Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
particular environments is a major problem in determining impacts of visitation and
changing perceptions of the environment.
Cultural landscape documentation is somewhat narrower in scope than environmental
history because the question of nature's character is not so central (Mark 1996).
Nevertheless, it emphasises change over time and represents a way of integrating nature
with culture. In a park setting, its emphasis becomes one of design, material, change,
function and use, with one of its main effects on heritage management being the
broadening of the focus of historic preservation beyond buildings to the associated
landscape and environmental context (Mark 1991).
THE VALUE OF WILDERNESS
Decisions affecting environmental policies grow out of a political process (Henning
1971, 1974), in which 'value choice, implicit and explicit… orders the priorities of
government and determines the commitment of resources within the public jurisdiction'
(R.Simmons et al. 1974:457). Therefore, in order to consider the means by which
wilderness is utilised, it is essential to understand what the values of wilderness are. As
Henning (1987:293) observed: 'In the end, the survival of the wilderness will depend
upon values being a respected factor in the political and governmental process.'
The value of wilderness is not static. The value of a resource alters over time in
accordance with changes in the needs and attitudes of society. As noted above, ideas of
the values of primitive and wild land have shifted in relation to the changing perceptions
of western culture. Nevertheless, the dynamic nature of the wilderness resource does not
prevent an assessment of its values as they are seen in present-day society. Indeed, such
an evaluation is essential to arguments as to why wilderness should be conserved.
Broadly defined, the values of wilderness may be classified as being either
anthropocentric or biocentric in nature. The principal emphasis of the anthropocentric
approach is that the value of wilderness emerges in its potential for direct human use. In
contrast, 'the biocentric perspective places primary emphasis on the preservation of the
natural order'. The former approach places societal above ecological values and
emphasises recreational and aesthetic rather than environmental qualities. Both
perspectives focus on human benefits. However, 'the important distinction between them
is the extent to which these benefits are viewed as being independent of the naturalness of
wilderness ecosystems' (Hendee et al. 1978:18).
A more radical, and increasingly popular, interpretation of the notion of the value of
wilderness has been provided by what is often termed a deep ecology perspective
(Godfrey-Smith 1979, 1980; R.Nash 1990; Oelschlaeger 1991). Deep ecologists argue
that wilderness should be held as valuable not just because it satisfies a human need
(instrumental value) but as an end in itself (intrinsically valuable). Instrumental
anthropocentric values, derived from a Cartesian conception of nature, are regarded as
being opposed to a holistic or systematic view 'in which we come to appreciate the
symbiotic interdependencies of the natural world' (Godfrey-Smith 1979:316). The
holistic view broadly corresponds with the ecological conception of wilderness (Worster
1977; R.Nash 1990; Oelschlaeger 1991). However, it goes further by arguing that 'the
philosophical task is to try and provide adequate justification…for a scheme of values
