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

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.