Research in the Wilderness

Research is my business. I also like to spend time in wilderness areas. So I am predisposed to see no irreconcilable conflict between the two.

I know that many people regard research, in the social as well as the natural sciences, as an inappropriate means of getting at questions of the value of wilderness and of conditions for its preservation and use. They believe that wilderness values are essentially intangible and impossible to classify, measure, and compare with values of other uses.

I disagree with this contention, but in doing so wish first to note one exception: the value that some, perhaps many, see in having in the world wild areas in the purest sense—completely and forever unused—just for the sake of having them. There may be a psychological benefit, a sense of steadiness and attachment to earth, nature, and ecological design, which derives from a person’s knowing that wilderness will persist somewhere and that he is absolutely committed to its preservation.

Despite this elusive but perhaps overriding aspect, I proceed from the premise that wilderness, like other natural resources, has little value or research interest apart from present or potential use by people. Granting that wilderness is an economic resource and has value because of use, an interesting question immediately arises: how much of what kinds of use can it have and still be wilderness? Thus, my first suggestion for intensified research on wilderness concerns how standards can be arrived at. My second suggestion is for study of supply—how much existing and potential wilderness there is—and my third for study of present and prospective demand.

The three lines of study add up to a framework for research on wilderness as a natural resource. Without such a framework that would draw together the main parts of the field and connect the whole field with the evolution and aspirations of society as a whole, the research would be narrow, barren, and frustrating.