values being maintained at the expense of
other values. Disequilibrium may also instigate the development of new and more adequate psychological structures
that preserve the integrity of both values, but transform
their relationship from one of conflict to one of integration
under some superordinate concept (that is, hierarchical
integration).
The presence of disequilibrium, and the subsequent potential for hierarchical integration, represents an opportunity to move closer to the goal of reducing conflict between
wilderness and subsistence values in GAAR and other parks
and protected areas around the world. Left unmanaged,
recreationists’ personal experiences, such as actually encountering subsistence in GAAR or other parks, might
activate developmental processes or it might not; existing
biases and contradictions might prevail. Without presentation of balanced views regarding this issue, such as was
presented in interviews, exposure to subsistence in GAAR or
other “wild” areas may only reinforce and elaborate existing
conflicting understandings of wilderness and subsistence.
The opportunity for the National Park Service, or other
parties with a vested interest in the continued preservation
of the physical and cultural values inherent in GAAR, is to
facilitate the developmental process of creating new understandings of wilderness, subsistence, and their relationship
in the park. Recognizing that the active mental life of
visitors is critical in their experience is a first step in this
process.
Recreationists are not passive receptors easily molded by
pamphlet-style educational efforts. Recreationists’ response
to these or any other informational medium is determined
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-27. 2003
Understanding Wilderness and Subsistence in Gates of the Arctic...
in large part by their existing ideas and schemas regarding
an issue. Their existing understanding is not idiosyncratically structured, but generally follows the various patterns
revealed in this study. Specifically, recreationists are inclined to identify and reason about conflicting moral ideas
involved in interactions between recreational and subsistence use of the park. In this sense, wilderness recreationists
are moral philosophers potentially seeking advanced forms of
reasoning.
Effective efforts to influence recreationists’ judgments
and actions regarding subsistence use of GAAR and other
parks and protected areas involves understanding and accounting for the deliberate, systematic, and philosophical
nature of recreationists’ thought. To the extent that managers can understand, work with, and employ methods that
more directly engage peoples’ psychological structures, the
more precise and sure they can be about the effects of
particular managerial interventions.
Understanding recreationists’ thought content and processes relating to subsistence are also relevant beyond
immediate management concerns. Such understanding can
add clarity to the current contentious discourse regarding
the idea of wilderness and its ability to appropriately address issues of past and present indigenous human cultures
on wild lands. In this regard, a structural developmental
approach to what has been termed by some, “The Great New
Wilderness Debate” (Callicott and Nelson 1998), may illustrate the disequilibrium many in the conservation philosophy community are experiencing. Such an approach may
also trace our psychological progress toward a more adequate and integrated understanding of wilderness, subsistence, and the human role in nature.
References _____________________
Buege, Douglas J. 1996. The ecologically noble savage revisited.
Environmental Ethics. 18(1): 71–88.
Callicott, J. Baird; Nelson, Michael P. 1998. The great new wilderness debate. Athens: University of Georgia Press. 712 p.
Ginsburg, Herbert; Opper, Sylvia. 1969. Piaget’s theory of intellectual development: an introduction. New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
272 p.
Kahn, Peter H., Jr. 1999. The human relationship with nature:
development and culture. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 295 p.
Turiel, Elliot. 1998. The development of morality. In: Damon, W., ed.
Handbook of child psychology. 5th ed., volume 3. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 863–932.
Turiel, Elliot; Hildebrandt, Carolyn; Wainryb, Cecilia. 1991. Judging social issues: difficulties, inconsistencies, and consistencies.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
56(2): 1–15.
U.S. Department of the Interior/National Park Service. 1986. Gates
of the Arctic National Park: general management plan, land
protection plan, and wilderness suitability review. Washington,
DC: USDI/NPS.
Willis, Frank. 1985. Doing things right the first time: the National
Park Service and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. Washington, DC: USDI/NPS.
93