Roots, relevance, aims and values
19
appreciation of their natural surroundings was simple
and powerful, and found a ready support base amongst
the middle class citizenry and some governments.
Preservationist groups devoted to identifying and
acquiring nature monuments were established in
France (1901), Holland (1904), Switzerland (1909)
and England (1912), while the Prussian and Swedish
states appointed government commissioners for this
task in 1906 and 1912 respectively. In the US, the
1906 Antiquities Act provided for the creation of
‘ national monuments ’ , including natural sites (Sellars,
1997 ). The idea also spread to the Netherlands ’ Indies
(now Indonesia), where the government designated 24
Natuurmonumenten between 1914 and 1924 for
reasons as varied as protection of botanical, faunal and
geological features, beautiful panoramas, the Javan
rhino, a memorial for an 18th century naturalist
and a sacred fi g tree (Dammerman, 1929 ; Jepson &
Whittaker, 2002a ).
Unfortunately, from a conservation perspective, the
nationalistic values promoted by Naturdenkmal were
appropriated to a degree by right - wing and nationalist
politicians in the fi rst half of the 20th century, leading
to a distinct ‘ down - playing ’ of this value in modern
conservation propaganda. This trend of politicization
was less evident in the UK, where the designation
‘ nature reserve ’ was preferred to the grander term
‘ nature monument ’ .
2.2.5 Wildlife s anctuaries and r efuges
Hunting and natural history were two of the great passions of the Victorian age which brought the metropolitan elite into contact with nature at home, and
with the frontier landscapes of Africa and the American
West. These passions cut across society and led to politically infl uential citizens witnessing at fi rst hand the
disastrous impacts of cultivation, market hunting and
resource extraction on species and landscapes (Jepson
& Whittaker, 2002a ).
Arguably the most infl uential conservationist of all
time was the 26th President of the United States of
America, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt – an avid hunter
whose vision for conservation was largely moulded by
the excesses he perceived in many of his fellow big
game and market hunters. Roosevelt is personally
responsible for articulating two of the core values
of the modern conservation movement (Table 2.1 ):
fi rst, that humanity has a moral responsibility to save
the health and well - being of urban dwellers. This value
soon took root in urban planning in west European
and east coast American cities, leading to the creation
of urban parks (notably Central Park in New York)
and prompting the acquisition of land in or close to
cities for designation as country parks (UK) or state
parks (US), managed primarily for informal outdoor
recreation.
2.2.4 Nature m onuments and
n ature r eserves
A further site - based agenda for protecting natural sites
emerged from the older natural history and philosophical societies. By the mid - 19th century, natural history
had reached craze proportions as a popular pastime
and scientifi c endeavour among certain sections of
European society (Allen, 1994 ). It was considered the
ideal form of self - improvement, providing exercise,
education and rational amusement. In combination
with romanticist sentiments, it made the fi eld excursion and fi eld club an important focal point of European
middle class social life. Perhaps not surprisingly, these
fi eld clubs mobilized to protect favourite fi eld sites and
other natural sites with special cultural, aesthetic and
scientifi c appeal from urban and agricultural threats
(and in Germany from clear - felling policies).
A call for action was made between 1900 and 1908
by a prominent German forester, Hugo Conwentz, who
conducted a series of high - profi le lectures in European
cities, where he articulated the threats to natural sites
and promoted the concept and vision of Naturdenkmal .
This consisted of three inter - connected ideas:
1 that the idea of memorial – Denkmal in German and
usually applied to anything in commemoration (e.g.
eminent persons, works of literature and art, and
ancient buildings) – could also be applied to nature;
2 that Naturdenkmal , like great works of art, should be
guarded against ruin;
3 that such action had patriotic value, because, ‘ by
these undertakings, parts of the country at home
become better known and more fully appreciated ’
(Conwentz, 1909 ).
The concept of Naturdenkmal captured the value
that aesthetic and intellectual contemplation of
nature is integral to the biological and cultural inheritance of many peoples, and thus that monuments of
nature should be guarded from ruin. The idea of protecting places where people could develop a greater
19
appreciation of their natural surroundings was simple
and powerful, and found a ready support base amongst
the middle class citizenry and some governments.
Preservationist groups devoted to identifying and
acquiring nature monuments were established in
France (1901), Holland (1904), Switzerland (1909)
and England (1912), while the Prussian and Swedish
states appointed government commissioners for this
task in 1906 and 1912 respectively. In the US, the
1906 Antiquities Act provided for the creation of
‘ national monuments ’ , including natural sites (Sellars,
1997 ). The idea also spread to the Netherlands ’ Indies
(now Indonesia), where the government designated 24
Natuurmonumenten between 1914 and 1924 for
reasons as varied as protection of botanical, faunal and
geological features, beautiful panoramas, the Javan
rhino, a memorial for an 18th century naturalist
and a sacred fi g tree (Dammerman, 1929 ; Jepson &
Whittaker, 2002a ).
Unfortunately, from a conservation perspective, the
nationalistic values promoted by Naturdenkmal were
appropriated to a degree by right - wing and nationalist
politicians in the fi rst half of the 20th century, leading
to a distinct ‘ down - playing ’ of this value in modern
conservation propaganda. This trend of politicization
was less evident in the UK, where the designation
‘ nature reserve ’ was preferred to the grander term
‘ nature monument ’ .
2.2.5 Wildlife s anctuaries and r efuges
Hunting and natural history were two of the great passions of the Victorian age which brought the metropolitan elite into contact with nature at home, and
with the frontier landscapes of Africa and the American
West. These passions cut across society and led to politically infl uential citizens witnessing at fi rst hand the
disastrous impacts of cultivation, market hunting and
resource extraction on species and landscapes (Jepson
& Whittaker, 2002a ).
Arguably the most infl uential conservationist of all
time was the 26th President of the United States of
America, Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt – an avid hunter
whose vision for conservation was largely moulded by
the excesses he perceived in many of his fellow big
game and market hunters. Roosevelt is personally
responsible for articulating two of the core values
of the modern conservation movement (Table 2.1 ):
fi rst, that humanity has a moral responsibility to save
the health and well - being of urban dwellers. This value
soon took root in urban planning in west European
and east coast American cities, leading to the creation
of urban parks (notably Central Park in New York)
and prompting the acquisition of land in or close to
cities for designation as country parks (UK) or state
parks (US), managed primarily for informal outdoor
recreation.
2.2.4 Nature m onuments and
n ature r eserves
A further site - based agenda for protecting natural sites
emerged from the older natural history and philosophical societies. By the mid - 19th century, natural history
had reached craze proportions as a popular pastime
and scientifi c endeavour among certain sections of
European society (Allen, 1994 ). It was considered the
ideal form of self - improvement, providing exercise,
education and rational amusement. In combination
with romanticist sentiments, it made the fi eld excursion and fi eld club an important focal point of European
middle class social life. Perhaps not surprisingly, these
fi eld clubs mobilized to protect favourite fi eld sites and
other natural sites with special cultural, aesthetic and
scientifi c appeal from urban and agricultural threats
(and in Germany from clear - felling policies).
A call for action was made between 1900 and 1908
by a prominent German forester, Hugo Conwentz, who
conducted a series of high - profi le lectures in European
cities, where he articulated the threats to natural sites
and promoted the concept and vision of Naturdenkmal .
This consisted of three inter - connected ideas:
1 that the idea of memorial – Denkmal in German and
usually applied to anything in commemoration (e.g.
eminent persons, works of literature and art, and
ancient buildings) – could also be applied to nature;
2 that Naturdenkmal , like great works of art, should be
guarded against ruin;
3 that such action had patriotic value, because, ‘ by
these undertakings, parts of the country at home
become better known and more fully appreciated ’
(Conwentz, 1909 ).
The concept of Naturdenkmal captured the value
that aesthetic and intellectual contemplation of
nature is integral to the biological and cultural inheritance of many peoples, and thus that monuments of
nature should be guarded from ruin. The idea of protecting places where people could develop a greater