Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T00:15:46.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Management in Wilderness and Natural-area Preservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

George H. Stankey
George H. Stankey
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Science, Canberra College of Advanced Education, P.O. Box 1, Belconnen, ACT 2616, Australia; formerly Research Social Scientist, Wilderness Management Research Project, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is argued that, while designation (i.e. allocation) of an area to wilderness or related nature conservation purposes is an important action, it is merely a necessary but insufficient step in the long-term preservation and protection of such areas. Although one can argue that areas designated for preservation objectives require little or no management, the persistent pressures stemming from their continued use, as well as external pressures stemming from increasing (and/or increasingly mobile) human populations, make the issue of management not one of whether but rather of how.

Wilderness management is an inherently difficult task. Generally low levels of information foster great uncertainly with which managers must contend. The difficulty is further promoted by the relative scarcity of the wilderness resource, and by potentially irreversible consequences stemming from decisions made in the face of uncertainty.

The difficult nature of the job of wilderness management could be made less so by improvements in the following areas:

1. Development of accurate baseline information about the wilderness resource and its use;

2. Development of a hierarchical management framework that specified goals, objectives, and actions;

3. Improved understanding of the consequences of alternative management actions;

4. Resolution of the underlying philosophical basis for management; and

5. Development of a broad spectrum of areas with varying levels of importance placed on Nature conservation, so that some areas are provided with relatively high levels of human presence and impact, while others are managed so as to provide the highest degree of protection to Nature and conservation values.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Summer 1982 , pp. 149 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Clark, Roger N., Hendee, John C. & Campbell, Frederick (1971). Values, behaviour and conflict in modern camping culture. J. Leisure Research, 3(3), pp. 143–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Roger N. & Stankey, George H. (1979). The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum: A Framework for Planning, Management and Research. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-98. Portland, Oregon, USA: 32 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Forster, Richard R. (1973). Planning for Man and Nature in National Parks: Reconciling Perpetuation and Use. IUCN Publications New Series No. 26, Morges, Switzerland: 84 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Grazia, Sebastian de (1970). Some reflections on the history of outdoor recreation. Pp. 89–97 in Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning (Ed. Driver, B. L.). University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: iii + 316 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hendee, John C. & Stankey, George H. (1973). Biocentricity in wilderness management. BioScience, 23(9), pp. 535–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendee, John C., Stankey, George H. & Lucas, Robert C. (1978). Wilderness Management. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.: ix + 381 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
IUCN (1978). Categories, Objectives and Criteria for Protected Areas. (Final report prepared by the Committee on Criteria and Nomenclature, Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas.) International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), Morges, Switzerland: 19 pp. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Lucas, Robert C. (1973). Wilderness: A Management Framework. J. Soil and Water Conservation, 28(4), pp. 150–4.Google Scholar
Lundgren, Allen L. (1976). Planning and the law of unexpected consequences. Pp. 88–99 in Proceedings of the XVI International Union of Forestry Research Organizations World Congress. Oslo, Norway: 533 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Marshall, George (1969). Introduction. Pp. 13–5 in Wilderness and the Quality of Life. (Ed. McCloskey, Maxine E. & Gilligan, James P.). Siena Club, San Francisco, California, USA: xv + 267 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Nash, Roderick (1973). Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA: xiii + 300 pp.Google Scholar
Polunin, Nicholas & Eidsvik, Harold K. (1979). Ecological principles for the establishment and management of national parks and equivalent reserves. Environmental Conservation, 6(1), pp. 21–6, 2 figs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speight, M. C. D. (1973). Outdoor Recreation and its Ecological Effects: A Bibliography and Review. Discussion Papers in Conservation No. 4, University College, London, England, UK: 35 pp.Google Scholar
Stankey, George H., Lucas, Robert C. & Lime, David W. (1976). Crowding in parks and wilderness. Design and Environment, 7(3), pp. 38–41.Google Scholar
Tierney, Trevor & Johnstone, Gavin (1978). Antarctica as wilderness. Pp. 118–26 in Australia's Wilderness (Ed. Mosley, Geoffrey). Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, Australia: 308 pp., illustr.Google Scholar