|
David Cole - Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute
Cooperators: Laurie Yung - University of Montana
BACKGROUND
For most large wilderness areas and parks, enabling legislation and management policy call for preservation of these protected areas unimpaired in perpetuity. Central to the notions of protection, preservation and unimpairment has been the concept of maintaining "naturalness," a condition imagined by many to persist over time, in the absence of human intervention. The goal of naturalness has been codified in legislation and protected area policy and built into agency culture. For much of the 20th century, the adequacy of naturalness as the guiding concept for stewardship of protected areas remained largely unchallenged. Scientists, managers, and conservationists assumed that natural conditions could be preserved and that doing so would assure long-term conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems within protected area boundaries.
In recent decades, however, people have begun to question the feasibility of maintaining natural conditions in protected areas. Growing awareness of Native American influence and recognition of the dynamics of natural systems raise questions about what naturalness even is. And with increasing recognition of the potential effects of climate change, there is a dawning awareness that it may not even be desirable to maintain naturalness. Is the concept of naturalness still sufficient to guide protected area stewardship? Should it be reinterpreted or more precisely defined? Are there other concepts that should complement it or take its place? To address these questions, the Leopold Institute held a small workshop entitled "Beyond Naturalness" in April 2007.
A synthesis paper, developed following the workshop and published in The George Wright Forum, can be downloaded by clicking here.
A book, to be published by Island Press in 2009, is currently being developed.
|