#dimension 10313 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

forestschoolpractitioner-blog · 6 years

Text

Week 4 - Managing Wilderness

What makes an area “natural” and “wild”? Is it a contradiction to talk about “actively managing” a wilderness area to keep it “natural” and “wild”?

The terms natural and wild are defined in many different ways; for the purpose of this report, the definition will be utilised from a cornerstone article by Siipi (2008). They say that the environment (natural and wild) can be viewed on a spectrum from natural to unnatural. The argument where different areas come under this spectrum has been widely argued by many spheres of bio-ethics and environmental ethics. One view is hat of the management and conservation of such natural areas (Hausmann et al., 2016). However, Vining, Merrick & Price (2008) explain that in America, they have the Wilderness Act of 1964, which says that natural areas should stay untrammelled (untouched) by man. This contradiction is echoed through many an argument surrounded by the idea of conservation, and this is what this report aims to explore.

The conservation of environments is a key stone issue in many policy makers eyes (Braat & de Groot, 2012). So much so that it is important to educate individuals on the importance of conserving natural environments from issues like climate change, deforestation and to some extent tourism (Bhuiyan et al., 2010). Many tourism providers (namely eco-tourism providers) aim to engage, educate and inspire individuals into the importance of maintaining these natural and wild spaces, including how to be aware of how to travel and experience these spaces sustainably (The International Ecotourism Society, 2018). This encouragement to conserve and actively manage these natural areas causes conflict of interest (contradiction if you will) between the idea of conservation and the fact that natural and wild areas should be untouched by man.

An interesting anecdote by Siipi (2008) explores the idea that humans are part of the natural world. They explore the concept of everything in nature falling under the spectrum of natural to unnatural. With this in mind, Siipi raises an interesting question surrounding the idea of human heart transplants (bare with me). If having a human heart transplant is considered to be a fair way of ‘actively managing’ life, is this then an unnatural process? If it is to be considered natural, then why is the conservation and active management of a natural area, through a process of planting flora or protecting endangered fauna, considered to be unnatural? This is an interesting question: are we at liberty to decide what survives in a natural and wild area, through active management, or should we adhere to the Gaia hypothesis (Barbiero, 2011) - to allow mother nature to take her course? This opens further questions:

If Gaia (Mother Earth) and humanity are both to be considered as ‘natural’ and ‘wild’, then does our impact of climate change, bio-depletion and acts such as deforestation count as being a natural act?

Or, if we don’t consider our actions to be natural and wild, do we have an obligation, as a visitor to Mother Earth, to actively manage our impact of us visiting?

Both of these views urge on the side of conservation for different reasons, but ultimately, we should actively mange the environment for Gaia.

A further idea for conservation is that if the human race continues with the impact it is making to the environment, we could be looking at becoming extinct (Crist, Rinker & McKibben, 2009). With this idea of extinction in mind, does the human race have a right to be able to conserve itself, in the same way that other types of flora and fauna would defend themselves when faced with bio-depletion, endangerment or extinction? With the aforementioned comments in mind, the concept of ‘actively managing’ natural and wild areas for human gain seems to be a completely logical and understandable one.

A less philosophical view is discussed by Siipi (2008). They say that even though the ‘active managed’ wilderness areas can be considered to some as unnatural, these areas are often restored, managed or made with the natural image in mind. An example of this is the human impact on the Amazon Rainforest. Typically, when areas are harvested for resources or human habitation, the developers attempt to rectify the damage by planting further wooded areas to support the flora and fauna’s affected by our impact. This could be therefore considered as ‘actively managing’ these areas in a natural way.

However, there are some views that consider the idea of managing a wilderness, to keep it natural and wild, as a contradiction. Hobbs et al. (2011) discusses the idea that some conservationists have an unrealistic view of restoring wilderness areas back to the image of Eden. This unrealistic view is simple, it is not possible to restore a wilderness area back to it’s natural and wild state after human impact. This is because there will always be a “footprint” of the impact in that area, especially if ‘actively managed’. Furthermore, the wilderness is not a ‘static’ entity, it is ever changing (Hobbs et al., 2011). Therefore, by managing an area is a massive contradiction. You cant manage an area without a ‘plan of action’, and there is no way of knowing what nature intends and therefore it cannot be natural or wild.

I personally feel that is a wilderness area is, by definition: untrammelled by man, then it shouldn’t be being ‘actively managed’. Having said this, some designated wilderness areas do have people visit like national parks. If these areas are to be shared, and I feel they should, then a process has to be put into place to limit the disturbance, including the management. One way of keeping these areas natural and wild is to restrict the human footprint. Timanfaya national park in Lanzarote has done exactly this (National Parks’ Regional Organism, 2018); the national park has a road that runs through the middle of it and a small area (relatively speaking) which tourists can visit. The rest is left to its own devices and allowed to be natural and wild.

Notes:

A paper by Mittermeier et al (2003) explains that 15 years ago, 45% of the Earths surface considered as wilderness. A more recent paper by Allan, Venter and Watson (2017) illustrates how these wilderness areas are in decline through unsustainable means i.e. logging.

References:

Allan, J. R., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. (2017). Temporally inter-comparable maps of terrestrial wilderness and the Last of the Wild. Scientific data, 4, 170187.

Barbiero, G. (2011). Biophilia and Gaia. Two hypothesis for an affective ecology. Journal of Bio-Urbanism, 1, 11-27.

Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Islam, R., Siwar, C., & Ismail, S. M. (2010). Educational tourism and forest conservation: Diversification for child education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7, 19-23.

Braat, L. C., & de Groot, R. (2012). The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 4-15.

Crist, E., Rinker, H. B., & McKibben, B. (2009). Gaia in turmoil: climate change, biodepletion, and earth ethics in an age of crisis. MIT Press. .

Hausmann, A., Slotow, R. O. B., Burns, J. K., & Di Minin, E. (2016). The ecosystem service of sense of place: benefits for human well-being and biodiversity conservation. Environmental conservation, 43(2), 117-127.

Hobbs, R. J., Hallett, L. M., Ehrlich, P. R., & Mooney, H. A. (2011). Intervention ecology: applying ecological science in the twenty-first century. BioScience, 61(6), 442-450.

Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Brooks, T. M., Pilgrim, J. D., Konstant, W. R., Da Fonseca, G. A., & Kormos, C. (2003). Wilderness and biodiversity conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(18), 10309-10313.

Online Booking Office - NATIONAL PARKS' REGIONAL ORGANISM. (2018). Reservasparquesnacionales.es. Retrieved 15 March 2018, from http://www.reservasparquesnacionales.es/real/ParquesNac/usu/html/listado-actividades-oapn.aspx?ii=6ENG&cen=6

Siipi, H. (2008). Dimensions of naturalness. Ethics & the Environment, 13(1), 71-103.

The International Ecotourism Society | Uniting Conservation, Communities, and Sustainable Travel. (2018). Ecotourism.org. Retrieved 13 March 2018, from http://www.ecotourism.org/.

Vining, J., Merrick, M. S., & Price, E. A. (2008). The distinction between humans and nature: Human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Human Ecology Review, 1-11.

0 notes