Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASLA Research Grant
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Landscape Journal
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Landscape Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASLA Research Grant
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Visit uwp on Facebook
Research Article

Whose Wild? Resolving Cultural and Biological Diversity Conflicts in Urban Wilderness

Randolph T. Hester Jr., Nova J. Blazej and Ian S. Moore
Landscape Journal, September 1999, 18 (2) 137-146; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/lj.18.2.137
Randolph T. Hester Jr.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nova J. Blazej
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ian S. Moore
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Urban wilderness is emerging as a significant social and ecological feature in the urban landscape. Urban wilderness parks serve several ecological functions: they provide habitat for diverse plant and animal species, provide watershed protection, and allow natural processes, such as landslides and floods, to occur without harm to humans. The social benefzts of urban wilderness parks include improved human health and increased perception of quality of life (Ulrich 1979; Hester 1989; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; McNally 1995). Although urban wilderness parks confer multiple benefits to both people and natural systems, many conflicts arise between efforts to protect the biological integrity of park ecosystems and efforts to ensure equal access to urban wilderness areas by all members of our culturally diverse society (Hester 1975; Cranz 1978).

Three misconceptions underlie the conflicts regarding use and environmental protection in urban wilderness: 1) low-income people and people of color neither appreciate nor support urban wilderness (Foresta 1984); 2) recreational overuse and abuse by new users consistently diminishes the biological diversity of urban wilderness (Hutchison 1988); and 3) conflict over recreational use in urban wilderness is a new phenomenon (Sax 1980). Strong evidence suggests that these positions are myths. Many new visitors and first time users of urban wilderness are ethnic minorities, which suggests a likely increase in cultural diversity in urban wilderness users (Community Development by Design 1991; Spencer 1994; Loukaitou-Sideris 1995). People of color appreciate the benefits of urban wilderness and are one of the groups most supportive of open space land acquisition and park development (Lewis 1995). Research on recreational impacts to biodiversity shows that traditional facilities such as low-intensity hiking trails passing through core wilderness habitat can have serious short-term impacts on wildlife and plants. In contrast, the facilities desired by new users may have less of an impact on regional biodiversity because these facilities are generally concentrated at the edges of urban wilderness parks.

The siting and design of these facilities is a point of contention. However, the root of these disputes lies more in emerging cultural conflict than in scientifically based arguments for the protection of biodiversity. The future of urban wilderness planning and design hinges on the integration of biological and social concerns. The synthesis of good science and cultural understanding can help dispel myths surrounding urban wilderness park use and its impacts. Furthermore, coordinated action by all wilderness park users is essential for the protection and expansion of wilderness areas. Without this unified effort, everyone suffers the loss of urban wilderness parks.

  • © 1999 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Log in through your institution

You may be able to gain access using your login credentials for your institution. Contact your library if you do not have a username and password.
If your organization uses OpenAthens, you can log in using your OpenAthens username and password. To check if your institution is supported, please see this list. Contact your library for more details.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Landscape Journal
Vol. 18, Issue 2
21 Sep 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Landscape Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Whose Wild? Resolving Cultural and Biological Diversity Conflicts in Urban Wilderness
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Landscape Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Landscape Journal web site.
Citation Tools
Whose Wild? Resolving Cultural and Biological Diversity Conflicts in Urban Wilderness
Randolph T. Hester Jr., Nova J. Blazej, Ian S. Moore
Landscape Journal Sep 1999, 18 (2) 137-146; DOI: 10.3368/lj.18.2.137

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Whose Wild? Resolving Cultural and Biological Diversity Conflicts in Urban Wilderness
Randolph T. Hester Jr., Nova J. Blazej, Ian S. Moore
Landscape Journal Sep 1999, 18 (2) 137-146; DOI: 10.3368/lj.18.2.137
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

UWP

© 2023 Landscape Journal

Powered by HighWire