Críticas y fortalecimiento de la planificación estratégica

Although the concept of wilderness has been around since biblical times, its meaning has changed over time, and varies considerably between countries and individuals (Eagles,

McCool & Haynes 2002). The actual word ‘wilderness’ derives from the German phrase ‘will doer ness’, which means a place of self-willed animals. ‘Will’ means self-willed (e.g. not subject to human domination); ‘doer’ means wild animal and ‘ness’ means place (ibid.). Therefore wilderness is seen as a place where nature exists on its own terms, where human interference is minimal or non-existent, and where humans must abide by the values and rhythms of nature. The word is commonly used (and well understood) in English and Germanic languages such as German, Dutch and Scandinavian (ibid.).

Many of the basic elements of the concept of wilderness derive from the bible, where Jesus faces personal challenges and tribulations alone in the desert wilderness. He suffers mental and physical hardships, but overcomes these through personal strength. This experience prepares Jesus for the personal challenges to come. It also refreshes and rejuvenates him as he spends time alone, away from people and society, and has time to reflect and contemplate. Seen in this way, wilderness is a place of redemption, contemplation and reflection; a place to be alone or with small group, where nature dominates; a place to get away from ‘normal’ life; a place which provides a contrast to everyday life; a place of reflection and thought; a place of challenge and danger where people must overcome difficulties through personal skills,

strength and determination; a place that pushes people to their limits, and in doing so, prepares them for challenges in every day life.

This theme has been adapted in the Western world to wilderness recreation, where wilderness is typically seen as a place where individuals can travel alone or in small groups, to places where they will be at the mercy of nature, and where they can challenge themselves mentally and physically, whilst also escaping from everyday life and rejuvenating the mind and soul. This contemporary view of wilderness represents the romantic view of nature which arose during the late 18th century (described later in this section). These ideas are reflected in the wilderness legislation of most Western countries today. For example, in the United States (the first country to place the wilderness concept into legislation, and commonly understood to be

the founder of the recreational wilderness movement), the Wilderness Act (1964) states that wilderness is: ‘an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammelled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain… [an area of] land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which … has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation’. Most Western countries (including New Zealand) have modelled their wilderness policy and legislation on the US philosophy12.

In the 21st Century, wilderness is believed to contribute to the ecological, economic and social health and well being of individuals and Western societies (Aykroyd 2009; Eagles et al. 2002; Hine, Pretty & Barton 2009; Roberts 2009). In addition to the numerous recreational

opportunities available in wilderness, it is also believed to have many other important values such as ecological, scientific, educational, scenic and historical value (see Jensen 1995; Driver, Nash & Haas 1987; Reed & Brown 2003). (Some of these values will be discussed in Chapter Four). Despite this, wilderness has not always been regarded as a thing of great value to society, and interpretations of wilderness have shifted significantly over time. Bell & Lyall (2002, p. 6) note that: ‘the origins of the concept are complex. Its roots are found in a

discourse that reaches to the present from classical and biblical traditions’. During the middle ages, wilderness was thought to be something frightening and alien to humans. It was seen as a dangerous place that people should avoid at all costs (Nash 1969). Wilderness was described as barren, ugly, monstrous and terrifying. It was believed to be a chaotic, disordered,

dangerous and useless area of wasteland in which it would be impossible for mankind to make a home. Cultivated land, on the other hand, represented beauty, order and safety (see Bell & Lyall 2002; Lochhead 1994; Roche 1984; Soper 1995).

During the romantic movement of the late 18th and early 19th century, however, Western views of wilderness changed significantly13. Wilderness came to be seen as a place of beauty and power; a place to be respected and celebrated because of the ‘natural’ order and absence of human influence. The whole concept of wilderness shifted from being an object of

condemnation and repulsion to a place of splendour and celebration. People began to look at wilderness areas in awe, and to seek out wilderness as a place for spiritual renewal, aesthetic appreciation and contemplation (Bell & Lyall 2002; Philipsen 1995). Wilderness areas and

12

The precise wording and details of the New Zealand legislative concept of wilderness will be discussed in detail in Chapter Two.

13

their ‘unspoiled’ nature and lack of human influence even became regarded as ‘sacred’ places where one could be close to God, and free from the evils of modern society (Cronon 1995; Lochhead 1994; Meeker 1984). This process involved a profound change in Western environmental consciousness and the human/nature relationship, which led to an increasing desire to protect wilderness (Oeschlager 1991).

These shifts in the perception of wilderness have led a number of commentators to conclude that wilderness is a social construction - a product of the culture that has created it (see, for example Bell & Lyall 2002; Cronon 1995; Eagles et al. 2002; Grant 1998; Higham et al. 2000; McCorvie & Welch 1996; Meeker 1984; Schrepfer 2005; Stankey 1973; Williams 2002a). The purpose and function of wilderness is believed to reflect the needs and values of the society of which it is a part. Gill (1999, p. 54) found that ‘[the wilderness discourse] is about order and chaos, identity and otherness; it is as much a social construct as a natural event, and inherently about nation and empire’. And Meeker (1984, p. 131) concluded:

America’s national parks are expressive of myth that has been present in Western culture for some 4,000 years. They are national Gardens of Eden where we can feel close to the origins of human life, and to the peace, innocence and moral purity that myth ascribes to the origins of mankind.

This topic of debate became prominent in the academic arena after an article by Cronon (1995), in which he proposed that wilderness is a product of civilisation - a ‘profoundly human creation… the creation of very particular human cultures at very particular moments in human history’ (p.7). Daniel Williams has advanced this discussion significantly in recent years, arguing that the meaning of wilderness is socially produced, and that it is ‘anchored in history and culture, and not some enduring, objective or visible properties’ (Williams 2002a p. 123). Others have drawn attention to the gendered and racialised nature of wilderness, and highlighted the way in which it has been constructed as a white, European male phenomenon (see Martin 2004; Meeker 1984; Roenke & Lacy 1998; Schrepfer 2005). Such studies have raised awareness of the multiple constructions of wilderness, and challenged researchers to reconsider some of the assumptions underlying their research. As remarked by Williams (2002a), this kind of research indicates that the meaning of wilderness is ‘continuously created and recreated through social interactions and practices’ (p. 123). Findings from these studies will be discussed in Chapter Four.