by Emma J Devereux
Citation: Devereux, E.J.,(2022), “Conservation Policy & The Idea of “Wilderness””, EcoFoodDev, https://www.ecofooddev.com/conservation-policy-the-idea-of-wilderness/
Does wilderness still exist?
The idea that wilderness areas represent the last parts of nature untouched by civilization can be said to be a myth. Human occupation and activity over thousands of years, and the impact on the global environment due to anthropogenic climate change, renders true areas of wilderness as rare to nonexistent. But what is wilderness? Is our idea of wilderness the same as those areas and aspects of the natural world that environmental scientists, ecologists and conservationists are trying to protect? Is the complex and often indefinable or contradictory idea of wilderness symbolic of the complex and difficult nature of conservation science and policy? Policy that weighs impossible priorities such as the preservation of certain areas of the natural world over others, in the face of inadequate funding and supports?
Central to environmental sustainability and climate change mitigation movements such as rewilding is the idea of “wildness”. What does it mean to REwild a space? What is “wild” in different contexts, different environments, and importantly what does it mean to different people?
The idea of ‘wilderness’ can be seen as a social construct, as an experience or way of thinking as opposed to something tangible, and in that sense, both never existed in the ‘natural world’ (being an idea or an identity) and yet still exists (in those terms) as keenly as ever- in the form of an imagined idea regarding the landscape. Further to this, landscapes deemed to be ‘natural’ and represent ‘wilderness’ have been increasingly explored and divided into administrative units for the purpose of environmental management in the form of protected areas, national parks, and an array of other categories of managed landscapes. As Robert Nash (1976) and Jarkko Saarinen (2016) argue, the western concept of wilderness is a culturally and politically loaded idea and was created by civilization. Do the aims of conservation science and policy match the aims of those campaigning for ‘wilderness’ preservation?
I argue that almost no area on earth has escaped human impact, and that all “wilderness” areas have somehow been altered by anthropogenic-driven change. If we have not been there, our impact due to climate change has. The Antarctic is commonly seen as an exception and an example of true wilderness, yet Lee et al., (2017) examine the impact of climate change on the Antarctic continent and its biodiversity, predicting significant biotic homogenization and the spread of invasive species in the coming decades- and this is before we mention the effects of global warming on ice cover at the poles. The tendrils of human action have therefore touched all parts of the globe. It is my view that, considering this, concerted and large-scale efforts to manage global ecosystems are necessary, as the idea of “leaving well enough alone” will not be sufficient to undo the enduring mark that we have left.
In this post, I will present arguments on the definition of wilderness and will follow with subsequent blogs on examples of wilderness creation, identity and national parks, and discussions of wilderness versus conservation.
Wilderness: Definitions & Constructs
Browsing the literature on wilderness, names such as Nash, Cronon and Muir emerge repeatedly. Cronon’s (1996) assessment of the wilderness ethic has been key for conservation research in Canada, for example. What is common to all these authors is that they highlight the complexity of providing a definition of the term ‘wilderness’, and some even critique the small set of stakeholders that are involved in the debate.
For most people, the term wilderness evokes an image of wild, untamed, pristine, virgin, remote, areas that are devoid of human influence, or have been long cleared of human occupation (Wall-Reinius, 2012). We think of these areas as the last vestiges of “original nature” and imbue them with various sentiments and morality. The word ‘wilderness’ is derived from an Old English word denoting wild deer, the etymology implying uncultivated and uninhabited land (Wall-Reinius, 2012). In this meaning, nature is the opposite of civilization, and is something that existed before humans and society. This is a common idea in Western thinking.
Millennia of Wilderness Change
Most so-called wilderness areas on Earth have at some stage been touched by human existence, and this is one area in which environmental archaeology, environmental science, paleoecology and climate science overlap and can inform one another. Discovering the beginnings and development of agriculture is a major preoccupation of fields such as archaeology, anthropology, and sociology. The emergence of farming is seen as akin to the emergence of human society. Whilst there were multiple centres of origin, agriculture is accepted to have emerged roughly 10,000 years ago in the Near East Levantine region, paving the way for the creation of modern society and of our modern economic structure. Hence, humans have been modifying the landscape for many thousands of years, altering the character of wilderness for millennia.
If we think of wilderness as not being exclusive of humanity, then wilderness spaces have often been considered the preserve of local, traditional ways of life and as places belonging to indigenous peoples. However, globalization has driven the search for raw materials, the expansion of large-scale agriculture, and urbanization (to name but a few) into such areas, sourcing material and land for non-local consumption, leading to the destruction of many unique habitats or perceived wildernesses worldwide (Saarinen, 2016). Kruger et al., (2011) discuss the establishment of wilderness boundaries around managed parks in an effort to preserve and expand wilderness areas and present the idea that wilderness areas are in flux. They state that in their experience, many classified wilderness areas do not provide a “true wilderness experience”, while others not classified as such do have the potential to provide such an experience. They also highlight that land development and landscape change can rob an area of its consideration as a protected wilderness area. Hence, even areas we might consider as representing areas of true wilderness experience states of fluidity and flux.
Wilderness: A Social Construction
Key to an understanding of wilderness is that it can be thought of as a social construction. It is for this reason that I state in the introduction that wilderness both never existed, and yet always has (for humans) existed- it is an idea, rather than an objective reality. An issue that emerges when defining wilderness is the consideration of the historical aspects of the term, as well as deciding who controls the narrative in a material sense (in terms of conservation and the economic benefits). In this scenario, indigenous peoples are usually not the beneficiaries.
Cronon (1996) attests that wilderness is “quite profoundly a human creation”. We reflect so much of our own desires onto the landscape and utilize wilderness to construct our own personal and social identities. In this way, we create sacred landscapes where you can disappear to find yourself or discover the divine. Sacred landscapes were a common feature in the ancient world, such as Ancient Greek Peak Sanctuaries and their pilgrimage paths, and modern pilgrimage paths and sacred natural features, such as Ireland’s Crough Patrick. This idea is also no better exemplified than in the Romantic Movement of the 18th century, characterized by its awe of nature. This, of course, involved a certain amount of primitivism, and exclusion of vast swathes of society.
There are also social groups that identify wilderness as a threat to their culture, identity, and their local economy (Zoderer & Tasser, 2021). Re-wilding projects might often find opposition from farming or agrarian communities, and reasonably so considering the threat that they perceive. Such an example is the reintroduction of certain large carnivores in Scotland such as lynx. Scotland is primarily upland, marginal, sheep farming, and the introduction of predators can cause significant economic ruin for these communities, with no alternative means of subsistence available to them. As such, conflicts regarding wilderness often pit urban residents against those living on the land in rural settings. Living in an urban context, historically, wilderness did not present the same daily obstacle as it may have for early farmers or pioneers. The purpose of wilderness for such urban dwellers was pleasure, and this idea overshadowed the formation of the first national parks such as Yellowstone. The wilderness was, and still is, considered a place where one could recharge themselves, and escape the pressures of civilization. In this way, wilderness was also a primarily male realm. Men could be real men, rugged in the face of untamed nature- a nature that can only be tamed by a white man (Cronon, 1996).
Wilderness: People or No People?
As mentioned, wilderness is generally thought of as being devoid of people. However, people have been part of the landscape for millions of years and have been manipulating the land for at least 10 – 12,000 years. Many modern concepts of wilderness are unfortunately underpinned by indigenous removal and genocide, and the erasure of history. The North American “wilderness” had been occupied for ~20,000 years by Native Americans, however, pioneers considered Native Americans as animals, and such a notion was further driven by cultural beliefs of the American settlers such as ‘manifest destiny’- the idea that the colonists were fated to spread democracy and Christianity across the North American landmass, and that that was civilization. For Native Americans, the landscape did have meaning (Basso, 1996) prior to conquest. The landscape was (and is) symbolic, socialized, and ancestral, and not just of economic significance. Space is socially produced, dictated by the person or group experiencing it, and varies according to gender, age, social position, and relationships with others (Tilley, 1994). The idea that we can now wipe the slate clean with regards to the removal of indigenous peoples via rewilding is thus a fallacy, as this action and meaning now lives in the fluid definition of wilderness.
In the ecosystem management approach, the role of people in ecosystems is handled in two ways: acceptance that even isolated systems are influenced by humans; and that some communities have traditionally used and managed biodiverse areas, and as such may have contributed to the conservation of these areas (Kalamandeen & Gillson, 2007).
Wilderness: Separating Order from Chaos
Nash (1976) describes how wilderness was considered frightening, savage, and desolate, meaning the pioneer conquering of wilderness was thus an even greater and exceptional achievement. This became part of the foundational myth of white US identity and a sense of national exceptionalism. This is not unique to North America. The idea of wilderness representing chaos, and the need for borders between civilization and chaos, can be seen to have roots in ancient Greek thought on geography, travel, and the larger world, with implications for the self and social identity. For archaic Greeks, unlimited space was uncomfortable and chaotic. Formlessness and diffusion were the enemies of order and hierarchy. The “boundless” earth therefore had to be given boundaries before it could be made intelligible. For the archaic Greeks this separation of earth from infinite space was achieved simply by deciding that, in whatever direction one travelled, the land must eventually end, and water begin. This was visualised in the notion of Ocean, a river which bounded the island Earth. On the other side of Ocean, the water and the sky merge and became murky, and chaos reigns. This can be seen in the writings of Herodotus and Hecataeus, and is represented on the Shield of Achilles, as well as in many other writings from this period and later.
At the outset I suggested that wilderness no longer exists, if indeed it ever has, and have presented arguments that wilderness is a social construction, an idea, a state of mind, a mirror to the society creating it, and an ideal for the future, among other things. Yet definitions do matter as they have the power to influence society and policy. In the upcoming blogs I will discuss ideas of wilderness creation and national identity, especially in state formation, the establishment of protected areas, wilderness policy and tourism, and wilderness versus conservation science/policy.
References cited
Basso, K.H., 1996. ‘Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western Apache.’ UNM Press.
Cronon, W., 1996. ‘The trouble with wilderness: or getting back to the wrong nature.’ Environmental History, 1(1), pp.7-28.
Devereux, E.J., 2021. ‘Crop Cultivation’s Astonishing Age: 10,000 Years of Change.’, From Farm to Fork: The Ecology of Eating, http://www.ecofooddev.com/category/the-archaeology-of-farming-old-solutions-to-modern-problems/ Accessed: 08.06.2021.
IUCN. 1994. The World Conservation Union Guidelines for protected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland
Kalamandeen, M. and Gillson, L., 2007. Demything “wilderness”: implications for protected area designation and management. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(1), pp.165-182.
Kruger, S.C., Rusworth, I.A. and Oliver, K., 2011. ‘The verification of wilderness area boundaries as part of a buffer zone demarcation process: A case study from the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site.’ In In: Watson, Alan; Murrieta-Saldivar, Joaquin; McBride, Brooke, comps. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Ninth World Wilderness Congress symposium; November 6-13, 2009; Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Proceedings RMRS-P-64. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. p. 190-195. (Vol. 64, pp. 190-195).
Lee, J.R., Raymond, B., Bracegirdle, T.J., Chades, I., Fuller, R.A., Shaw, J.D. and Terauds, A., 2017. ‘Climate change drives expansion of Antarctic ice-free habitat.’ Nature, 547(7661), pp.49-54.
Moore, S.A., 2015. The” world’s biggest zoo”? Elephants, ecological change, and the contested legacies of conservation in the Kruger National Park (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon).
Nash, R., 1976. ‘The value of wilderness.’ Environmental Review: ER, 1(3), pp.14-25.
Saarinen, J., 2016. ‘Wilderness use, conservation and tourism: what do we protect and for and from whom?.’ Tourism Geographies, 18(1), pp.1-8.
Tilley, C., 1994. A phenomenology of landscape: places, paths, and monuments (Vol. 10). Oxford: Berg.
Walker, B. and Sinclair, A.R., 2003. The Kruger experience: ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press.
Wall-Reinius, S., 2012. Wilderness and culture: Tourist views and experiences in the Laponian World Heritage Area. Society & Natural Resources, 25(7), pp.621-632.
Zoderer, B.M. and Tasser, E., 2021. ‘The plurality of wilderness beliefs and their mediating role in shaping attitudes towards wilderness.’ Journal of Environmental Management, 277, p.111392.
