We surveyed four US federal agencies in response to a recent informal request for examples of new wilderness technology applications. Most managers responded that they currently address the impacts of new technology on a case-by-case basis using a combination of law enforcement, information, and monitoring techniques. The vast majority of respondents indicated a need for better definitions of new technology and a more thorough discussion of its appropriate uses. We also noted the need for a clearer agency policy and additional resources.
Negative impacts
The debate over the positive and negative impacts of wilderness technology is complicated because very little research has been done in this area. Existing studies tend to focus on specific types of technology and focus on the adverse consequences of those technologies. These studies, however, do not address issues relating to lightweight synthetic materials. Many of these materials are dangerous and may have negative health consequences, especially to the environment. Therefore, the question is, should wilderness areas be closed to new technologies?
Increasing numbers of people are relying on modern technology to access the outdoors. This trend exacerbates the loss of natural wilderness spaces. While technological advancements improve human convenience, these improvements also increase pressure to open up more landscapes to high-impact instrumental uses. This pressure increases the risk of fracking in wilderness areas, reducing the space available for recreation and improving the quality of life. However, technological developments and wilderness values are necessary to ensure that wilderness is preserved in the future.
The use of contemporary technology in the wilderness has changed how it is perceived and managed. This change can be positive and negative, affecting the various actors and the wildlife itself. As Stankey has noted, this technology has “Janus-like” effects on nature. As such, wilderness managers must take the time to examine the positive and negative effects of technology. However, he did not go into detail in the discussion about the potential harms of using these technologies.
Research needed
A recent informal request for new wilderness technology use examples was distributed to four federal agencies. Respondents noted that they typically address technology impacts on a case-by-case basis through monitoring, information, and law enforcement techniques. Despite this lack of consensus, most respondents indicated a need for more research and discussion on appropriate uses of new technologies in the wilderness. These researchers also identified the need for additional agency policies, more resources, and better definitions of acceptable technologies.
In addition to federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations can also play an important role in wilderness technology. While conducting baseline inventories can be difficult, even the most well-staffed wilderness operation may be unable to perform such tasks. Volunteer efforts with government agencies and user groups will increase the ability to perform needed work and engage users. Such cooperative approaches have proven successful in land management and wilderness management issues. However, they can be costly and require considerable resources.
The use of contemporary technology in wilderness settings will undoubtedly impact the wilderness experience and management. These changes are both positive and negative. They affect a wide variety of actors and the wilderness itself. As Stankey notes, technology is a “Janus-like” issue. It may positively or negatively impact the wilderness and its people. Research is needed to ensure the best possible outcomes for both sides. In addition, technology will change the way people view nature.
Nongovernmental organizations that can help with wilderness technology
NGO stands for a nongovernmental organization. These organizations differ widely in their goals, size, and organization. Many focus on national or local issues, while others have global reach, having affiliated groups in various countries. All work to promote the betterment of society. Some work in developing countries, some in developed ones. Some are both. These groups may work to make a difference in one part of the world or all.
While many NGOs are involved in conservation efforts, a few are particularly important. Influential writers and activists founded environmental organizations in the nineteenth century. The Izaak Walton League of America, for example, was formed in 1922 by a group of sportsmen who were concerned about the destruction of wildlife habitats. On the other hand, the World Monuments Fund focuses on preserving cultural heritage sites and, in 2006, coordinated more than 600 projects in 90 countries. Its World Monuments Watch program aims to bring attention to endangered cultural sites.
Many NGOs rely on outside funding sources. The majority do not have memberships large enough to be financially independent. Their funding sources range from governments to foundations to private companies. Many of these groups are criticized for excessive deference to industry and corporate protectionism. Most NGOs rely on donations from members and hire consultants to identify the most pressing issues. Some also exaggerate the problems that they face to maximize donations.
