k Service

ment of the Interior
Speaking of the Future:

A Dialogue on Conservation

A Report on a National Symposium

November 2–6, 2001

Reconstructing Conservation: History, Values, and Practice

University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park, Woodstock, Vermont

The symposium was convened by

The Woodstock Foundation, Inc.

University of Vermont School of Natural Resources

Conservation Study Institute

Trust for Public Land

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park

CONSERVATION AND STEWARDSHIP PUBLICATION NO. 4

Edited by Nora J. Mitchell, Leslie J. Hudson, and Deb Jones

Published by Conservation Study Institute

Woodstock, Vermont

2003

to share the information

and request only that you

ations and bibliographic

d images are not placed in

by their appearance in this

nnot be copied or other

cept in their printed con

lication without the

the copyright holders.

tion: Mitchell, Nora J.,

d Deb Jones, eds. Speak

Dialogue on Conservation.

nt: Conservation Study

es, contact:

 Institute

091

/ Fax: 802-457-3405
iii

CONTENTS

v Acknowledgments

1 Framing the Conversation3 Summaries of Selected Symposium Papers5 Social Capital and Conservation

— Rolf Diamant

8 Stewardship in a Global Context: Coping with Change and Fostering Civil Society

— Brent Mitchell

11 Land Protection in Vermont: The Impact of Conservation on People, Communities, 

and the Rural Economy— Darby Bradley

13 Community Values in Conservation: The Case of Central City and Black Hawk, Colorado

— Patricia A. Stokowski

14 What Happened in Chicago? The Growing Relevance of Ethics in Restoration

— Andrew Light

16 The Nature of History Preserved

— Robert L. McCullough

18 New Values, Old Landscapes: The Emergence of a Cultural Landscape Perspective

— Nora J. Mitchell

21 Conservation and Culture, Genuine and Spurious

— Luis A. Vivanco

22 Stewardship and Landscape Change: New Challenges and New Principles

— J. Glenn Eugster

25 Key Themes from the Symposium Dialogue 33 Invited Responses from Four Symposium Participants34 Conservation as Civic Participation

— John Elder

35 Reflections on the Tensions of Citizenship and Professionalism, the Local and the Global

— Susan Flader

37 Emerging Themes in Conservation: Diversity, Equity, and Civil Society

— Jessica Brown

39 Reconstructing Conservation from the Inside Out

— Tim Traver

41 Concluding Remarks

— Nora J. Mitchell

42 Epilogue

— David Lowenthal

44 Further Reading45 Appendices

46 Symposium Agenda47 Symposium Participants
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We must honor the special knowledge that each individual brings. 

— Glenn Eugster

The Conservation Study Institute was pleased to cosponsor a national symposium, “Reconstructing Conservation: History, Values, and Practice” with The Woodstock Foundation, Inc., the

University of Vermont’s School of Natural Resources, the Trust for Public Land, and MarshBillings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. The leadership provided by David Donath of TheWoodstock Foundation, Don DeHayes and Bob Manning of the School of Natural Resources, BenMinteer—then with Bucknell University and now with the Earth Institute of Columbia University,and David Houghton of the Trust for Public Land was critical to the success of this event. BenMinteer also played a key role in shaping the agenda for the symposium, identifying new trends ina number of academic fields, shepherding our planning committee, and advising participants inpreparation for the symposium. For the Woodstock portion of the symposium, Marsh-BillingsRockefeller National Historical Park hosted a tour of the park. The Woodstock Foundation andthe staff of the Billings Farm & Museum hosted two public events: a lecture by David Lowenthalon the legacy of George Perkins Marsh and a panel, followed by a reception and book signing, withthree symposium participants speaking on the legacy of Aldo Leopold.On behalf of the cosponsors, I wish to acknowledge the contributions of all the symposiumparticipants; collectively they created a stimulating mix of perspectives from academia and conservation practice. Delia Clark served as lead facilitator for the dialogue sessions in Woodstockand provided advice in organizing these sessions. Megha Budruk, Virginia Farley, Deb Jones, ChrisLaPointe, Daniel Laven, Peter Newman, Barbara Slaiby, and Jennifer Waite served as facilitatorsand recorders for the small group sessions; I thank them all for their good work. I also thankVirginia Farley and Rolf Diamant for their invaluable assistance with the writing and editing ofthis report.The contributors to this publication and the symposium participants who agreed to be respondents deserve special recognition. The epilogue written by David Lowenthal provides a valuablehistorical context for deliberations on the future of conservation. He eloquently reminds us thatthe past is prologue, and that it is important to examine our legacy critically as we strive to craftnew approaches and embrace stewardship.I hope this publication will stimulate further discussion about the future paths for conservation.I’d love to hear from you!

Nora MitchellDirector, Conservation Study InstituteNational Park ServiceWoodstock, VermontJanuary 2003
I n early November 2001, 50 conservation scholars and practitioners gathered in Vermont to consider the future of conservation. A national symposium,“Reconstructing Conservation: History, Values,and Practice,” challenged participants to critically examine long-held tenets of conservation

history and philosophy, and to envision principles for conservation in the twenty-first century.

Invited participants included prominent academicians in environmental philosophy and

history as well as leading conservation practitioners from the public and private sectors.1

Through presentations and dialogue, symposium participants explored conservation frominterdisciplinary perspectives and probed therelationship and tension between conservationthought and practice.

The symposium was sponsored by a broad

consortium of public and private organizations: The Woodstock Foundation, the Schoolof Natural Resources at the University ofVermont, the National Park Service Conservation Study Institute, the Trust for Public Land,and Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park. These cosponsors coalescedaround a common interest in stimulating morediscussion on the future of conservation andagreement that the time was right to convene anational symposium.SYMPOSIUM PUBLICATIONS

Two complementary publications have been

compiled to share the results of the symposium and to encourage further conversationson the future of conservation. Reconstructing

Conservation: Our Common Ground has been

edited by Ben Minteer and Bob Manning andwill be published by Island Press in the fall of2003. This book is a collection of originalessays devoted to exploring the conceptualfoundations and contemporary vitality of theAmerican conservation tradition in academicscholarship and professional practice. Theauthors are leading historians, philosophers,

social scientists, and conservation practitionerswho have made lasting contributions to ourshared understanding of the conservationmovement, and who are working to redefinethe meaning and role of conservation in theprofessions and in our communities.

This publication, Speaking of the Future: A

Dialogue on Conservation has been prepared by

the Conservation Study Institute with a focuson lessons and insights from conservationpractice. The institute’s role is to create opportunities for dialogue, reflection, and creativethinking about conservation’s past and present, as well as to contribute to shaping future

directions through collaborations such as thisone. With this publication, we hope to stimulate discussion and encourage readers to delvedeeper by reading Reconstructing Conservation:

Our Common Ground.

THE CONTEXT FOR THE SYMPOSIUM

Two hundred years after the birth of George

Perkins Marsh, and at the turn of a new century, seemed a particularly auspicious time fora symposium. In scholarship, there had been ashift toward contextualism and pluralism inconservation history and philosophy and theemergence of new paradigms in ecological science, humanities, and historic preservation.There had also been critiques of the philosophical tenets of American conservation thought,as exemplified by William Cronon’s book

Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature,

which stimulated a spirited debate around theconcept of wilderness.

In recent decades, conservation practice had

seen an increasing trend away from top-downmanagement strategies toward decentralized,place-based approaches. Private conservationefforts had grown exponentially, as illustratedby hundreds of new land trusts. Conservationwas often based on the consideration of ecosystems and large landscapes, working acrossboundaries, disciplines, and sectors. “Sense of

place” had become a pivotal concept for connecting people to their local environments. 

To become a viable goal, conservation...needs to become more inclusive in three senses: it must 

care for all locales, not just a select few; it must involve all the people, not just a select few; it 

must laud all creative acts, not just those that preserve some past. Above all, effective conservation

requires not just immediate but sustained action, collaborative effort over many generations.

— David Lowenthal

FRAMING THE CONVERSATION

[1]
[3]

PROGRAM

ormat was designed to

ity for dialogue among

s and between academics

The first two days in

University of Vermont,

f presentations, with

iscussion increasing as the

d. During the final two

 participants engaged in

arge-group sessions. The

logue encouraged debate

f ideas. These sessions

g principles for the future

ought and practice, imag

cenarios, and crafting new

tion.

LICATION

s with summaries of nine

e at the symposium. Each

ws insights from reflec

servation experience.

re followed by a compila

mes that emerged from the

oup discussions in

and dialogue summaries

ed by a series of essays by

ho participated in the

spondents highlight many

 of the presentations and

o broaden the vision for

rvation. Finally, David

ue provides a historical

oning and extending

oncludes this report with

 a path that deeply

p in our daily lives and

 useful, the terms “scholar/academic”

t necessarily represent the nuances 

ome “academics” are “practitioners”

 are many shades of variation in

ese terms to express the main profes

h conference participants were drawn.

Summaries of Selected Symposium Papers

“Conservation approaches are also becoming more 

complex, requiring us to weave together the broad 

strands of culture and nature with a diversity of 

disciplines, and to embrace broader social goals.”

— Jessica Brown
Robert Putnam, the widely read author of Bowling Alone, describes “social capital” as the “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity andtrustworthiness that arise from them....Civic virtue ismost powerful when embedded in a dense network ofreciprocal social relations.”1 It would be difficult to

imagine successful conservation on any level in thetwenty-first century that is not in large measure dependent on such social benefits. Fortunately, conservationactivities often generate their own social capital. We seeit in grassroots organizing, fundraising, meetings, andall manner of volunteer activities.

Within the universe of conservation practice, there 

are at least five trends toward the development of socialcapital: 

Reevaluation of what we consider to be mostimportant in personal and public life and how wemeasure success in conservation work

Reflecting on this rethinking, Gus Speth, dean of

the Yale School of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies, has written “we broke things down to the

component parts and laid out rational plans of attack,with deadlines, for tackling isolated problems. Now we know the most important resource is human motivation—hope, caring, our feelings about nature, andour fellow human beings.” 2

Peter Forbes, in an essay for the Trust for Public

Land’s Center for Land and People, writes: “To save apiece of land, people re-think their future not in termsof what they could do for themselves but in terms ofwhat they could do for others. They are building rootedness, based on their sense of service toward oneanother and the land.” 3

Experimentation with entrepreneurial models of conservation economics that cultivate a moresustainable development path

“Conservation economics” represents a broad range

of ventures, an international phenomenon in whichsome of the most exciting work in building “greeninfrastructure” is occurring in Western Europe.Alternative financing mechanisms for sustainabledevelopment are being tested in various places, such asThe Nature Conservancy’s “Forest Bank” set up forsmall private woodland owners in Virginia’s Clinch

River Valley, who permanently “deposit” their timberrights in return for a guaranteed annual income from

sustainable forestry and the knowledge that theirhome woodlands will never have to be liquidated.

Exploration of public history and memory, whichopens up new venues for civic dialogue 

“Our goal,” writes Dwight T. Pitcaithley, chief historian of the National Park Service, “is...understanding

who we are, where we have been, and how we as asociety might approach the future. This collection ofspecial places also allows us to examine our past—the

contested along with the comfortable, the complexalong with the simple, the controversial along with theinspirational.”4

Some of the resources he refers to are national park

sites such as the plantation slave quarters at CaneRiver in Louisiana, the Selma-to-Montgomery trail,the Japanese-American internment camp at Manzanar,and the immigration station at Ellis Island. 

Formation of more broadly based coalitions ofcollaborative interests

There are many excellent examples of this work

from around the country. Rick Bass works with hisneighbors on the Yaak Valley Forest Council tosupport a local, sustainable, forest-based economy andhelp protect the last roadless areas in the public wildlands of northwestern Montana. Rick describes theYaak Council as a mix of valley residents, including“hunting and fishing guides, bartenders, massagetherapists, roadbuilders/heavy construction operators,writers, seamstresses, painters, construction workers,nurses, teachers, loggers, photographers, electricians,and carpenters.” 5

Recognition that longer-range change will involvesignificant investments in schools as well as lifelonglearning opportunities

These investments reflect a priority on place-based

education and life skills, including civic learning,service learning, and cooperative group work andproblem-solving. In the West Philadelphia LandscapeProject, students armed with old maps, photographs,tax records, census tables, railroad timetables, and citysewer plans reconstructed their urban watershed andbecame a voice for its future management. And acoalition of interests in Vermont has developed aplace-based educational model called “A Forest for

Every Classroom,” which teachers can use to integrate

[5]

Social Capital and Conservation

Rolf DiamantSuperintendent, Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park

e learning project

ngs-Rockefeller

orical Park

and park

Sibillini

k, Italy
[7]

The Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy is a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to

the preservation and public enjoyment of nationalparks in the Golden Gate area. The world’s largesturban park complex, this 75,000-acre greenbelt runs70 miles along the California coast from MarinCounty through San Francisco to the northern edgeof Silicon Valley. In the mid-1990s, the Golden GateNational Parks Conservancy created and launched anextraordinary identity campaign to make this networkof parks as familiar and identifiable to tens ofmillions of people as the Golden Gate Bridge. Thecampaign included signage, public service announcements, branded products, calendars, stationery,posters, and even a special hand-drawn alphabet.Over a relatively short time, a remarkable bond wasestablished between millions of San Francisco BayArea residents and their neighboring national parklands. The conservancy also built social capital bycreating an unusual and inviting array of volunteeractivities that helped to result in the contribution ofmore than 350,000 hours of volunteer labor annuallyto the parks. These include:

site stewardship programs and a native plant

nursery, which provide training and volunteer opportunities in seed collection, plant propagation,endangered species monitoring, vegetationsampling, and removal of invasive nonnative plants;

the Golden Gate Raptor Observatory, which involves

volunteers in studying the tens of thousands of birdsof prey seen during fall migration over the MarinHeadlands; and

the Crissy Field Center, a community and educational facility designed in partnership with local

communities, which focuses on environmentalstewardship, curriculum-based learning, and youthdevelopment.

With this enormous foundation of social capital, 

it is not altogether surprising that some 80,000 peoplejoined the celebration at Crissy Field (part of thePresidio, a Bay Area national park site) when it wasreopened in spring 2001 after a $34 million restorationeffort. After the crowds left at the end of the day, eventorganizers were surprised but pleased to see that almostno litter was left behind. This, they believed, indicateda sense of pride in as well as ownership of the park.

one: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.

er, 2000.

m: Bring It On!” Address to the Environmental

nnual Award Dinner, Washington, D.C., October

of Being Human.” Center for Land and People,

ber 17, 2001. <http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?

der_id=831>

re of the NPS History Program, February 2000.

tory/hisnps/NPSThinking/historyfuture.htm>

rsh-Billings-Rockefeller National Historical Park

rdship,” August 2000.

Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy 

builder, Maine

Volunteers of all ages helped plant more than 100,000 nativeplants along Crissy Field’s restored shoreline and tidal marsh.
PRINCIPLES FOR CONSERVATION

The foremost principle for conservation in this era ofglobalization is to focus on people’s relationship to theland, where all conservation starts. Whether called a landethic, a sense of place, a stewardship imperative, or simply a love of nature, conservation is lost without peopleconnecting at a personal level to land and resources.

Second, we must weigh social considerations equally

with ecological and economic factors. David Western putit well when he wrote: “If conservation is to becomeembedded in our daily activities, nature and society mustbe intimately linked in our minds.” 2

Third, community-based approaches are practical, have

multiple benefits, and are often more successful overtime than efforts driven by other levels of organization.They may offer the only antidote to increasing globalization. While we tend to think in terms of “local”communities, we need to remember as well that variousstakeholders comprise “communities of interest” thatare not necessarily locally based.

Fourth, conservation must be flexible and adaptive.

Social, economic, and environmental conditions—not tomention our understanding of them—are always in flux,and we must be responsive.

Last, we must focus on process over prescribed outcomes. This provides flexibility and opens up opportunities that a predetermined approach does not. Not only

do our approaches to conservation evolve over time, butour ideas about the objectives of conservation change aswell. We will always be “practicing” conservation to get itright, because what we believe to be “right” is a moving

target.

1 Adapted from Beresford, Michael, and Adrian Phillips. “Protected Landscapes:

A Conservation Model for the 21st Century.” The George Wright Forum 17, no. 1

(2000). 

2 Western, David. “Vision of the Future: The New Focus of Conservation.”

In Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation, David 

Western and R. Michael Wright, eds. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994.

efined their agrarian communities.

ortance of biodiversity; species

hen the land is allowed to return to

tate. While both are trying to keep

he groups disagree somewhat about

sting on traditional hand tools,

ent machines. But both draw on the

people attribute to the landscape.

iting elements of stewardship work

o advances in other social areas.

vil society by offering people

icipate in shaping their environ

heir lives. The 1989 political

nd Eastern Europe were precipitated

gust with the state of the environ

entralized economic system, and a

nd to improve it. A wave of

nt into politics in 1990; as a result

an countries have perhaps the best

n the continent. In the region

riangle, a group that originally set

est is now also engaged in leader

the surrounding communities,

mproved management of the state

[9]

New Pair O’Dimes in Protected Area Management

Society

AS IT WAS, PROTECTED AREAS WERE:

Planned and managed against people

Run solely by central governmentSet aside for conservation purposesDesigned as independent unitsManaged as “islands”Established mainly for scenic preservationManaged for visitors and touristsAbout protectionViewed exclusively as a national concern 

AS IT IS, PROTECTED AREAS ARE:

Run with, for, and, in some cases, by people 

(not just the government)Run by many partnersOperated with social and economic objectives as wellDesigned as part of a national or international systemManaged as part of a network (with strictly protected areas buffered and linked by green corridors)Often set up for scientific, economic, and cultural reasonsManaged with concern for local people’s needs, tooAlso about restorationViewed as an international concern1

 intensively managed or left

ation often seeks to maintain

natural features.
[11]

During the past 40 years in Vermont, land protection through fee acquisitions and conservation easements has proceeded at a rapid pace. Approximately 19 percent of thestate is now conserved through public and nonprofitownership or through easements on private land. Thereare more than 1,000 conservation easements in placestatewide.THE

EFFECTS OF INCREASED

LAND

CONSERVATION

Public SupportThe word is spreading: interest in and knowledge aboutland conservation is increasing. Landowners are sharingtheir positive experiences with their peers, and there ismore funding available.The Institutionalization of Land ConservationEarly discussions about land conservation were oftenphilosophical or hypothetical: Is it a good idea to tie thehands of future generations? Will a bank make a loan onconserved land? Today, many people

—including attorneys, bankers, accountants, appraisers, and realtors

—

must understand conservation easements just to servetheir clients. Conservation easements can be discussedon a practical level with increasing information abouttheir environmental, economic, and social impacts.Property TaxesStudies show that, contrary to public perception, conservation is often a bargain compared to development in itseffect on a town’s tax rates, because conserved landrequires few public services.Intergenerational TransfersBecause land conservation makes farms more affordable,one-third of farm conservation projects have involvedactual or prospective transfers of the farm to the nextgeneration. Some of these farms would otherwise havebeen sold for development. In a few cases, fallow farmshave been brought back into production as part of aconservation transaction.Farm Investment

In most projects where the farmer selling development

rights intends to stay in business, the money is reinvested in the farm to reduce long-term debt, modernizeinfrastructure, or purchase more land. Some landownershave reported that they are experiencing less stress,

working more efficiently, finding more time for theirfamilies and communities, and generally realizinggreater profitability.Change in Community OutlookWhen there are enough new young farmers and modernized farms in an area, the outlook and morale of thefarm community seem to improve, and there is a betterclimate for investment in businesses that support ordepend on agriculture.Change in Landowner’s Relationship to the LandWhen development seems like the probable future, thereis little incentive to keep up the farm buildings andmaintain the fertility of the fields. When subdivision anddevelopment are no longer options, farm investmentsbecome more attractive.Change in Community RelationshipsIn some communities, land conservation has sparkedefforts to develop long-range recreational plans forformer industrial forestland or to create community trailnetworks. Some of these initiatives have built newcoalitions within communities and are expected to resultin the establishment of new businesses.LONG-TERM

CHALLENGES

FACED

BY THE

CONSERVATION

COMMUNITY

Data Management, Monitoring, and EnforcementLand trusts are facing increasing challenges to store,maintain, and update their records; monitor theireasements; and take appropriate corrective action whenviolations are discovered.Ownership by Successive GenerationsOnce a conserved property passes to the next generationor is sold, the land trust’s close relationship with theoriginal owner is usually lost. Land trusts must workhard to build and maintain good relationships withsuccessive owners in order to avoid violations of easement terms.Rigidity versus FlexibilityLocal circumstances, business conditions, scientificinformation, technology, landowner needs, societalneeds, and perhaps even the climate will change overtime. Easements must be flexible enough to accommodate these changes, yet strong enough to protect thenatural resources at stake. Land trusts will be under

Land Protection in Vermont: The Impact of Conservation on People, Communities, and the Rural Economy

Darby Bradley President, Vermont Land Trust 

d Trust Census found that, as of

0:

al land trusts had protected more

acres of land. This was a 226 per

ce 1990.

where land trusts were born, con

e nation with 143 groups. Califor

cut were next.

regional land trusts were in opera

more than in 1990).

 were under permanent protection.

2.6 million acres (a 475 percent

90) were protected by 11,600 vol

on easements.

CA

UROPE

rican countries, including Mexico,

Belize, have established their first

ements.

Natural Lands Trust is negotiating

 first conservation easement with

mmunity. In return for safeguard

s of the land in question, legal

ng and other rights will be

ublic, in a few short years 28 land

ged. While overall they “protect” a

nt of land, these tend to be very

 Perhaps more importantly, they

nism for people to be directly

rvation in a country where for a

e preservation was the exclusive

nment specialists.

tional Land Trust Census, 2000.

m/census2000.htm>

y easement continue in active use.
Over the past 150 years in the United States, the idea of conservation has undergone numerous transformations. In recent decades, for example, conservation practice

has expanded from a primary emphasis on protectingextraordinary natural landscapes for park and wildernessvalues, to incorporating new visions of locally basedconservation focused on protecting regionally significant landscapes and community environments. This newemphasis on community conservation requires thatplanners must consider nature as well as people, thatnatural landscapes not be privileged over historic andcultural settings, and that local leaders manage theconservation process.

Locally led grassroots social movements intending to

improve community quality of life are inherentlyappealing, but they sometimes fail, even with the bestintentions. One example of a community-led historicpreservation effort that produced mixed results isoffered by the casino gaming developments in twoformer gold mining towns in Colorado. About an hour’s

drive from Denver, Central City and Black Hawk—the

only two incorporated towns in Gilpin County—were

boomtowns in the 1860s and 1870s, but declined overtime. Seasonal tourism kept the towns afloat after WorldWar I, but by the 1980s local leaders claimed that thetowns were dying. In 1989, limited stakes gambling wasproposed by town leaders as a way to improve theeconomy and simultaneously obtain new funds for localhistoric preservation. A signature campaign placed the

initiative on the state ballot in 1990, andthe citizens of Colorado voted toapprove gambling in the two towns andin Cripple Creek, another former goldmining town near Colorado Springs.

The development proved problematic

from the beginning. Properties thatcould not be sold prior to gambling werepurchased for millions of dollars. Shopowners lost their leases, local businessesmoved away, and some residents weredisplaced. Though gambling was supposed to be located in existing buildingsin the towns’ commercial zones, many100-year-old buildings were not up tocode and could not accommodate theindustry. Residents complained duringthe construction summer of 1991 thatthe history of the towns was beingcarted away in dump trucks while external entrepreneurs constructed new

casinos that were out of scale with local landscapes. “We

trusted our leaders to keep things under control,” said

residents, but many town leaders were complicit in theproblem because of their vested interests. As local business people who held town government positions, theywere the residents most likely to open casinos or takejobs in the new industry.

The complaints were suggestive of a larger issue: economic development projects on this scale, especially

those using community history and memory as a stimulus for growth, result not only in restructuring of thebuilt and natural landscapes, but also manipulate symbolic aspects of community and place. While residentssee their towns disappearing and feel a sense of community loss, the gaming industry believes that residentsshould be grateful for the infusion of money into publiccoffers, saving the town from a fate worse than reconstruction.

In October 1991, gaming began in Central City and

Black Hawk, with 11 casinos in operation. Ten yearslater, there were 25 casinos employing about 4,850 staff(only 13 percent of whom lived in Gilpin County). Thebook Riches and Regrets 1 analyzes the early years of gaming development and operation and provides an

overview of the effects. Several conclusions stand out relative to community conservation. First, economic development projects that attempt to protect communityvalues must be on a scale appropriate to the community.Second, under conditions of rapid growth, local governments are likely to make incremental policy shifts thatexceed their public mandates (Freudenburg andGramling 2 termed this “bureaucratic slippage”); that is,

governments begin to serve the emerging industry,rather than serving the public that elected them. Thus,residents must be vigilant about monitoring the development as well as the actions of local leaders. Third,public participation alone is not enough to keep a project on track: citizens may be vocal, but they also needpower to challenge those who may have vested interests.The Colorado gambling developments offer a notablelesson for other rural communities: social capital—the

features of community organization (such as norms oftrust and networks of social relationships) that canimprove collective action—is not merely an inheritance,but an ongoing process of community action.

1 Stokowski, Patricia A. Riches and Regrets: Betting on Gambling in Two Colorado

Mountain Towns. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1996.

2 Freudenburg, William R., and Robert Gramling. “Bureaucratic Slippage and

Failures of Agency Vigilance: The Case of the Environmental StudiesProgram.” Social Problems 41, no. 2 (1994): 214-239.

[13]

Community Values in Conservation: The Case of Central City and Black Hawk, Colorado

Patricia A. StokowskiSchool of Natural Resources, University of Vermont

ctorian Nugget store’s tenants lost their

building was sold for casino development.

y's Casino in Central City is a single

 to resemble a series of attached buildings.
[15]

mpassed in the restorations. Both

trong ethical claims about the

nd the importance of local self

maintenance and appearance of

The fact that the restorations were

marily by volunteers, and not by

 used as a launching pad for many

nce then, much has been written

f this backlash, especially in social

sored by the U.S. Forest Service

ry Experiment Station.

s not only drawn the attention of

munity to the relevance of moral

ut it has also raised two key ques

eparate professional ethic for

o mitigate controversies like those

 example? Second, to what extent

tion in these

er the suc

such contro

n is that

nteer basis

put the

n jeopardy,

he contro

e restora

rong

in the area.

be gauged

environmen

abitat for

r recharge

ds, but in

roversy to

 importance

selves. By

f public

Wilderness

he forest

efront of an

cussion

ure in shap

munity of

he preserves

 relegated

 everyday

ed or not by

ut much

oration

Environmental ethics is a branch of philoso- phy concerned with the moral basis forpreservation and restoration of the environment.It has evolved as a series of debates amongphilosophers regarding the moral value of nature,rather than as a straightforward application oftraditional ethical theories (e.g., utilitarianism) toenvironmental problems.

Since the inception of environmental ethics as a

field of professional philosophy in the early1970s, the principle question has been, “How can

the value of nature best be described?” Two wayshave been proposed. Nature can be described as“directly morally considerable” if it is believed tohave some kind of unique value that must berespected (some intrinsic worth). Or it can bedescribed as “indirectly morally considerable”because it is the source of things that humansneed, such as natural resources. For example, ifnature is directly morally considerable, ourresponsibility to protect a specific natural areafrom development would rely on the assumptionthat the site has an inherent value that merits ourprotection. We would not need to justify itsprotection based on a particular value it holds forhumans.

The term “nonanthropocentrism” is usually

applied when nature is viewed as directly morallyconsiderable. Conversely, when nature is seen asindirectly morally considerable, we refer to“weak” or “broad” anthropocentrism. In philosophy journals such as Environmental Ethics and

Environmental Values, writers argue the merits of

these two approaches. Both notions conflict withothers that would reduce the value of nature tonarrow economic considerations alone. One ofthe biggest challenges for environmental ethiciststoday is to translate these different viewpointsinto language that can more effectively influencepublic policy.

Environmental Ethics

ABOVE: Diverse prairie vegetation 

in the Chicago Wilderness

LEFT: Volunteer cutting brush 

in Lincoln Park, Chicago
[17]

Second, we relinquish opportuni

port to those who would discard

rm economic gain.

 is the true nature of wilderness?”

What is the true nature of the

r landscapes and buildings? Have

giving it a symbolism that dis

uman value? Are these symbols

 privileged few? Cronon believes

lutions to human problems in

nature (substitute history). Instead,

nfront a middle ground where a

n problems can be addressed in

s.

le ground

—by another name, com

 fundamental to historic preser

ral resource conservation. Trends

us in historic preservation are

on. For example, in the spring of

resident of the National Trust for

 addressed the National Press Club.

ride in Our Past, a New Day for 

autious optimism to the nation’s

ver, a fair share of the credit, he

istoric preservation.

e from members of his audience,

reservationists no longer consist of

ders. Instead, the discipline has

sticated national movement dedi

 livability of America’s com

itution of the word “community”

 proxy. Moe stressed that today

is all about building and preserving

ther name, middle ground.

Moe’s remarks loom large. Pre

means engaging all aspects of

. In turn, this means establishing

working relationships, with the

 contribute to community: hous

portation, education, social services,

rvation commissions. The list is a

g less can be expected to truly solve

is is precisely the point that

 so closely parallel and the task so

onders why cultural and natural

ave remained separate for so long

his is at least one of the central

cussion about methods of recon

n. We should lose no time in

ue.

nt

Protecting historic resources while continuing to use them for their historic purposes is a fundamental goal of historic preservation. This conceptcan be applied as easily to natural resources as tobuildings. The village of Kent’s Corner in centralVermont is located within a few miles of three townforests, two of which are almost within sight of thevillage center. There, community and forest areintimately connected, united by a common bond ofhistory.

Kent’s Corner is home to several historic buildings,

including a well-preserved sawmill and a similarlyimpressive tavern. Less than a mile to the south ofthese buildings, near Old West Church, stands theBliss Pond Forest. During the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth,the town actively managed this land as a hundredacre woodlot to benefit its poor farm, selling timberfor a variety of uses such as telephone poles. In 1926, when the parcel became a municipal forest,the town forester sold hardwood to the UnitedStates Clothes Pin Company in nearby Montpelier.Today, the Bliss Pond Forest’s cedar swamp is an

ecological sanctuary, and the community is preparing a new management plan.

A mile east of the center of Kent’s Corner, the 41-

acre Gospel Hollow Forest blankets a small hilloverlooking the town hall. Several miles to the southof the town’s center, the 18-acre Chapin Forest isaccessible via an old logging road. The GospelHollow lands were acquired by the town in 1932and the Chapin Forest in 1940. Both parcels havebeen managed as municipal forests since 1955. Forthe first two decades, municipal foresters employedby the Vermont Department of Forests and Parksrecorded the age and composition of the forests,recommended planting, conducted pruning andthinning, and supervised harvests. Today, countyforesters continue much of that work, and recentharvests of red pine from the Gospel Hollow Foresthave generated income for the local conservationcommission.

The historic buildings and forests of Kent’s Corner

illustrate a continuum of history kept alive throughactive use. Such a dynamic balance of cultural andnatural resources is achievable when there arediverse patterns of activity on the land. The historyvisible in our built and cultural environments addsmeaning to many aspects of community structure,whether sawmills, taverns, or town forests, andenriches our day-to-day experiences.

The Landscape of Village and Forest

Town hall and town forest,

Gospel Hollow, Vermont
civil society and democracy. This integrative model

provides the foundation for landscape management thatis informed by the cultural and ecological systems of aregion and the long-term sustainable needs of society.

Adrian Phillips has called for “conservationists in many

countries to focus their attention on

...those inhabited

landscapes where nature and culture are in some kind ofbalance: [where]

...talk of sustainable development can be

more than rhetoric.” 9 By expanding the horizons of conservation to embrace cultural landscapes, we can forge

new perspectives on our relationship to our environmentthat will help shape our vision of a sustainable future.

1 National Park System Advisory Board. Rethinking the National Parks for the

Twenty-first Century: National Park System Advisory Board Report, 2001.

Washington, DC: National Park Service, 2001.Rössler, Mechtild. “World Heritage Cultural Landscapes.” The George Wright

Forum 17, no. 1 (2000): 27–34.

Von Droste, Bernd, Harald Plachter, and Mechtild Rössler, eds. Cultural

Landscapes of Universal Value: Components of a Global Strategy. Jena: Gustav Fischer

Verlag, 1995.

2 Hoskins, W. G. The Making of the English Landscape. Middlesex, England:

Penguin Books, 1985.

3 Melnick, Robert, with Daniel Sponn and Emma Jane Saxe. Cultural Landscapes:

Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System, 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1984.

4 Wijesuriya, Gamini. “Sacred Landscapes: New Perspectives in the Implementation of the Cultural Landscape Concept in the Framework of the UNESCO

World Heritage Convention.” UNESCO Thematic Expert Meeting on AsiaPacific Sacred Mountains, 5–10 September 2001, Wakayama City, Japan.

5 Wijesuriya, “Sacred Landscapes.”6 Phillips, Adrian. “The Nature of Cultural Landscapes—A Nature Conservation

Perspective.” Landscape Research 23, no. 1 (1998): 36.

7 Ibid, 37.8 Lowenthal, David. George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of Conservation, 427–28. Seattle:

University of Washington Press, 2000.

9 Phillips, “The Nature of Cultural Landscapes,” 37.

[19]

 place between humankind and

s that there are often natural

[that] have co-evolved with

me areas, maintaining biological

staining traditional activities. 

ean landscapes found examples

es where centuries-old traditions

nts rich in biological diversity. 

y

ed to be identified, valued, and

urvivals from the past, but also

us the way to a more sustainable

onal practices can provide a

ble land use. Conversely, some

vide evidence of past unsustain

ural resources; this, too, can be

stainability.

e that must be learned and fos

als and communities to develop

mitment to a common future. 

 responsible for the world we

will inherit.

...Communities rely

he living, the dead, and the yet

unity, reaching into a past and a

vidual selves, is a necessary

hip is not an innate impulse, it

d cherished.”8

URAL LANDSCAPES

W

PARADIGM

 landscapes gives value and legiti

 a fundamentally different per

nservation’s focus on wild areas

n’s focus on the built environ

s a voice to previously under

alued areas, acknowledges the

ere human interaction with the

d the landscape and altered its

dth to conservation efforts.

re usually large in scale, and often

agement systems and multiple

ey require conservation strategies

nd work across boundaries,

gious traditions and historic

tainable economies. Such

oaches are inclusive and promote

Perspective

Food is a cultural common denominator that can build social capital almost anywhere and is often

closely linked with landscape management traditions.Begun in Italy in 1986, the Slow Food movement is aninternational response to our fast-paced fast-foodculture, which has changed our lives and threatensour landscapes and environment in the name of productivity. Its aims are to rediscover the richness andaromas of local cuisines and fight the standardizationof food. Slow Food emphasizes natural, organic, andtraditional methods in food growing and preparation,and the careful stewardship and marketing of traditional food and wine products often cultivated or created by artisanal techniques.

Today Slow Food has gained large-scale international

recognition, with 65,000 members in 45 countries,and is bringing together people passionately committed to landscape and agricultural stewardship, culturaldiversity and tradition, craftsmanship, public health,and general well-being. Slow Food raises the profile ofproducts and promotes local artisans, rootedness, anddecentralization.

Through an approach it terms “eco-gastronomy,” the

Slow Food movement strives to preserve the biodiversity of domesticated plants and animals just as conservationists have done for wild flora and fauna, believingthat humans’ pleasure and environmental equilibrium

depend on such efforts. Toward this end, Slow Food’s

“Ark of Taste” project seeks to identify and catalogueproducts, dishes, and domestic animals that are indanger of disappearing. Slow Food also promotesdozens of other projects and activities.

The Slow Food Movement

Traditional wine production

continues in Italy’s Cinque Terre

National Park, a World Heritage

cultural landscape.

Artisanal 

cheesemaking
[21]

The idea that successful conservation requires attention to culture has been gaining legiti- macy. Increasingly, the different values of diverse cultures are being cited to explain howsocial differences influence the success or failure ofconservation initiatives. Yet the Western conservationmovement has continued to divide its work into naturaland sociocultural realms, reflecting a basic separationmade by Western philosophy between people and nature.Not only does this division sometimes clash with howother cultures perceive the boundaries between natureand themselves, but it also suggests inaccurately thatconservation is simply about choosing which land tofence off and exclude humans from. Conservation is alsoan important arena in which we explicitly or implicitlyreimagine social relationships and cultural institutions.

For this reason, it is important to consider the cultural

theories embedded in conservation initiatives. Analysisreveals the unfortunate tendency to rely on stereotypes of what anthropologist Edward Sapir once called“genuine and spurious cultures.” Put simply, thesestereotypes characterize genuine cultures as having a harmonious relationship between people and nature,whereas spurious cultures are portrayed as modernized,and people’s relations with each other and with natureare fragmented and destructive.

In the conservation movement, the “genuine cultures”

paradigm exists in the romanticized ideal of the “ecological noble savage” and the image of indigenouspeoples living in harmony with nature. As John Muironce said, “Indians walked softly and hurt the land

hardly more than the birds and squirrels, and theirbrush and bark huts last hardly longer than those ofwood rats, while their enduring monuments, exceptingthose wrought on the forests by fires they made toimprove their hunting grounds, vanish in a few centuries.”1 As recent research shows, this is historically

simplistic, and overlooks the true heterogeneity ofindigenous cultures and their environmental impact.

At the same time, the conservation movement

embraces the idea of spurious cultures when it viewsnonindigenous rural people as “destroyers of nature”

because they have no deeply held cultural basis forappreciating it. In rural Costa Rica, international funding for wilderness reserves that exclude human habitation was often justified by the belief that campesinoshave a superficial relationship with nature as a result ofpoverty, greed, or ignorance. This belief not only simplifies the complex political and economic conditions

under which deforestation has happened in Costa Rica(for example, the international consumer-driven beefand banana economies have had an enormous influence), but it also ignores the important reasons why,based on their intimate knowledge of tropical landscapes, small-scale farmers did not cut down their forests.

Instead, they conserved forests as resources for food,construction materials, and selective logging, and to create windbreaks and protect watersheds.

Conservationists will benefit from moving beyond

these simplistic stereotypes of people and culture. This ishappening in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca,where the majority of the population is indigenous, and16 distinct cultures coexist with remarkable biodiversity.The legacies of colonialism, state domination, andmodernization, however, have generated significantenvironmental degradation. Indigenous peoplesacknowledge that environmental problems will not besolved by simplistic appeals to tradition. Rather, conservation is viewed as an arena of intercultural dialogueand cultural regeneration. That is, indigenous peoplesand conservationists collectively consider how conservation efforts can 1) be based on indigenous conceptsand technologies involving appropriate human-natureinteraction, and 2) serve indigenous efforts to regenerateand strengthen cultural autonomy and political selfdetermination. The result is a reduced emphasis onwilderness-focused conservation initiatives, in which theassumption that people must be separated from thelandscape in processes managed by experts presents afundamental threat to indigenous control of land. Alternatives include the implementation of simple technologies such as composting latrines constructed of localmaterials, which help communities prevent waterpollution and overuse while regenerating agriculturalsoils and reasserting local control of waste management.Most importantly, such initiatives are undertakenthrough the authority of a community assembly andcollective forms of voluntary labor. By relying on thesemechanisms, conservation does not impose measuresbased on Western ideologies of the separation of peopleand nature, but instead strengthens local autonomy and brings about a healthy dialogue on diverse forms ofhuman-nature interaction.

1 Quoted in Gary Paul Nabhan, “Cultural Parallax: The Wilderness Concept in

Crisis” in Cultures of Habitat: On Nature, Culture, and Story, 156. Washington,

DC: Counterpoint, 1997.

Conservation and Culture, Genuine and Spurious

Luis A. VivancoAssistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont
onservation does, however,

ways to overcome “the tyranny of

ries of small, apparently indepen

cisions made by individual commu

y not achieve a predictable or

is important to understand the

ong these small independent

tive impacts they have on the land

es. 

ECONSTRUCTING

reflect the evolution of conserva

ning and action must emphasize

d ecosystems, rather than one or

ons of them.

rocess must be locally led, open to

e, interdisciplinary, and objective. 

es on stories, skills, and experi

al and professional—helps partici

 individual opinions to find

The Chesapeake Bay Program provides a good illustration of the relationship between contextand integration. The program is a unique regional partnership that leads and assists with the conservation,restoration, and protection of Chesapeake Bay, thelargest and most productive estuary in North America.It involves four states and the District of Columbia, theChesapeake Bay Commission (a tri-state legislativebody), 25 federal agencies, 1,653 units of local government, and the private sector. The program seeks toprotect the bay’s living resources—its finfish, shellfish,grasses, and other plants and animals; its vital habitats;and the water quality of the bay and its watershed.

To accomplish these goals, hundreds of decisionmakers from various government agencies, the private sector, and other organizations involved in its daily

operations must function in context. The contextincludes not only the watershed, but also the region’sairshed and its migratory bird, shellfish, and finfishroutes. Obviously, integration of the many entitiesinvolved is also central to the design and functioning ofthe Chesapeake Bay Program. In 1996, Dr. Lynn Desautels of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)prepared a report that described this idea of programintegration from the viewpoint of EPA Chesapeake BayProgram Office managers and staff interviews. Shedeveloped the following summary definition:

“Program integration is a seamless approach todealing with issues that cut across media, policy,[and] technical lines, and across the ecosystemitself. When a program is integrated, you can’t even

see the seams.” 1

The Chesapeake Bay Program is important for the work

it accomplishes. However, it may be even more important as an example of an improved way of doing business—one that is proving to be more efficient, effective,

and sustainable.

1 Desautels, Lynn. “Chesapeake Bay Program: Program Integration Survey

Findings and Recommendations.” Annapolis, MD: Environmental ProtectionAgency Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 1995.

Region

All conservation partners are equally important. We

must honor the special knowledge that each individual brings and understand his or her relationship tolandscape values and functions.

All environmental, community, and economic values,

and the functions they perform, must be recognized.Conservation efforts must maximize public and private benefits while producing minimal adverse effectson significant environmental, cultural, and economicvalues and functions.

The conservation process must be consensus-based,

and agreement should be secured at the beginning aswell as at every major decisionmaking point. Determining what is necessary to conserve landscapes, com- munities, and specific sites within them requires a thoughtful process to decide what actions should be taken, by whom, when, and how. Conservation initiatives must recognize and build on existing local resource management approaches that rely on stewardship, partnerships, consensus building, and community initiative. Conservation approaches need to reflect techniques that have been “designed” and brought to a locality to be applied as well as those that have been “discovered” in the community and reflect traditions of successful cooperation. 1 McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press, 1969.

The Chesapeake Bay Program

ay is the largest and most

uary in North America.

Annapolis waterfront, Chesapeake Bay

[23]
• Conservation as a core value

• Many values under one umbrella• Cultural and personal connections to the land• Diversity and equity• Expanded time and space horizons• Civic participation and community-based conservation• Partnerships

[25]

Key Themes from the Symposium Dialogue

After a series of presentations in Woodstock, symposium participants met twice in small-group sessions toshare ideas and synthesize their thoughts. They wereasked to consider the following questions:Based on what you have heard over the past few days

and what you know from your own practice, what isthe current reality in conservation values and practice?What are the important current trends?

Based on the current realities and trends we have just

discussed, what should be the principles that defineconservation in the future?

The discussions focused on current themes and principles for conservation. It is important to note that these

discussions were not intended to produce consensus ona set of principles nor a concise summary of today’strends in conservation. Even so, there were some keythemes that emerged from these wide-ranging and opendiscussions. These seven themes (listed below) aredescribed in the following pages. Selected quotes andpossible follow-up questions for future dialoques serveto amplify the themes.
uestions for future dialogue:

How do we convince people thatconservation is as essential to oursurvival as our health care andtransportation systems?Can we create a conservation bill ofrights? (One such example mightbe the 2000 Earth Charter, an outcome of the 1992 Earth Summit inRio de Janeiro.)Do conservationists work tochange values, or simply to ensurethat conservation is inclusive andrelevant to society and hope thatconservation values are the result?What are the roots of the “disconnect” between our stated valuesand our behavior?How can we set up a system ofincentives and support networksthat enable people to act on theirvalues?

[27]

Many Values under One UmbrellaParticipants observed that conser- vation is not a single value, but a

multifaceted system of beliefs thatincorporates many values (spiritual,ecological, biological, economic,recreational, historical, physical,social, cultural, aesthetic, etc.). Thisdiversity may cause confusion andthese values may be in conflict withone another; even so, diversity invalues is a source of great strengthfor the movement. 

Part of the discussion focused on

how the role of scientific values hasevolved in relation to the goals ofconservation efforts. Science is oftenmore “artful” than precise, especiallywhen dealing with natural systems.Some participants posited thatsocietal, cultural, and communityconcerns need to be given equalweight with environmental data andhard science. There are often tensions between programs governed by scientific interests and those thatattempt to garner public participation. Many participants urged thatconservation practices make everyattempt to combine ecological principles and civic needs.

Selected quotes:

“There is an ever-expanding set ofvalues relating to conservation

—scientific, spiritual, ecological

—giving us

many more reasons for conservation.Some of these new values lead us toredefine traditional values, such as economic value and how it relates tosustainability. While this broad range of values resonates with many people, it is also very challenging to manage.”“We have seen the emergence of conservation biologists talking about culture,and conservationists and sociologiststalking about ecology.”“Pluralism is not about getting otherpeople to embrace your agenda, but to

broaden their agendas.”

“We need to see the whole narrative ofconservation history, rather than focuson the last 30 years. Leopold advocatedfor wilderness and sustainable agriculture and sustainable forestry.”

“We recognize that it is okay for different people to have different views of the important value of the landscape. At the same time, there is a shift towardmanaging land for specific values inspecific places rather than managing formultiple use on one piece of land. This strategy enables us to achieve thehighest level of a given value in aspecified area. However, multiple uses

can result in a lower level of protectionof many values.”“Conservation gets portrayed as aneither-or choice: jobs versus owls, peopleversus nature.”“We need to be clear about the differentgoals of different kinds of conservation,whether wilderness, conserved farmland, or urban park. There is a matrixof conservation strategies; we have avariety of ways that we relate to ourenvironment; we have to recognize thecontext of the conservation.”“The term ‘environmental’ is fast

disappearing because it has acquired anegative connotation of politicalactivism. Hence, the term is no longerused by many nongovernmentalorganizations. In this rhetorical war,new and/or preferred terms include

conservation, stewardship, community-based, and sustainability. 

Our missions haven’t changed, just thelanguage we use.”“Community goals and needs must beincorporated into conservation workbut must not dictate it. Conservationshould be defined by the broad needsand values of society as constrained byecological realities.”

Questions for future dialogue: Do our multiple values hold equal

weight? If not, which values holdmore weight? Who decides?

 How do we balance the information provided by science with

societal needs and goals?

 How can we create an open public

dialogue on multiple values? 

 Are there ecological realities on

which we can agree, and should webe using those realities to changebehavior voluntarily or throughregulation?

 How can we have national environmental policy if every state or

region has its own set of values?
[29]

demands a different context withinwhich to discuss conservation.”“Multicultural/multiregional perspectives on conservation have been recognized. We have a more complete view,especially about groups historically leftout of history books and about theshameful parts of our history.”“Actual diversity [in conservation] stillseems woefully lacking.”“We need to capitalize on the fact that‘nature’ is a broad, diverse concept and

is found in all cultures. For example,specific issues such as water qualitybring to the table ethnic/racial communities that have historically not been apart of the conservation movement.”

Questions for future dialogue: What are the most effective ways to

build culturally diverse coalitionsfor conservation?

 When we add diversity to our

current agenda, how do our effortschange?

 How has globalization both 

hurt and benefited conservationinterests?

Expanded Time and Space HorizonsParticipants observed that the work of conservation is set withinthe context of time and space, andthat both of these scales are expanding. Overall conservation goals musttranscend boundaries of scale. Forexample, there is a trend towardecosystem management that is crossboundary and large-scale (temporaland spatial).

Since in nature everything is connected to everything else, it requires

that we live with ambiguity andunanticipated outcomes rather thanexpect standardization and specificoutcomes.

Conservation needs to be a constant, steady priority even during

times of political and economicvolatility. 

Global free trade agreements need

to embrace sustainable practices. Following September 11, 2001, Americans became more aware of theirresponsibilities as global citizens. Asa result, perspectives on conservationin relation to national energy policyand national security could change. 

Selected quotes:

“We should always consider what ‘one

size larger’ looks like.”“The complexity of the work increasesas conservation becomes more inclusiveand broad-ranging.”“The new field of conservation biologyis driving conservation projects to be more bioregional in nature. Ourdefinition of ‘ecology’ is changing 

from an anthropocentric one to a biocentric one.”“Community and ecology are not static;in their normal states they are dynamicsystems. But the rate at which they arechanging is rapidly accelerating, which iswhy we must keep looking backward tosee where we’ve been.”

“In response to the trends of increasingloss of land and fragmentation ofremaining lands and habitat, we arerecognizing the need to take a largerbioregional view of our individualconservation projects, to consider longterm sustainability at a global scale.”“Conservation

—particularly of productive lands

—must be flexible to accommodate changes in information,

economy, and technology.”“Land conservation efforts do not fare well in a rapidly changingeconomy, and we need to pay attentionto the ability of conservationorganizations to respond.”“According to studies done in NewHampshire, a state well-endowed withforest resources, if development continues at the same pace, it won’t be possible for the state to be self-sufficient inforest products on its land base. Ourcurrent lifestyle and land use patternswill exceed ‘growing our own share.’New Hampshire has four acres of forestper person; the global average is 1.5acres per person. If we can’t be 

“The notion of ‘ecological citizenship’

needs to be promoted. There can be nochange in the natural ecosystem withoutconcurrent change in the social ecosystem and vice versa.”

“Cultural and ecological dimensions ofconservation overlap, but the mix isunique to each landscape. Every placehas a unique mix of nature and culture,and every place changes the mix overtime, at the same place. There is no formulaic description of nature and culture.”

uestions for future dialogue:

How do we move from culture versus nature to culture and nature?Is there data to support the notionthat connection with the landleads to support for conservation?Are primary experiences on theland key to the success of conservation, or can people support conservation in the abstract?

Diversity and EquityDiscussions on this topic addressed the challenge posed

y the need to embrace the diversity

f peoples affected by conservation

olicies, actions, and decisions. Also,

atters of equity and social justice

e a growing concern as cultural

versity increases. Fortunately, there

as been an emergence of socially,

ulturally, and ethnically conscious

gendas in the conservation arena. 

conservation is to be a multi

ceted “core” value for our culture

nd for other cultures worldwide, it

eeds to be inclusive. 

elected quotes:

“We are beginning to make the justice“connection”—connecting the success ofconservation efforts to increased accessto resources and social equity.”“New patterns of immigration havealtered who the ‘public’ is. The resultingdiversified set of community values
“Do you want to be democratic and

take a risk by recognizing a broad set of values? The risk is that you get thegolf course instead of the park.”“The early work of land trusts emphasized, understandably, land acquisition.Acquisition can be achieved with theinvolvement of only a few people. Weneed to broaden buy-in from communities to ensure stewardship of conservedlands.”

Questions for future dialogue: What are the powers and limitations of community-based

conservation and of communityparticipation in conservationplanning?

 What are the pros and cons of

regulatory and incentive-basedapproaches?

 How do we achieve the integration

of good government and goodcommunity-based initiatives?

PartnershipsSymposium participants described many conservation success storiesthat have resulted from partnerships.Therefore, it is not surprising that“partnership” is a common buzzword in conservation parlance these

days. There is a growing reliance onpartnerships among nongovernmental organizations, governmentagencies, and businesses, and thefederal government is increasinglyinterested in supporting sucharrangements.

Partnerships bring multiple funding sources to the table, build social

capital, strengthen conservationefforts by combining diverse interests, and give conservation a louderpolitical voice. More often, partnerships are the only avenue to achievesuccess. For example, today there arelimited opportunities to create the“classic” model of a governmentowned national park with vast tracts

of spectacular scenery; now we areoften working with “cultural landscapes” with many landowners and

many stakeholders. Partnerships areessential for dealing with the diverserange of cultural landscapes.

Yet partnerships require “care and

feeding” and can consume significant amounts of time and energy.

Conflicts sometimes arise when theideals and goals of various partnerscollide. To ensure effective partnerships, “partnership skills” must be

cultivated.

Selected quotes:

“Partnerships are a pain and a lot ofwork, and they add layers of complexity(increasing exponentially with thenumber of partners), but you get a better product and more ownership andresponsibility for future outcomes. At a landscape level, partnerships areobligatory.”“Linking all major public and privateconservation agencies and groups willgive us a louder voice politically.”“Research is becoming more collaborative than exploitative, especially in thesocial sciences arena.”

Questions for future dialogue: What do successful partnership

models look like?

 What are the pitfalls to avoid? 

How can they be avoided?

 How do we maximize the efficiency

of partnership approaches andavoid partnering for partnership’s

sake?

[31]

“Alternative economic approaches suchas value-added products, green certification, community-supported agriculture, and ecotourism have emerged asnew tools in conservation that promotesustainable economies. There isincreased importance attached tolocally grown products, and anincreased emphasis on meeting ourown consumer needs with localresources (living within our means).”“Public participation contributes to theemergence and/or reinforcement ofdemocracy. We don’t make this connection as much in the United States

because we have an established democracy, but other countries see this connection very clearly.”“There is a Catch-22

—we feel we need

science to solve global issues, but in the conservation community we knowwe need a pluralistic approach. Thiswon’t work from the top down. Peopleare not motivated when they are toldwhat to do. The poetry in conservationis finding and striking a balancebetween top-down and bottom-up.”“The power ought to be delegated tothe lowest level possible, but some issues will only be fixed at the federal orglobal level (for example, acid rain).”
[33]

Invited Responses from Four Symposium Participants

JOHN ELDERSUSAN FLADERJESSICA BROWNTIM TRAVER
As we reconstruct the values and practice of conservation in the twenty-first century, one of the greatest challenges will be to retain viable elements of twentieth-century conservation

without being limited by them.

Conservation practice in the United States was born in

the Progressive Era and hence was infused with thevalues of efficient management by professional elites,who sought to control the environment in the interest ofhumans through rational, scientific means. The U.S.Forest Service was the quintessential progressive agency,but its values also permeated the work of civil engineers,landscape architects, public health officials, and otherprofessionals in federal, state, and local agencies. Evencitizen groups of sportsmen, hikers, clubwomen, andurban reformers shared progressive values and were onlytoo willing to hand off responsibility to governmentprofessionals when they could.

The New Deal of the Depression thirties further

enlarged the role of the federal government and its technical experts, especially in the realm of land management, and the outcry against pollution after World WarII extended federal responsibility to air, water, and other realms that had earlier been regarded as state andlocal responsibilities. When the inevitable backlash came during the late 1970s to 1990s, it led to the emphasis on community-based conservation and empowerment of ordinary citizens that was the hallmark of thissymposium.

Speaker after speaker called for a focus on ordinary

people in particular places seeking to reconstruct theirsocial and cultural as well as natural environments.Conservation is “an arena in which we reimagine social

relationships and cultural institutions,” says Luis

Vivanco with reference to Latin America. Brent Mitchell,from experience in Central Europe, describes how “stewardship builds civil society by offering people opportunities to participate in shaping their environments andtherefore their lives.” But Andrew Light admits that thepreponderance of ordinary citizens rather than scientificexperts in ecological restorations made the “ChicagoWilderness” project vulnerable to criticism by other citizens. And Glenn Eugster cautions that we must “meld

good science with good civics” and beware “the tyranny

of small solutions.”

These examples from our own day, combined with the

lessons of history, suggest that there are perils as well aspromise in community-based approaches and that theremay yet be a role for the professional expertise andhigher levels of government that seem in such disfavor

today. As so many speakers at the symposium acknowledged, we may look to Aldo Leopold for guidance inapproaching these issues. Though his life (1887–1948)spanned only the first half of the century, Leopold experienced deeply the tensions of professionalism andcitizenship, the local and the global, that so bedevil ustoday.

Leopold subscribed fully to the progressive creed of

environmental control through scientific expertise, notonly as a Yale-trained forester in the U.S. Forest Servicebut even after he left federal service to lay the groundwork for a new profession, wildlife management. Yet,over time, he increasingly realized the compelling necessity of citizen participation in the conservation enterprise, even when it seemed to complicate the process orto counter professional judgment. Intensely conscious ofplace, he also became increasingly committed to building conservation on the land at the most local level whilehe was concurrently extending the arena of his concernto global matters of species extinction, overpopulation,war, and the implications of democracy.

By the last decade of his life, when he wrote his most

enduring work, A Sand County Almanac (1949),1 he had

shaped for himself and for generations to come a philosophy that could guide the reconstruction of conservation. As one reads through the Almanac, one notes that

he begins with the local, at his sand county farm, thenbranches out geographically and concludes with morephilosophical, globally applicable essays. In the first twothirds of the book, the citizens we meet are all nonhuman—the mouse in “January Thaw,” pines above the

snow, the parrots of Chihuahua—and in the last essay,“The Land Ethic,” we are told that “a land ethic changesthe role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the landcommunity to plain member and citizen of it.” The ultimate citizenship, we learn in “Conservation Esthetic,” is

a sense of husbandry, through which we build conservation on the ground with our hands rather than simplywith our vote, a practice ordinary citizens share withprofessional managers. Conservation is no longer environmental control in the interest of commodity production for certain humans but a shared obligation to

restore the health of the entire land community, orecosystem.

When Andrew Light concludes that the controversy

over restoration in Chicago was beneficial because it“pushed the forest preserves into the forefront of anopen, democratic discussion about the role of nature inshaping the human community,” he acknowledges, withLeopold, the need for all citizens, amateur as well as

[35]

Reflections on the Tensions of Citizenship and Professionalism, the Local and the Global

Susan FladerProfessor, Department of History, University of Missouri-Columbia

derstood as an opportunity to

ural values, reaffirming some and

ch a thorough rethinking of

man and “more-than-human”3

s words, “an evolutionary possibil

necessity.”

portant for conservationists in

a global, comparativist outlook,

re the values of community. To put

need at once to gain sharper resolu

 and political realities and to tran

hial and ahistorical tendency in

ntalism. The international

ent Mitchell and Luis Vivanco in

noting here. In this connection, 

riate to recall the Vermonter

h, whose 1864 masterpiece Man and

ized by Lewis Mumford in his book

“the fountainhead of the conserva

rsh saw deforestation around his

h fresh eyes after serving as a

nd Italy and learning about the his

ment in the Mediterranean region.

and Culture, Genuine and Spurious. This phrase

logical emphasis.

ty Almanac and Sketches Here and There. New York:

49.

e Sensuous. New York: Pantheon Press, 1996.

n and Nature. David Lowenthal, ed. Cambridge, MA:

 Decades. New York: Dover Press, 1955.

ge
Conservation is demanding more and more of us. This is not only because the challenges we face now, and those ahead, seem larger and more daunting than those of a few decades

ago. Conservation approaches are also becoming morecomplex, requiring us to weave together the broadstrands of culture and nature with a diversity of disciplines, and to embrace broader social goals. Increasingly,institutional roles have been turned around, with communities rather than government agencies taking thelead. While these new institutional arrangements presenttremendous opportunities to build public support andsocial capital, they also raise new questions about participation, equity, and governance. 

One clear theme emerging from the papers in this collection is the growing emphasis on community-based

approaches to conservation. It is an enormously promising direction, offering the potential for broad-based anddurable solutions rooted not in outside regulations butin local people’s knowledge of, and love for, the placeswhere they live. Further, these place-based approachesprovide one antidote to conservation’s growing complexity, for by “going deep” and working at local and bioregional levels it is easier to integrate different fields and include diverse actors and concerns. However, there is a dynamic tension between this trend and the pressing need to act as part of an increasingly global society. In embracing community-based approaches we risk the “tyranny of small solutions,” as Glenn Eugster notes, and we must therefore take care not to ignore larger problems that, through globaliza- tion’s reach, will soon catch up with us at home. So we must look outward, too. As we link conservation with civics—as many writings here suggest—we should encourage a broader citizenship in which responsibility begins at home, but ultimately extends beyond the bor- ders of community and country to include the planet we share with others. Conservation is strengthened when we view our work in a global context. With this local-global perspective in mind, as well as the importance of community-based approaches, here is an expansion of three themes emerging from the papers and discussions that I believe will be central to conserva- tion worldwide in the coming years.

DIVERSITY

Diversity is conservation’s aim, and it promises to be

its strength.

As we broaden our view of conservation to include culture, as Luis Vivanco and Robert McCullough suggest,

we recognize that sustaining natural diversity relies onsustaining cultural diversity, and vice versa—an increasingly urgent goal in the face of forces homogenizing ourlandscapes and neighborhoods. As Nora Mitchellobserves, traditional landscapes where “nature and culture are in some kind of balance” offer us important

models for sustainable development.

Because, as symposium participants observed, conservation is not a single value but incorporates an array of

values—among them spiritual, scientific, economic,cultural, and social values—and because it is interdisciplinary, it can touch an increasingly diverse array ofpeople.

Diversity, like equity (discussed below) is implicit in the

idea of inclusivity, a conservation trend that surfacesrepeatedly in the papers and discussions. Conservationpractice becomes richer as it draws on diverse perspectives and traditions, so that, for example, as Luis Vivancowrites, the forest stewardship practices of the small-scalecampesino in Costa Rica can be valued along with thoseof the indigenous people in Mexico’s Oaxaca.

[37]

Emerging Themes in Conservation: Diversity, Equity, and Civil Society

Jessica BrownVice President, International Programs, QLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment

Local fishermen support the Port HondurasMarine Reserve in southern Belize becausethey were instrumental in its establishment.
Several years ago I left the conservation field and began spending time trying to figure out where I had been living (my town, the world) for the past 20 years. I suffered from the distance created by

my title, professional role, and institutional power. Therift between ordinary citizens and those who dwell inacademia’s ivory tower is well-worn territory, but I suspect professional conservationists also experience that

same separation. Becoming “deprofessionalized” (an

“ordinary citizen”) has the advantage of anonymity.

Looking back, it seems as if old-style conservation was

something we did, with enormous satisfaction, for otherpeople and places, but not something ordinary peopleand places did for themselves. The new style of conservation (“reconstructed”) discussed in the symposium isaltogether different; it is responsive to the ideals, visions,and passions of communities. Perhaps instead of “reconstructed” conservation we will have a “deconstructed”conservation

—one where the organizational and institutional forms are disassembled and made adaptive, constantly responding to shifting needs at various scales:

local, regional, national, and global. It seemed to be theshared experience of symposium attendees that tremendous progress could be made when resources of all typeswere made available to democratically designed andfunctioning communities (although a decline in community democracy is problematic). On the other hand,global ecological life-support systems are failing and weneed to work cooperatively, using good science, torestore and manage these landscape-scale systems.

These two poles of necessary conservation action

almost seem to cancel each other out. They dictate organization that can both order the world from the top andenable it from the bottom. They suggest, in light of therealities of cultural pluralism, competing values, andbiological urges, that the key is not the structure of conservation, but whatever lies inside the structure. Severalsymposium participants touched on this. Rolf Diamantquoted Gus Speth: “The most important resource ishuman motivation

—hope, caring....” The summary of

key themes notes the disconnect between values andactions and touches on “inner being” issues and the

problem we have when our so-called values and actionscontradict. The conservationist who drives an SUV is acting on his values: he values that car and the image ofhimself driving that car more than he values clean airand someone else’s safety. Advertisers know well that,like almost everyone else, the conservationist’s values atwork are separate from the rest of his or her life.

Whatever the structures of conservation and community life, they will run up against the current state of

human consciousness. Oceanographer Sylvia Earle oncedescribed another dissonance. We have learned more, shesaid, through scientific inquiry in the past 25 years thanin the total of all the preceding years of human history,and we have fundamentally changed or lost more in thelast 25–50 years than in all of human history.1 George

Woodwell, former director of the Marine Biological Laboratory’s Ecosystem Center, made virtually the sameobservation. The world, he said, is laying itself out beforeus in a very lucid way, but the systems that support lifeon earth are on the verge of failing.2 Apparently we’re

good at learning, but not so good at applying what we’ve

learned. We know what we are doing to the planet, yetwe can’t seem to stop ourselves. Stepping bravely outsideher scientific mind, Earle said we have to find a new center. Self-centeredness isn’t enough. Science isn’t enough.

What will it take, she asks? Identification with a greater“self”? The 1992 Earth Charter reflects throughout the

essential role of “inner reconstruction.” “After basic

needs have been met, human development,” it says, “isprimarily about being more, not having more.” In an

1832 address, George Perkins Marsh observed that“knowledge is truly power [when it] is allied to a condition of inward being, not a manifestation of outwardaction,” and that this inward being is “the indispensable

condition of all right action.”3

We are a culture that is entering a period of deep soulsearching. Who knows what will come of it? Luis

Vivanco suggests that we might begin by shedding oursimplistic stereotypes of people and culture

—to truly

acknowledge one another and support on some levelboth the autonomy that every community seems to want(from Northeast Kingdom communities in Vermont tothe communal villages of Oaxaca) and the universalcooperation that is required. Many at the symposiumspoke of a “reconstructed conservation” that is at its

core community building. Conservation is also at itscore about growing human consciousness

—our own

—as

we go about enabling conservation action in our communities and reshaping the world.

1 Earle, Sylvia. Comments made at a conference, “The Good in Nature,” sponsored by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale Divinity

School, and The Wilderness Society, and held at Yale University, New Haven,Connecticut, Spring 2000.

2 Woodwell, George. Comments made at the 25th anniversary symposium of

the Ecosystem Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, November 2000.

3 Marsh, George Perkins. From a speech on “Knowledge” given to the Massachusetts Alpha Chapter of the Phi Beta Kappa Society at Cambridge,

Massachusetts, August 26, 1847. Published in Life and Letters of George Perkins

Marsh. Volume 1, Appendix 1. Caroline Crane Marsh, comp. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888.

[39]

Reconstructing Conservation from the Inside Out

Tim TraverScience Writer and Nonprofit Development Consultant, Taftsville, Vermont

s inclusive, participatory, and con

inherently democratic. My work in

untries over the past decade has

ese approaches to conservation can

iety, especially in emerging democ

rs here view the link between con

ciety as central to the evolving role

Diamant writes about the impor

 activities in building social capital.

es the importance of public debate

rness restorations in fostering an

scussion about the role of nature in

ommunity of Chicago.” Glenn

 “melding good science with good

processes that are open, transpar

ased. As Brent Mitchell writes:

civil society by offering people

icipate in shaping their environ

heir lives.”

struction of conservation we must

ed context since September 11,

nity-based conservation relevant in

security concerns are dominant?

we have an opportunity and an

ow to articulate a new definition of

ty

—one that makes the link

ty and a healthy environment, a

nd vital communities.
Local knowledge, community building, civic par- ticipation, and democracy are concepts that have not historically been closely associated with conservation theory and practice. Yet these

concepts were articulated again and again during thesymposium, in the papers selected for this report, in thethemes from the symposium dialogue, and in therespondents’ essays.

Taken collectively, the ideas and the language of the

symposium begin to articulate a revitalized vision thatintentionally embeds conservationin the fabric of society. Like thewarp and weft of a tapestry, thisvision is constructed from traditioninterwoven with innovation. Thediversity of this conservationtapestry is a source of beauty andstrength, creating a flexible fabricwoven from experience and imagination, incorporating the best ideasdrawn from many points of view.

A “sense of place” creates a connection between a wide

array of people holding many values and their homelandscape. Embracing this pluralism of values is a challenge for conservation, yet, as Jessica Brown points out,“by ‘going deep’ and working at local and bioregional

levels it is easier to integrate different fields and includediverse actors and concerns.” Robert McCullough writesof a “middle ground” and I write of “cultural landscapes,” both concepts that bridge a deep divide between

nature and culture and create a new relationshipbetween people and their environment. Drawing on hisexperiences in Latin America, Luis Vivanco concludesthat it is critical not to design conservation measuresthat impose Western ideologies with their “separation ofpeople and nature,” but rather to strengthen local

autonomy and bring about a “healthy dialogue ondiverse forms of human-nature interaction.” Place canalso be a locus of engagement, as Brent Mitchellobserves. “Stewardship builds civil society by offeringpeople opportunities to participate in shaping their environment and therefore their lives.”

Participatory stewardship can also be described as citizenship of place. Susan Flader reflects on Aldo Leopold’s

notion of citizenship as “a sense of husbandry, throughwhich we build conservation on the ground with ourhands rather than simply with our vote, a practice ordinary citizens share with professional managers.” Today,

we can substitute the term “stewardship” for Leopold’s

“husbandry.” Tim Traver points out that “the old-styleconservation was something we did, with enormous satisfaction, for other people and places, but not something ordinary people and places did for themselves. The new style of conservation discussed during the symposium... is something altogether different; it is responsive to the ideals, visions, and passions of communities.” In this way, conservation becomes a shared obligation of a com- munity. This notion of community building is important at the global as well as the local level. John Elder emphasizes the importance of cultivating “a global, comparativist outlook, especially as we explore the values of community.” Jessica Brown notes that “as we link conservation with civics...we should encourage a broader citizenship in which responsibility begins at home, but ultimately extends beyond the bor- ders of community and country to include the planet we share with others.” The “word ‘civic’ is of equal importance to ‘community’ in this discussion,” according to John Elder. He imagines “national parks, national forests, and federally desig- nated wilderness areas...more fully integrated into our nation’s ongoing civic discourse.” Rolf Diamant agrees and argues that conservation builds social capital, defined by Robert Putnam as “a dense network of recip- rocal social relations.”2 Linking conservation with civics also provides the opportunity to “reimagine social rela- tionships and cultural institutions” for Luis Vivanco. Both Susan Flader and John Elder remind us that Aldo Leopold reflected on civil society and ethics when he wrote about respect for fellow citizens and respect for the community (both ecological and human) and encouraged his readers to strive for “an ecologically inclusive view of ethics and community.” For Jessica Brown, “conservation that is inclusive, participatory, and concerned with equity is inherently democratic.” This new, reenvisioned conservation ethic, championed by engaged “citizens of place,” is making a vital contri- bution to the quality of our democracy. Conservation is more engaged, more relevant, and more inclusive—a con- servation that better serves society and its changing needs. 1 Rolf Diamant as paraphrased by John Elder. 2 Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

[41]

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Nora J. Mitchell

Like the warp and weft of a

tapestry, this vision is constructed from tradition interwoven with innovation. 
No brief statement could summarize this sym- posium’s rich and varied insights. I start instead with one approach not explored. In 2001, the exhibit “American Sublime: Landscape Painting in the United States, 1820–1880,” opened

to widespread acclaim in London’s Tate Gallery. Apartfrom a few sniffy dismissals of New World creativity—“not bad for colonial daubers who had no Constable orTurner”—British reviewers were amazed by the awesometranscendence of nature as depicted by Americans fromThomas Cole to Frederic Church.

The felt transcendence of New World environments

was implicit in “Reconstructing Conservation.” But ourdiscussions scarcely touched on the visual incarnation ofnature in America, for most celebrants its quintessentialaspect. Indeed, landscape became the national icon,landscape painting the most popular realm of art.Visions of “a dwarfing ineffable God-haunted Nature”set Americans apart, notes John Updike in “AmericanSublime.”1 From nineteenth-century landscape painters

that vision was passed on to photographers, moviemakers, and abstractionists like Pollock and Kline, Motherwell and Still, Rothko and Newman. “American yearningfor the sublime stems from our assumption, since thePuritans, of a favored-nation status ‘under God,’ as the

disputed phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance has it. UnderGod, under the lintel, as perilously high as possible.”

Early Americans, engaged in carving out human shelter

and enterprise in a wilderness “full of inconvenient distances and obstructive underbrush,” spent little time inthe pictorial contemplation, let alone admiration, ofnature. “Who would want to buy a picture of trees,

rocks, and poison ivy when the reality stretched for mileson all sides?” When, asks Updike, did Americans “begin

to love their rugged interminable land?”

In the 1820s and 1830s artists first began to limn and

laud what was distinctively American, against the oftreiterated complaint (English and American alike) thatsuch scenes lacked the picturesque impress of humanhistory. Along with such writers as James FenimoreCooper and William Cullen Bryant, painters like Coleand Church, Asher Durand and Jasper Cropsey, Worthington Whittredge and Thomas Doughty, FrederickKensett and Sanford Gifford combined an enthusiasmfor American nature as God had made it, uncontaminated by Old World crime and terror, with an expresslyAmerican mission to conquer and improve nature—andin the process to tarnish if not destroy its transcendentglory.

American conservation thus traces back to early nineteenth-century observers who mourned the passing of

pristine nature, accepted its loss as an inevitable concomitant of progress, and expressed their ambivalence inart that domesticated Manifest Destiny. It took anotherhalf century to add to that nostalgic gaze an awarenessof the economic costs of rapacious exploitation, and acentury more for its ecological costs to become generallyevident. Unlike earlier devotees of American nature,however, today’s environmentalists often fail or refuse toacknowledge that conservation is not a discrete activity,but part of a larger dynamic process, mandating innovation and elimination along with retention and preservation. Instead, many conservation reformers seembesotted with the faith that they can turn the clock backand reclaim an Edenic state of nature. Like professionalplanners, they trisect time into a past when everythingwent wrong, a corrective present, and a future wheneverything will be perfect.

Two other singularly American traits, futurism and

perfectionism, at once enliven and obstruct conservationstewardship. Countless observers have dwelt on Americans’ obsession with the future. But our future-orientation is attenuated by brevity—the future we care about

is narrowly our own, for tomorrow or next year, seldomfor a longer term or a remoter posterity. Americans lookto a future too near at hand to be socially creative orecologically constructive. One reason for this is that theyremain, for all their nostalgia, dismissive of past tradition. Only awareness of what we owe to our forebearsengenders adequate concern for those who will comeafter us.

Perfectionism is likewise counterproductive. As in

much of life, the best is the enemy of the good. Accepting free enterprise and private property rights as American articles of faith, conservation leaders have habituallyforsworn general programs of land reform as unworkable. Instead they have focused on perfecting a few precious jewels they could control by purchase—federal andstate forest reserves, national parks, and wildernessareas. Here they have sought, often with enviable success,to create exemplary sites of ecological, recreational, andscenic inspiration. But their exemplary function is atotal failure. Instead of being viewed as models for privately owned lands, they are set apart as utterly unique.Americans are conditioned to think that only thesespecial places are worth conserving, the rest of the country undeserving of attention. So we end up with a handful of superbly managed sites to visit on holiday oradmire from afar, and a run-of-the-mill everyday landscape devoid of control or care. This dichotomy confirms the disastrous fallacy that only the unusualwarrants saving; what is ordinary is worthless. It is

[43]

EPILOGUE

David Lowenthal
[45]

Beckmann, Andreas, Ladislav Ptácek, Brent

Mitchell, Miroslav Kundrata, and RafalSerafin. Caring for the Land: A Decade of

Promoting Landscape Stewardship in CentralEurope. Czech Republic: Environmental

Partnership for Central Europe Consortium and QLF/Atlantic Center for theEnvironment, 2000.

Bernard, Ted, and Jora Young. The Ecology of

Hope: Communities Collaborate for Sustainability. Gabriola Island, British Columbia:

New Society Publishers, 1997.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia. Collaborative

Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring theApproach to the Context. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN—The World Conservation

Union, 1996.

Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia, with Dianne

Buchan. Beyond Fences: Seeking Social Sustainability in Conservation. Vol. 1: A Process

Companion. Vol. 2: A Resource Book.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN—The WorldConservation Union, 1997.

Bray, Paul M., ed. “Taking Stock: Changing

Ideas and Visions for Parks.” The George

Wright Forum 17, no. 2 (2000).

Brick, Philip, Donald Snow, and Sarah Van

de Wetering. Across the Great Divide:

Explorations in Collaborative Conservation andthe American West. Washington, DC:

Island Press, 2000.

Brown, Jessica L., and Ashish Kothari, eds.

“Local Communities and ProtectedAreas.” Parks 12, no. 2 (2002).

Brown, Jessica L., and Brent A. Mitchell,

eds. “Stewardship: An International

Perspective.” Environments: A Journal of

Interdisciplinary Studies 26, no. 1 (1998).

Brown, Jessica, Nora Mitchell, and Fausto

Sarmiento, eds. “Landscape Stewardship:New Directions in Conservation ofNature and Culture.” The George Wright

Forum 17, no. 1 (2000).

Colchester, Marcus. Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas, and Biodiversity

Conservation. Geneva, Switzerland:

UNRISD Discussion Paper 55, September1994.

Conservation Study Institute, IUCN—

The World Conservation Union, andQLF/Atlantic Center for the Environment.

Landscape Conservation: An InternationalWorking Session on the Stewardship ofProtected Landscapes. Woodstock, VT: 

Conservation Study Institute, 2001.

Cronon, William, ed. Uncommon Ground:

Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W.W.Norton and Company, 1995.

DuPuis, E.M., and P. Vandergeest, eds.

Creating the Countryside: The Politics of Ruraland Environmental Discourse. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press, 1996.

Finch, Robert, and John Elder, eds. The

Norton Book of Nature Writing. New York:

W.W. Norton and Company, 2002.

Ghimire, Krishna B., and Michel P. Pimbert,

eds. Social Change and Conservation: Environmental Politics and Impacts of National Parks

and Protected Areas. London: Earthscan

Publications Limited, 1997.

Howe, Jim, Ed McMahon, and Luther

Propst. Balancing Nature and Commerce in

Gateway Communities. Washington, DC:Island Press, 1997.

Kemf, Elizabeth, ed. The Law of the Mother:

Protecting Indigenous Peoples in ProtectedAreas. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books,

1993.

Kemmis, Daniel. Community and the Politics 

of Place. Norman, OK: University of

Oklahoma Press, 1990.

Klyza, Christopher McGrory, ed. Wilderness

Comes Home: Rewilding the Northeast.

Hanover, NH: University Press of NewEngland, 2001.

Knight, Richard L., and Peter B. Landres,

eds. Stewardship across Boundaries. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1998.

Lippard, Lucy R. The Lure of the Local: Senses

of Place in a Multicentered Society. New York:

The New Press, 1997.

Lowenthal, David. George Perkins Marsh:

Prophet of Conservation. Seattle: University

of Washington Press, 2000.

McKibben, Bill. Hope, Human and Wild: True

Stories of Living on the Earth. St. Paul, MN:

Hungry Mind Press, 1995.

McNeely, Jeffrey A. Expanding Partnerships in

Conservation. Washington, DC: Island

Press, 1995.

Nabhan, Gary Paul. Cultures of Habitat: On

Nature, Culture, and Story. Washington,

DC: Counterpoint, 1997.

National Park System Advisory Board.

Rethinking the National Parks for the Twentyfirst Century: National Park System AdvisoryBoard Report, 2001. Washington, DC:

National Park Service, 2001.

Northern Forest Center. Northern Forest

Wealth Index: Exploring a Deeper Meaning ofWealth. Concord, NH: Northern Forest

Center, 2000.

Phillips, Adrian, series ed. Best Practice

Protected Area Guidelines Series. Gland,

Switzerland: IUCN—The World Conservation Union World Commission onProtected Areas and University of Cardiff, 1998–2002. <http://wcpa.iucn.org/pubs/publications.html#guidelines>

Pimbert, Michel P., and Jules N. Pretty.

Parks, People, and Professionals. Putting“Participation” into Protected Area Management. Discussion Paper 57. Geneva,Switzerland: UNRISD, February 1995.

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The

Collapse and Revival of American Community.

New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.,2000.

—

. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in

Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press, 1993.

Shutkin, William A. The Land That Could Be:

Environmentalism and Democracy in theTwenty-first Century. Cambridge, MA: 

The MIT Press, 2000.

Spirn, Anne Whiston. The Language of

Landscape. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1998.

Stolton, Sue, and Nigel Dudley, eds.

Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for ProtectedAreas. London: Earthscan Publications,

Ltd., 1999.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., ed. The Landscape of

Conservation Stewardship: The Report of theStewardship Initiative Feasibility Study. Woodstock, VT: Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller

National Historical Park, The WoodstockFoundation, Inc., and ConservationStudy Institute, 2000.

Tuxill, Jacquelyn L., and Nora J. Mitchell,

eds. Collaboration and Conservation: Lessons

Learned in Areas Managed through NationalPark Service Partnership. Woodstock, VT:

Conservation Study Institute, 2001.

Von Droste, Bernd, Harald Plachter, and

Mechtild Rössler, eds. Cultural Landscapes

of Universal Value: Components of a GlobalStrategy. Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag,

1995.

Western, David, and R. Michael Wright,

eds; Shirley C. Strum, assoc. ed. Natural

Connections: Perspectives in Community-BasedConservation. Proceedings of a workshop

held in Airlee, VA, Oct. 18–22, 1993.Washington, DC: Island Press, 1994. 

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee.

Making Collaboration Work: Lessons fromInnovation in Natural Resource Management.

Washington, DC: Island Press, 2000.

FURTHER READING
Appendices

SYMPOSIUM

AGENDA

SYMPOSIUM

PARTICIPANTS

[47]
[49]

David N. BengstonNorth Central Research Station USDA Forest Service1992 Folwell AvenueSt. Paul, MN 55108Phone: (651) 649-5162dbengston@fs.fed.usTom BerryOffice of Senator Jeffords30 Main StreetBurlington, VT 05401Phone: (802) 658-6001tom_berry@jeffords.senate.govDarby BradleyVermont Land Trust8 Bailey AvenueMontpelier, VT 05602Phone: (802) 223-5234 darby@vlt.orgJessica BrownQLF/Atlantic Center for 

the Environment

55 South Main StreetIpswich, MA 01938Phone: (978) 356-0038jbrown@qlf.orgMegha BudrukSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Vermont361 Aiken CenterBurlington, VT 05405Phone: (802) 656-3113megha.budruk@uvm.eduJ. Baird CallicottDepartment of Philosophy and 

Religion Studies

Institute of Applied SciencesUniversity of North TexasDenton, TX 76203Phone: (940) 565-4846callicott@unt.eduMegan CampShelburne Farms1611 Harbor RoadShelburne, VT 05482Phone: (802) 985-8686mcamp@shelburnefarms.orgDelia ClarkAntioch New England InstituteAntioch New England Graduate SchoolP.O. Box 97Taftsville, VT 05073Phone: (603) 357-3122 x 237, 

(802) 457-2075

dclark@antiochne.edu

Rolf DiamantMarsh-Billings-Rockefeller National 

Historical Park

54 Elm StreetWoodstock, VT 05091Phone: (802) 457-3368 x 15rolf_diamant@nps.govJan E. DizardDepartment of American StudiesAmherst CollegeCampus Box 2226Amherst, MA 01002-5000Phone: (413) 542-2742jan.dizard@verizon.netDavid A. DonathThe Woodstock Foundation, Inc.P. O. Box 489Woodstock, VT 05091Phone: (802) 457-2355 x 13dloon@sover.netJohn ElderMiddlebury CollegeMiddlebury, VT 05753Phone: (802) 443-5281elder@middlebury.eduJ. Glenn EugsterNational Park ServiceNational Capital RegionRoom 350, 1100 Ohio Drive, SW Washington, DC 20242Phone: (202) 619-7492glenn_eugster@nps.govVirginia FarleyConservation Study Institute173 Old Route 100Moretown, VT 05660 Phone: (802) 223-0870virginia_farley@nps.govSusan FladerDepartment of HistoryUniversity of MissouriColumbia, MO 65311Phone: (573) 882-8264, 

(573) 442-1058

fladers@missouri.eduPeter ForbesKnoll Farm700 Bragg Hill RoadWaitsfield, VT 05673Phone: (802) 496-5686peter.forbes@tpl.org

Eric T. FreyfogleUniversity of Illinois College of Law504 East Pennsylvania AvenueChampaign, IL 61820Phone: (217) 333-8713efreyfog@law.uiuc.eduJohn Martin GillroyEnvironmental Studies ProgramBucknell UniversityColeman 100/103Lewisburg, PA 17837Phone: (570) 577-3464gillroy@bucknell.eduLeslie J. HudsonConservation Consultant70 Forest AvenueOrono, ME 04473Phone: (207) 866-2271leshudson@prexar.comPhilip B. HuffmanConservation ConsultantP.O. Box 1420Waitsfield, VT 05673Phone: (802) 496-4569phuffman@madriver.comBeth HumstoneVermont Forum on Sprawl110 Main StreetBurlington, VT 06401Phone: (802) 864-6310ehumstone@vtsprawl.orgDeb JonesConservation Study Institute54 Elm StreetWoodstock, VT 05091Phone: (802) 457-3368 x 16deb_jones@partner.nps.govRichard W. JuddUniversity of MaineDepartment of History5774 Stevens HallOrono, ME 04469-5774Phone: (207) 581-1910richard_judd@umit.maine.eduChristopher B. LaPointeSchool of Natural ResourcesUniversity of VermontBurlington, VT 05405Phone: (802) 865-5016christopher.lapointe@uvm.edu

SYMPOSIUM PARTICIPANTS

 on Conservation Stewardship:

dscapes, and Communities

Preserved

—

University of Vermont

capes: The Emergence of a Cultural 

—Nora Mitchell, National Park Service

nstitute

r Landscape-Scale Conservation in the

Steven Trombulak, Middlebury College

RSH-BILLINGS-ROCKEFELLER

AL PARK, WOODSTOCK, VERMONT

ip: Legacies from Vermont’s Marsh

—

iversity College, London

Values, and Landscape Change:

ges and Defining New Principles

mont: The Impact of Land Conservation 

s, and the Rural Economy

—Darby

nd Trust

 Context: Coping with Change and 

—Brent Mitchell, QLF/Atlantic Center 

Capital: Reflections on Sustainability 

Diamant, Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller

ark

 American Conservation: Seamless

on and Prosperity

—J. Glenn Eugster,

ion, National Park Service

 and Rural Communities: 

cts

onservation

—

niversity of Vermont

Culture, Genuine and Spurious

—

ity of Vermont

 Leopold in a New Century 

ught and Practice

n the Land: Aldo Leopold and 

onalism and Citizenship

—

sity of Missouri

ealth

—

sity of Illinois

and Ethic

—

onal Crane Foundation

AND

PRACTICE
icia A. Stokowski

ol of Natural Resources

ersity of Vermont

Aiken Center

ngton, VT 05405

e: (802) 656-3093

cia.stokowski@uvm.edu

 Pepperman Taylor

artment of Political Science

ersity of Vermont

Old Mill

ngton, VT 05405

e: (802) 656-4289

rt.taylor@uvm.edu

Swift

d Teton National Park

Drawer 170

se, WY 83012-0170

e: (307) 739-3390

wift@nps.gov

h Thorne

ty for the Protection of 

w Hampshire Forests

ortsmouth Street

ord, NH 03301

e: (603) 224-9945

ne@spnhf.org

Traver

ce Writer/Nonprofit 

velopment Consultant

Box 45

ville, VT 05073

e: (802) 457-4886

e@sover.net

hen C. Trombulak

artment of Biology and Program 

Environmental Studies

lebury Collegelebury, VT 05753

e: (802) 443-5439

bulak@middlebury.edu

 A. Vivanco

artment of Anthropology 

ersity of Vermont

Williams Hall

ngton, VT 05405

e: (802) 656-1184

ivanco@uvm.edu

ifer Waite

ont Rivers and Trails Program

onal Park Service

m Street

dstock, VT 05091

e: (802) 457-3368 x 21

fer_waite@nps.gov

Photo CreditsJessica Brown: 8Rolf Diamant: 4c, 4d, 19a, 19bGolden Gate National Parks Conservancy: 7Robert McCabe (courtesy of Susan Flader): 34Robert McCullough: 17, 31Brent Mitchell: 37Nora Mitchell: 29National Park Service: vi, 22, 23, 27Ed Sharron: 4bBarbara Slaiby: 4aPatricia Stokowski: 12a, 12b, 12cUSDA Forest Service: 15a, 15b, 26, 30Vermont Historical Society: 16Vermont Land Trust: 10a, 10b, 28Luis Vivanco: 20a, 20b, 20c, 38Andrea Bruce Woodall (courtesy of Northern Forest Center): 6Cover Art © Michael GibbsDesign: Brian P. Graphic Arts
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

Conservation Study Institute

54 Elm Street / Woodstock, Vermont 05091

Tel: (802) 457-3368 / Fax: (802) 457-3405

Web: www.nps.gov/csi