Essay
Incorporating Social and Cultural Significance of Large Old Trees in Conservation Policy ´ MALGORZATA BLICHARSKA∗ AND GRZEGORZ MIKUSINSKI†‡ § ∗
Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7007, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden †Grims¨ o Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden ‡School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 43, SE-739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden
Abstract: In addition to providing key ecological functions, large old trees are a part of a social realm and as such provide numerous social-cultural benefits to people. However, their social and cultural values are often neglected when designing conservation policies and management guidelines. We believe that awareness of large old trees as a part of human identity and cultural heritage is essential when addressing the issue of their decline worldwide. Large old trees provide humans with aesthetic, symbolic, religious, and historic values, as well as concrete tangible benefits, such as leaves, branches, or nuts. In many cultures particularly large trees are treated with reverence. Also, contemporary popular culture utilizes the image of trees as sentient beings and builds on the ancient myths that attribute great powers to large trees. Although the social and cultural role of large old trees is usually not taken into account in conservation, accounting for human-related values of these trees is an important part of conservation policy because it may strengthen conservation by highlighting the potential synergies in protecting ecological and social values. Keywords: cultural values, ecosystem services, large trees, natural heritage, old trees, policy, social values ´ rboles A˜ Incorporaci´ on del Significado Social y Cultural de A nejos a Pol´ıticas de Conservaci´ on Blicharska & Mikusi´ nski
Resumen: Adem´as de cumplir funciones ecol´ogicas clave, los a´ rboles a˜nejos son una parte del a´ mbito social y como tal proporcionan numerosos beneficios sociales y culturales a la gente. Sin embargo, sus valores sociales y culturales a menudo no reciben atenci´ on cundo se dise˜ nan pol´ıticas de conservaci´ on y directrices de manejo. Consideramos que la conciencia sobre a nejos, como parte de la identidad y patrimonio ´ rboles a˜ humanos, es esencial cuando se aborda el tema de su declinaci´ on mundial. Los a nejos y grandes ´ rboles a˜ proporcionan valores est´eticos, simb´ olicos, religiosos e hist´ oricos, as´ı como beneficios concretos tangibles como hojas, ramas o frutos. En muchas culturas, los a nejos son tratados con reverencia. Tambi´en, la ´ rboles a˜ cultura popular contempor´ anea utiliza la imagen de a ´ rboles como seres sensibles y se basa en mitos antiguos que les atribuyen grandes poderes. Mientras que el papel social y cultural de a nejos generalmente no ´ rboles a˜ es tomado en cuenta en la conservaci´ on, la consideraci´ on de los valores relacionados con humanos de estos a on porque pueden fortalecer la conservaci´ on al ´ rboles es una parte importante de las pol´ıticas de conservaci´ resaltar las sinergias potenciales de los valores ecol´ ogicos y sociales. ´ rboles a˜ nejos, ´arboles grandes, patrimonio natural, pol´ıtica, servicios del ecosistema, valores Palabras Clave: A culturales, valores sociales
§Address correspondence to G. Mikusi´ nski, email [email protected] Paper submitted January 16, 2014; revised manuscript accepted April 10, 2014.
1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–10 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12341
Value of Large Old Trees
2
Introduction Trees have been, and remain, universal symbols, totems, and icons. Trees are creatures of admiration, reverence, fear, romance, mysticism, and worship to the people around them. Trees are more than their component wood, leaves, and bark. Trees occupy the physical world, but in addition, occupy special psychological place in human consciousness. (Coder 1996)
Large old trees are key structures that provide various ecological functions in many different environments, and their on-going decline can have substantial consequences for both biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems worldwide (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, 2013). However, these trees also share characteristics that make them in various ways important for people. Therefore, notwithstanding their ecological role, large old trees also constitute indispensable elements of the social realm and are essential components of human cultural heritage (Blicharska & Mikusinski 2013). In many societies, large old trees have been revered and worshiped through generations, and they are still important components of cultural identity (Wassink 1974; Frese & Gray 1995; Anderson 2004; Dafni 2006). With age, trees may attain dimensions (e.g., height or biomass) and complexity larger than virtually any other type of living organisms. As such, large old trees easily awaken emotions, appeal to aesthetic sentiments, and are often perceived as important landmarks. Another unique feature of trees is their exceptional longevity, in some cases exceeding a thousand years. The ages and dimensions of trees defined as old or large differ among regions and species (Lindenmayer et al. 2013). Still, such trees need at least some 200–300 years to develop old-growth characteristics; thus, their existence spans many human generations and they become a historic link between the generations (Fig. 1). The importance of large old trees for humans is not only cultural, religious, and symbolic, but also utilitarian (Anderson 2004; Turner et al. 2009). Lindenmayer et al. (2013) indicated the need for new policies and management guidelines that would address the issue of the global decline of large old trees. They focused on the ecological value of these trees, which is certainly very important. However, it is not the only aspect that should be taken into account in policies. We believe that the social importance of large old trees, often underestimated by the conservation community (e.g., Laband 2013), needs to have a larger role in policies concerning these key biotic structures. We argue that awareness of large old trees as a part of human identity and cultural heritage is essential when addressing the issue of their decline worldwide. Incorporating social-cultural values of large old trees would not only complement conservation
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
and management guidelines, but it could also provide visibility to the management problems connected with large old trees and old-growth forests. We describe the social-cultural role of large old trees and consider the implications of taking into account human-related values of the large old trees in conservation policies.
Value of Large Old Trees Large old trees are important elements of many ecosystems and have a multitude of functions, both ecological (Lindenmayer et al. 2013) and social (see below). From a human perspective, these functions include tangible and intangible values of which both are equally important across different cultures and societies. Tangible values are typically represented by various provisioning of goods that may be collected for decades or even centuries from a single specimen, whereas the intangible values are of aesthetic, religious, and symbolic character.
Tangible Benefits Across the globe, large old trees provide humans with long-term benefits and services that are based on noninvasive or sustainable use of trees without killing them. These encompass, for example, trees pollarded or shredded to provide fodder for domestic stock or twigs for production of baskets or other tools (Slotte 1997; Salerno et al. 2005). Additionally, trees are repeatedly tapped for resin and have their bark, flowers, fruits, and nuts removed for fodder, food, or medicinal purposes (e.g., ¨ Ostlund et al. 2003; da Silva Medeiros & Vieira 2008; Turner et al. 2009; Singh et al. 2011). These benefits can be delivered from individual trees for hundreds of years. Obviously, some uses, such as pollarding, may affect the form of particular specimens (culturally modified trees), but these trees usually develop and maintain many qualities typical of old-growth trees (e.g., large dimension of trunks or hollow structures). Ancient use of large old trees for beekeeping is known (e.g., Korbel 2012) and linked to the fact that bees prefer nesting sites in cavities in large trees (Seeley & Morse 1978). Finally, large old trees are often naturally used as a shelter for domestic animals and humans. Many of the tangible benefits of large old trees are interwoven with their intangible values.
Aesthetic and Symbolic Values Aesthetic and symbolic values of large old trees can be attributed to different age and dimension; however, large trees are usually perceived as special entities that awaken imagination and emotions, both positive and negative,
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
3
Figure 1. An oak in southern Sweden that is over 1000 years old. The age of this tree roughly equals the age of the Swedish state (photo by K. Borkowski).
Figure 2. A large tree in a city park in Auckland, New Zealand (photo by G. Mikusi´ nski).
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
4
and they are treated with reverence in many cultures (Haberman 2013). Although different kinds of vegetation may increase the attractiveness of particular areas, the aesthetic value of many parks in or in the vicinity of human settlements (towns, villages, castles, manor houses) seems to be directly related to the presence of trees of large dimensions (Green 1984; Mikusi´ nski & Angelstam 1999; Jim 2005a; Jim & Zhang 2013). Single large old trees, tree rows, and tree alleys in urban environments and in the countryside are often highly valued by local people and visitors (Smardon 1988; Long & Nair 1999; Kaplan 2007; Edwards et al. 2012). This is consistent with the finding of Buhyoff et al. (1984) that people in general prefer scenic views with larger fewer stems than views with many smalldimension tree stems. What is appreciated are the large dimensions and majestic silhouettes of old trees (Nelson 1976; Haider & Hunt 2002) and their perceived naturalness or natural vegetation structure (Smardon 1988). Studies on social preferences with regard to urban environments reveal that people prefer vegetated areas, especially areas with trees, over areas with no vegetation (e.g., Ulrich 1985; Kaplan & Austin 2004) with trees of large sizes being highly appreciated (Kalmbach & Kielbaso 1979; Schroeder & Cannon 1983; Schroeder et al. 2006) (Fig. 2). For example, in a study of 5 cities in the United States, street trees of large dimensions (over 7 m tall) were perceived by the citizens as preferable to smaller trees for aesthetic reasons (Kalmbach & Kielbaso 1979). Other studies in urban areas show that city residents like large trees because they make their neighborhoods seem “more mature” (Heimlich et al. 2008). Moreover, the attractiveness of the street (determined by the single factor of the size of the trees) increases as the canopy over the street from large trees increases (Schroeder & Ruffolo 1996), and large trees that canopy the street are seen as important (Heimlich et al. 2008). Consequently, the presence of trees often influences property prices (Gold 1977; Price 2007; Seburanga & Zhang 2013). Nevertheless, the presence of large old trees in urban and other environments may, in some cases, be perceived negatively. Due to ageing processes, such trees often drop dead branches or are associated with deadwood on the ground that may not be appreciated (e.g., Tyrv¨ainen et al. 2003; Edwards et al. 2012; but see Hauru et al. 2014). Moreover, large branches falling from trees are unquestionably a hazard for public safety and may thus be perceived as dangerous (e.g., Carpaneto et al. 2010). For local people, the aesthetic value of large old trees in the landscape intermingles with emotional perceptions linked to personal sentiments and a “sense of place” (e.g., Garner 2004). For example, it is particularly common that individuals become personally attached to specific trees that stimulate childhood memories. Trees are planted as living memorials to loved ones who have died (Dwyer
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
et al. 1991). In many cities some old trees are seen as important elements of cultural identity that have “crucial inherited and inheritable connotation” and “transgenerational significance” (Jim 2005a, 2005b). These trees are classified as heritage trees (see below). The death of a large old tree may awaken especially strong emotions related to the feeling of permanent loss of something that has developed over a very long time (Kimmins 2003). Not surprisingly, the threat of losing those objects due to development often causes large scale protests (e.g., Burton 2004; Arrhenius 2010). Trees in general are valuable as objects with symbolic meaning, and people often develop parallels between the images of trees and humans. For example, in S. Silverstein’s 1964 The Giving Tree a tree gives the main child character selfless love to the point of its own destruction, and yet the story ends with the sentence, “And the tree was happy.” Appleyard (1980) considers the sheltering nature of trees as being “parental” in nature and old trees as looking “wise” to people. In many cultures, trees symbolize wisdom, health, and enlightenment (Schroeder 1988; Coder 1996). In many religions, large trees are important spiritual symbols that link human and divine spheres. For example, Buddha is said to have achieved enlightenment when he was sitting under the “wisdom tree” (Schroeder 1988). Even in today’s Western civilization, the idea of trees as sentient beings is often expressed, for example, the treelike beings that shepherd the forest in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. The symbolic meaning of large old trees is often used in contemporary popular culture. In the movie Avatar, by J. Cameron, the native clans live gathered around sacred home trees and are “immersed in a religious mysticism” (Fatu-Tutoveanu & Pintilescu 2012). Cameron builds on the traditional myths of many nations, such as the Scandinavian Yggdrasil, Mayan Cosmic Tree, and the Tree of Life from the Near East, all of which consider a large tree the source of all life and of great powers (Haberman 2013). At the same time, popular culture frequently invokes the dark side of large old trees, making them objects of anxiety and fear, for example, the Tree of the Dead in the Sleepy Hollow movie by T. Burton; the child-eating tree in Poltergeist, a movie by S. Spielberg; and the whomping willow, a human-slaughtering tree in the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. Religious and Spiritual Value In many regions of the world some large old trees are protected and secured against logging or other terminal uses for religious reasons or due to taboos, as in India, where certain large old trees are often maintained for religious practices (Fig. 3). Such sacred trees may be the object of rituals of religious nature (Haberman 2013), but in some cases these trees are a source of material used in traditional activities or religious ceremonies (Frese &
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
5
Figure 3. A large fig tree in the sacred grove devoted to Shiva in northern Western Ghats, India (photo by J. Sarnaik).
Figure 4. A large oak tree in the Białowie˙za National Park in Poland (photo by J. Korbel).
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
6
Gray 1995). Dafni (2006) listed 24 reasons for establishing sacred trees worldwide. Some of the important reasons were that trees commemorated events in the lives of saints, the species was religiously blessed, the tree was dedicated to a prophet, religious and social meetings took place under the tree, or a saint was buried near or under the tree. On the Indian subcontinent a typical example of sacred trees are large old fig (Ficus religiosa) specimens, often located in sacred groves (Prasad et al. 2006; Haberman 2013). Although the entire sacred grove is important to the local people (even younger and smaller trees), special respect is given to the largest and oldest individuals. Their leaves are essential for many religious ceremonies at the household level (Blicharska et al. 2013), and other materials collected from them are used to produce medicines for a whole spectrum of disorders and infections (Singh et al. 2011). Haberman (2013) writes “the human impulse to venerate trees appears hard to wipe out.” He mentions today’s efforts to revive tree worshiping practices by contemporary Wiccan and Neo-Pagan movements in both Europe and North America and refers to the attempts to base tree conservation efforts on the spiritual values of trees. The book Sacred Trees by N. Altman (2000) underlines the deep connection between people and trees that should lead to better protection of them. Historic Heritage Large old trees can be important from a historic point of view because some trees preserve elements of cultural heritage from pre-industrial times. For example, a study in northern Sweden around Sami settlements found scars on culturally modified trees resulting from bark-peeling ¨ practices and blazes from marking borders (Ostlund et al. 2003). Such traces on old trees may be used as an important source of information on historic cultural practices and as a means to select areas for protection due to ¨ their cultural heritage (Zackrisson et al. 2000; Ostlund et al. 2002). Special types of heritage trees are specimens planted on the occasion of a historic event or by important persons (e.g., kings)—a tradition present in many cultures that appears to continue today (Dafni 2006). Because heritage trees are important to people, there are many initiatives to protect them, with an aim to maintain the cultural heritage they embody. For example, the University of Arizona in the United States has launched a large preservation program to protect heritage trees on their campus (http://arboretum.arizona.edu/heritagetrees). In Poland single large old trees of exceptional historic value are often protected as “monuments of nature” independent of their location (i.e., in urban areas, agricultural landscapes, or forests) (Przybył 2007). Similar practices are apparently used in other countries, where such trees are called living history trees, champion trees, heritage trees, legacy trees, or amenity trees and are to
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
some extent protected. However, no general recommendations for protecting this kind of trees exist in international policies.
Recognition of Social and Cultural Values of Large Old Trees Large old trees have important ecological functions (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, 2013), but they often have enormous social significance as well; therefore, protecting them for ecological reasons also supports maintenance of aesthetic, symbolic, religious, and historic values (i.e., these different kinds of values can be protected in a synergetic manner). Many conservation policies already highlight the necessity to include people, their needs, and values in conservation decisions. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN 1992) underlines the need to preserve traditional knowledge and practices and the lifestyles of indigenous and local communities. The Aarhus Convention (UNECE 1998) introduces an obligation to involve the general public in environmental decision making. Finally, the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe 2000) takes an innovative approach in that it defines landscape and its values largely based on people’s perceptions and states that landscape is a key element of individual and social well-being encompassing natural and cultural heritage that ought to be protected. These relatively new policies illustrate the on-going trend of increased considerations for dimensions other than the purely ecological in environmental matters. To our knowledge, none of the present environmental policies at the international level explicitly include the need to protect large old trees based on various social-cultural values and benefits they deliver. However, there is an increasing general trend to consider both the natural and social dimensions in conservation (Meine et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2007; Carpenter et al. 2009); the idea is to take into account not only ecological functions of nature, but also the benefits they provide to people. The notion of ecosystem services (MA 2005) has recently gained importance both among scientists and policy makers. The concept frames an ecosystem as something that provides benefits to people and is seen as a tool to convince decision makers of the need to protect the biodiversity that underlies these benefits (Balmford et al. 2002; Armsworth et al. 2007). Certainly, both tangible and intangible benefits provided by large old trees can be directly translated into the ecosystem services concept so that the important role of large old trees for people can be visualized to strengthen arguments for their protection. A number of cultural and provisioning services can be derived from the large old trees. Additionally, large old trees provide many regulatory services that indirectly make contributions to human
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
well-being (e.g., carbon sequestration increases as the diameter of the tree increases) (Laclau 2003). The context in which issues are represented has the potential to affect the actual action because context induces particular ways of understanding the issue and thus may lead to new types of actions in the policy process (Hajer 1995). Therefore, framing the conservation of large old trees from a human perspective, for whom they are protected and for whom they deliver important services, may facilitate creation and implementation of relevant policies. If both close emotional links between people and large trees (Kimmins 2003) and people’s perception of the actual services they get from large trees are to a larger extent understood and incorporated in general conservation policies and specific management guidelines, there is a higher chance that these policies will be taken seriously and implemented effectively. Thus, we believe that social values attached to large trees may be important drivers of large tree conservation policy implementation. The generally increasing demand for cultural services (Carpenter et al. 2009) may provide incentives for conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in general (Guo et al. 2010) and, we believe, ecological functions of large old trees in particular. Because old trees evoke emotions, they may serve as flagship elements of conservation strategies or even broad conservation policies; components of policies that readily appeal to the general public. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century people’s concerns for large trees instigated an action resulting in safeguarding the future of giant sequoias in Sequoia National Park in California (U.S.A.). People perceived these trees as natural temples (Grosvenor 1921); thus, these trees embody the very idea of a cultural service. This flagship function of large old trees appears to be more universal than that for other types of flagship species. The latter are usually limited to a particular environment and geographic area, whereas large old trees are highly valued by humans across cultural and environmental realms.
Policies for Protecting Large Old Trees Lindenmayer et al. (2013) proposed a set of management recommendations to support conservation of these trees. Examples of such measures include new retention harvesting approaches (Gustafsson et al. 2012), focusing production of tree commodities in areas where it is unlikely that large old trees would occur, and managing the entire landscape in a way that enables maintenance of large old remnant trees or single legacy trees (Mazurek & Zielinski 2004). Lindenmayer et al. (2013) recognize, however, that particular solutions that would support maintenance and restoration of large old trees depend on ecological context and should be deter-
7
mined by the ecological requirements of each particular species, the management regimes in place, and the needs and requirements of people managing the particular system. The social value of large old trees is also usually very context and place dependent and thus the design of concrete management solutions at international or global level will be difficult. However, acknowledgment of the values (ecological and social) of large old trees on an international or global scale, particularly policy documents, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, European Landscape Convention, or The European Union Forest Strategy, or even creation of a distinct global policy that urges countries to recognize and document the various values of large old trees in their particular context, would contribute to increased awareness of the value of trees and the threats they face and to better protection of these organisms. The recognition of the social benefits large old trees deliver and of their importance to people worldwide is a necessary step toward building capacity for managing their global decline. This may also include economic valuation of such trees based on those benefits as demonstrated by Becker and Freeman (2009). What is worth underlining in the general policies and the specific management guidance documents is the potential synergies that may arise from protecting large old trees for particular (ecological or social) reasons. For example, in reserves, trees that are protected due to their ecological values often also have social importance, such as the historic heritage value (Fig. 4). In contrast, protection of large old trees due to social values may go hand in hand with their exceptional value for biodiversity conservation. For example, protected sacred sites (protected due to religious reasons) in the eastern Himalayas have trees that were larger than trees in non-sacred areas; thus, protection of these trees contributes to overall biodiversity (Salick et al. 2007). Also, valuable large old trees are in many cases found in urban or suburban environments because they have been protected due to their historical value (e.g., Jonsell 2004). The inclusion of social and cultural values linked to large old trees may strengthen the policies devised to protect them, particularly in cases where the presence of large old trees is linked to certain traditional land uses and where large old trees are important cultural heritage features or are threatened by changes in management regimes. Here one can expect a synergetic effect, where maintenance (e.g., through subsidies or cultural programs) of traditional activities contributes to protection of large old trees and vice versa. In such cases, the close cooperation between conservation authorities and institutions working with maintenance of cultural heritage would be beneficial. Bans on the logging of large old trees have been introduced locally (Białowie˙za Forest in Poland [Blicharska & Angelstam 2010]) and could be part of national forest
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
8
policies that would limit logging of such trees to particular circumstances (e.g., safety hazards or traditional use). This would require regional analyses of what tree species are attaining large dimensions and great age and what ecological, social, and cultural values are linked to such trees. International policy recommendations can only be very general in nature, but they can provide a framework that includes consideration of all values of large old trees in locally tailored management documents. Conservation planning for the protection of large old trees must also consider the potential adverse impacts of the presence of these trees (e.g., fear and anxiety associated with old trees due to religious or other beliefs and superstitions; potential danger due to falling branches or trees, and trees that pose a danger to drivers). Information campaigns concerning the exceptional value of large old trees and better inclusion of those trees in environmental impact assessments based on cooperation with relevant authorities (e.g., road administration, local administration) would be possible ways to deal with these problems. In general, policies and management guidelines that support maintenance of large old trees should be landscape scale oriented and longstanding. The restoration of large old trees takes a long time and thus requires particularly long-term thinking in management and conservation activities (Lindenmayer et al. 2013). To protect large old trees, policies need to go beyond the traditional individual species-based approach to conservation. For example, trees of certain species above a particular height, age, and dimension could be included in the European Union Habitat Directive (EEC 1992) as “habitats of community interest.” In this way, large old trees would be considered as complex structural elements of the environment, that is, as habitats or even entire ecosystems unto themselves that support numerous species while provisioning people with elements of great social and cultural value.
Acknowledgments We thank K. L. Nicholson for language editing and useful comments that improved the paper. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Literature Cited Altman, N. 2000. Sacred trees. Sterling Publishing Co., New York. Anderson, K. 2004. Nature, culture and big old trees. University of Texas Press, Austin. Appleyard, D. 1980. Urban trees, urban forests: what do they mean? Pages 138–155 in Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. November 13–16, 1978. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
Armsworth, P. R., K. M. A. Chan, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, C. Kremen, T. H. Ricketts, and M. A. Sanjayan. 2007. Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:1383– 1384. Arrhenius, T. 2010. Preservation and protest: counterculture and heritage in 1970s Sweden. Future Anterior 7:106–123. Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953. Becker, N., and S. Freeman. 2009. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. Forest Policy and Economics 11:608–615. Blicharska, M., and P. Angelstam. 2010. Conservation at risk: conflict analysis in the Białowie˙za Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management 6:68–74. Blicharska, M., and G. Mikusinski. 2013. Old trees: cultural value. Science 339:904. Blicharska, M., G. Mikusi´ nski, A. Godbole, and J. Sarnaik. 2013. Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services of Sacred Groves – experiences from northern Western Ghats. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management 9:339– 346. Buhyoff, G. J., L. J. Gauthier, and J. D. Wellman. 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science 30:7 l–82. Burton, P. S. 2004. Hugging trees: claiming de facto property rights by blockading resource use. Environmental and Resource Economics 27:135–163. Carpaneto, G. M., A. Mazziotta, G. Coletti, L. Luiselli, and P. Audisio. 2010. Conflict between insect conservation and public safety: the case study of a saproxylic beetle (Osmoderma eremita) in urban parks. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:555–565. Carpenter, S. R., et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:1305–1312. Coder, K. 1996. Trees and human kind: cultural and psychological bindings. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources extension publication for 96–046. 11/1996. Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. ETS No. 176, 20.X.2000. Dafni, A. 2006. On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2 DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-2-26. da Silva Medeiros, R., and G. Vieira. 2008. Sustainability of extraction and production of copaiba (Copaifera multijuga Hayne) oleoresin in Manaus, AM, Brazil . Forest Ecology and Management 256:282–288. Dwyer, J. F., H. W. Schroeder, and P. H. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17:276–284. Edwards, D., et al. 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 19:12–19. EEC. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Fatu-Tutoveanu, A., and C. Pintilescu. 2012. Religious “avatars” and implicit religion: recycling myths and religious patterns within contemporary U.S. popular culture. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11:182–205. Frese, P. R., and S. J. M. Gray. 1995. Trees. Pages 26–33 in M. Eliade, editor. The encyclopaedia of religion. Volume 15. Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon and Schuster and Macmillan, New York. Garner, A. 2004. Living history: trees and metaphors of identity in an English forest. Journal of Material Culture 9:87–100. Gold, S. M. 1977. Social and economic benefits of trees in cities. Journal of Forestry 75:84–87. Green, T. L. 1984. Maintaining and preserving wooded parks. Journal of Arboriculture 10:193–197.
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
Grosvenor, G. 1921. The National Geographic Society completes its gifts of big trees. Science 54:43–44. Guo, Z., L. Zhang, and Y. Li. 2010. Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS One 5 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0013113 Gustafsson, L., et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience 62:633–645. Haberman, D. L. 2013. People trees: worship of trees in Northern India. Oxford University Press, New York. Haider, W., and L. Hunt. 2002. Visual aesthetic quality of Northern Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental Management 29:324– 334. Hajer, M. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Hauru, K., S. Koskinen, D. J. Kotze, and S. Lehv¨avirta. 2014. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests – implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning 123:114–123 Heimlich, J., T. D. Sydnor, M. Bumgardner, and P. O’Brien. 2008. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:47– 53. Jim, C. Y. 2005a. Outstanding remnants of nature in compact cities: patterns and preservation of heritage trees in Guangzhou city (China). Geoforum 36:371–385. Jim, C. Y. 2005b. Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 74:161–172. Jim, C. Y., and H. Zhang. 2013. Species diversity and spatial differentiation of old-valuable trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 12:171–182. Jonsell, M. 2004. Old park trees: a highly desirable resource for both history and beetle diversity. Journal of Arboriculture 30:238–244. Kalmbach, K. L., and J. J. Kielbaso. 1979. Resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Journal of Arboriculture 5:124–129. Kaplan, R. 2007. Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the wild and the tame. Landscape Urban Planning 82: 17–24. Kaplan, R., and M. E. Austin. 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 235–243. Kimmins, J. P. H. 2003. Old-growth forest: an ancient and stable sylvan equilibrium, or a relatively transitory ecosystem condition that offers people a visual and emotional feast? Answer—it depends. Forestry Chronicles 79:429–440. Korbel, J. 2012. ´Sladami bartnik´ ow w Białowieskim Parku Narodowym. Towarzystwo Ochrony Krajobrazu, Białowie˙za, Poland. Laband, D. N. 2013. The neglected stepchildren of forest-based ecosystem services: cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic values. Forest Policy and Economics 35:39–44. Laclau, P. 2003. Root biomass and carbon storage of ponderosa pine in a northwest Patagonia plantation. Forest Ecology and Management 173:353–360. Lindenmayer, D. B., W. F. Laurance, and J. F. Franklin. 2012. Global decline in large old trees. Science 338:1305–1306. Lindenmayer, D. B., et al. 2013. New policies for old trees: averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conservation Letters 7:61–69. Liu, J., et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516. Long, A. J., and P. K. R. Nair. 1999. Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry. New Forests 17:145–174. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
9
Mazurek, M. J., and W. J. Zielinski. 2004. Individual legacy trees influence vertebrate wildlife diversity in commercial forests. Forest Ecology and Management 193:321–334. Meine, C., M. Soule, and R. F. Noss. 2006. “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:631– 651. Mikusi´ nski, G., and P. Angelstam. 1999. Man and deciduous trees in boreal landscape. Pages 220–224 in P. Kovar, editor. Nature and culture in landscape ecology. Experience for the 3rd millenium. The Karolinum Press, Prague. Nelson, W. R. 1976. Aesthetic consideration in the selection and use of trees in the urban environment. Pages 1329 in Symposium proceedings: better trees for metropolitan landscapes. USDA Forestry Service General Technical Report NE-22. ¨ Ostlund, L., O. Zackrisson, and G. H¨ ornberg. 2002. Trees on the border between nature and culture, culturally modified trees in boreal Sweden. Environmental History 7:48–68. ¨ Ostlund, L., T. S. Ericsson, O. Zackrisson, and R. Andersson. 2003. Traces of past Sami forest use: an ecological study of culturally modified trees and earlier land use within a boreal forest reserve. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 18:78–89. Prasad, P. V., P. K. Subhaktha, A. Narayana, and M. M. Rao. 2006. Medicohistorical study of “a´svattha” (sacred fig tree). Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine 36:1–20. Price, C. 2007. Putting a value on trees: an economist’s perspective. Arboricultural Journal 30:7–19. Przybył, K. 2007. Fungi and minerals occurring in heartwood discolorations in Quercus robur trees. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 76:55–60. Salerno, G., P. M. Guarrera, and G. Caneva. 2005. Agricultural, domestic and handicraft folk uses of plants in the Tyrrhenian sector of Basilicata (Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1:2. Salick, J., A. Amend, D. Anderson, K. Hoffmeister, B. Gunn, and F. Zhendong. 2007. Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:693–706. Schroeder, H. W. 1988. Psychological and cultural effects of forests on people. Pages 10–14 in Proceedings of the 1988 Society of American Foresters National Convention. October 16–19, 1988. Rochester, New York. Schroeder, H. W., and W. N. Cannon Jr. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture 9:237–243. Schroeder, H. W., and S. R. Ruffolo. 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Aboriculture 22:35–43. Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the U.K. and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236–246. Seburanga, J. L., and Q. Zhang. 2013. Heritage trees and landscape design in urban areas of Rwanda. Journal of Forestry Research 24:561– 570. Seeley, T. D., and R. A. Morse. 1978. Nest site selection by the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insectes Sociaux 25:323–337. Singh, D., B. Singh, and R. K. Goel. 2011. Traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology of Ficus religiosa: a review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 134:565–583. Slotte, H. 1997. Pollarding—a look back on its history, and advice to nature conservationists. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 91: 1–21. Smardon, R. C. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Planning 15:85–106. Turner, N. J., Y. Ari, F. Berkes, I. Davidson-Hunt, Z. F. Ertug, and A. Miller. 2009. Cultural management of living trees: an international perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology 29:237–270.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
10
Tyrv¨ainen, L., H. Silvennoinen, and O. Kolehmainen. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1:135–149. Ulrich, R. S. 1985. Aesthetic and emotional influences of vegetation: a review of the scientific literature. Document D22: 1985. Swedish Council for Building Research. UN. 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Concluded at Rio de Janeiro on June 1992. United Nations – Treaty Series No. 30619. UNECE. 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in envi-
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
ronmental matters. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Wassink, J. T. 1974. The man-wood Relationship. Page 69 in Communication #68. Department of Agricultural Research of the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Zackrisson, O., L. Ostlund, O. Korhonen, and I. Bergman. 2000. The ancient use of Pinus sylvestris L. (Scots pine) inner bark by Sami people in northern Sweden, related to cultural and ecological factors. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9:99– 109.
Incorporating Social and Cultural Significance of Large Old Trees in Conservation Policy ´ MALGORZATA BLICHARSKA∗ AND GRZEGORZ MIKUSINSKI†‡ § ∗
Swedish Biodiversity Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7007, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden †Grims¨ o Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-730 91 Riddarhyttan, Sweden ‡School for Forest Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 43, SE-739 21 Skinnskatteberg, Sweden
Abstract: In addition to providing key ecological functions, large old trees are a part of a social realm and as such provide numerous social-cultural benefits to people. However, their social and cultural values are often neglected when designing conservation policies and management guidelines. We believe that awareness of large old trees as a part of human identity and cultural heritage is essential when addressing the issue of their decline worldwide. Large old trees provide humans with aesthetic, symbolic, religious, and historic values, as well as concrete tangible benefits, such as leaves, branches, or nuts. In many cultures particularly large trees are treated with reverence. Also, contemporary popular culture utilizes the image of trees as sentient beings and builds on the ancient myths that attribute great powers to large trees. Although the social and cultural role of large old trees is usually not taken into account in conservation, accounting for human-related values of these trees is an important part of conservation policy because it may strengthen conservation by highlighting the potential synergies in protecting ecological and social values. Keywords: cultural values, ecosystem services, large trees, natural heritage, old trees, policy, social values ´ rboles A˜ Incorporaci´ on del Significado Social y Cultural de A nejos a Pol´ıticas de Conservaci´ on Blicharska & Mikusi´ nski
Resumen: Adem´as de cumplir funciones ecol´ogicas clave, los a´ rboles a˜nejos son una parte del a´ mbito social y como tal proporcionan numerosos beneficios sociales y culturales a la gente. Sin embargo, sus valores sociales y culturales a menudo no reciben atenci´ on cundo se dise˜ nan pol´ıticas de conservaci´ on y directrices de manejo. Consideramos que la conciencia sobre a nejos, como parte de la identidad y patrimonio ´ rboles a˜ humanos, es esencial cuando se aborda el tema de su declinaci´ on mundial. Los a nejos y grandes ´ rboles a˜ proporcionan valores est´eticos, simb´ olicos, religiosos e hist´ oricos, as´ı como beneficios concretos tangibles como hojas, ramas o frutos. En muchas culturas, los a nejos son tratados con reverencia. Tambi´en, la ´ rboles a˜ cultura popular contempor´ anea utiliza la imagen de a ´ rboles como seres sensibles y se basa en mitos antiguos que les atribuyen grandes poderes. Mientras que el papel social y cultural de a nejos generalmente no ´ rboles a˜ es tomado en cuenta en la conservaci´ on, la consideraci´ on de los valores relacionados con humanos de estos a on porque pueden fortalecer la conservaci´ on al ´ rboles es una parte importante de las pol´ıticas de conservaci´ resaltar las sinergias potenciales de los valores ecol´ ogicos y sociales. ´ rboles a˜ nejos, ´arboles grandes, patrimonio natural, pol´ıtica, servicios del ecosistema, valores Palabras Clave: A culturales, valores sociales
§Address correspondence to G. Mikusi´ nski, email [email protected] Paper submitted January 16, 2014; revised manuscript accepted April 10, 2014.
1 Conservation Biology, Volume 00, No. 0, 1–10 C 2014 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12341
Value of Large Old Trees
2
Introduction Trees have been, and remain, universal symbols, totems, and icons. Trees are creatures of admiration, reverence, fear, romance, mysticism, and worship to the people around them. Trees are more than their component wood, leaves, and bark. Trees occupy the physical world, but in addition, occupy special psychological place in human consciousness. (Coder 1996)
Large old trees are key structures that provide various ecological functions in many different environments, and their on-going decline can have substantial consequences for both biodiversity and the integrity of ecosystems worldwide (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, 2013). However, these trees also share characteristics that make them in various ways important for people. Therefore, notwithstanding their ecological role, large old trees also constitute indispensable elements of the social realm and are essential components of human cultural heritage (Blicharska & Mikusinski 2013). In many societies, large old trees have been revered and worshiped through generations, and they are still important components of cultural identity (Wassink 1974; Frese & Gray 1995; Anderson 2004; Dafni 2006). With age, trees may attain dimensions (e.g., height or biomass) and complexity larger than virtually any other type of living organisms. As such, large old trees easily awaken emotions, appeal to aesthetic sentiments, and are often perceived as important landmarks. Another unique feature of trees is their exceptional longevity, in some cases exceeding a thousand years. The ages and dimensions of trees defined as old or large differ among regions and species (Lindenmayer et al. 2013). Still, such trees need at least some 200–300 years to develop old-growth characteristics; thus, their existence spans many human generations and they become a historic link between the generations (Fig. 1). The importance of large old trees for humans is not only cultural, religious, and symbolic, but also utilitarian (Anderson 2004; Turner et al. 2009). Lindenmayer et al. (2013) indicated the need for new policies and management guidelines that would address the issue of the global decline of large old trees. They focused on the ecological value of these trees, which is certainly very important. However, it is not the only aspect that should be taken into account in policies. We believe that the social importance of large old trees, often underestimated by the conservation community (e.g., Laband 2013), needs to have a larger role in policies concerning these key biotic structures. We argue that awareness of large old trees as a part of human identity and cultural heritage is essential when addressing the issue of their decline worldwide. Incorporating social-cultural values of large old trees would not only complement conservation
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
and management guidelines, but it could also provide visibility to the management problems connected with large old trees and old-growth forests. We describe the social-cultural role of large old trees and consider the implications of taking into account human-related values of the large old trees in conservation policies.
Value of Large Old Trees Large old trees are important elements of many ecosystems and have a multitude of functions, both ecological (Lindenmayer et al. 2013) and social (see below). From a human perspective, these functions include tangible and intangible values of which both are equally important across different cultures and societies. Tangible values are typically represented by various provisioning of goods that may be collected for decades or even centuries from a single specimen, whereas the intangible values are of aesthetic, religious, and symbolic character.
Tangible Benefits Across the globe, large old trees provide humans with long-term benefits and services that are based on noninvasive or sustainable use of trees without killing them. These encompass, for example, trees pollarded or shredded to provide fodder for domestic stock or twigs for production of baskets or other tools (Slotte 1997; Salerno et al. 2005). Additionally, trees are repeatedly tapped for resin and have their bark, flowers, fruits, and nuts removed for fodder, food, or medicinal purposes (e.g., ¨ Ostlund et al. 2003; da Silva Medeiros & Vieira 2008; Turner et al. 2009; Singh et al. 2011). These benefits can be delivered from individual trees for hundreds of years. Obviously, some uses, such as pollarding, may affect the form of particular specimens (culturally modified trees), but these trees usually develop and maintain many qualities typical of old-growth trees (e.g., large dimension of trunks or hollow structures). Ancient use of large old trees for beekeeping is known (e.g., Korbel 2012) and linked to the fact that bees prefer nesting sites in cavities in large trees (Seeley & Morse 1978). Finally, large old trees are often naturally used as a shelter for domestic animals and humans. Many of the tangible benefits of large old trees are interwoven with their intangible values.
Aesthetic and Symbolic Values Aesthetic and symbolic values of large old trees can be attributed to different age and dimension; however, large trees are usually perceived as special entities that awaken imagination and emotions, both positive and negative,
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
3
Figure 1. An oak in southern Sweden that is over 1000 years old. The age of this tree roughly equals the age of the Swedish state (photo by K. Borkowski).
Figure 2. A large tree in a city park in Auckland, New Zealand (photo by G. Mikusi´ nski).
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
4
and they are treated with reverence in many cultures (Haberman 2013). Although different kinds of vegetation may increase the attractiveness of particular areas, the aesthetic value of many parks in or in the vicinity of human settlements (towns, villages, castles, manor houses) seems to be directly related to the presence of trees of large dimensions (Green 1984; Mikusi´ nski & Angelstam 1999; Jim 2005a; Jim & Zhang 2013). Single large old trees, tree rows, and tree alleys in urban environments and in the countryside are often highly valued by local people and visitors (Smardon 1988; Long & Nair 1999; Kaplan 2007; Edwards et al. 2012). This is consistent with the finding of Buhyoff et al. (1984) that people in general prefer scenic views with larger fewer stems than views with many smalldimension tree stems. What is appreciated are the large dimensions and majestic silhouettes of old trees (Nelson 1976; Haider & Hunt 2002) and their perceived naturalness or natural vegetation structure (Smardon 1988). Studies on social preferences with regard to urban environments reveal that people prefer vegetated areas, especially areas with trees, over areas with no vegetation (e.g., Ulrich 1985; Kaplan & Austin 2004) with trees of large sizes being highly appreciated (Kalmbach & Kielbaso 1979; Schroeder & Cannon 1983; Schroeder et al. 2006) (Fig. 2). For example, in a study of 5 cities in the United States, street trees of large dimensions (over 7 m tall) were perceived by the citizens as preferable to smaller trees for aesthetic reasons (Kalmbach & Kielbaso 1979). Other studies in urban areas show that city residents like large trees because they make their neighborhoods seem “more mature” (Heimlich et al. 2008). Moreover, the attractiveness of the street (determined by the single factor of the size of the trees) increases as the canopy over the street from large trees increases (Schroeder & Ruffolo 1996), and large trees that canopy the street are seen as important (Heimlich et al. 2008). Consequently, the presence of trees often influences property prices (Gold 1977; Price 2007; Seburanga & Zhang 2013). Nevertheless, the presence of large old trees in urban and other environments may, in some cases, be perceived negatively. Due to ageing processes, such trees often drop dead branches or are associated with deadwood on the ground that may not be appreciated (e.g., Tyrv¨ainen et al. 2003; Edwards et al. 2012; but see Hauru et al. 2014). Moreover, large branches falling from trees are unquestionably a hazard for public safety and may thus be perceived as dangerous (e.g., Carpaneto et al. 2010). For local people, the aesthetic value of large old trees in the landscape intermingles with emotional perceptions linked to personal sentiments and a “sense of place” (e.g., Garner 2004). For example, it is particularly common that individuals become personally attached to specific trees that stimulate childhood memories. Trees are planted as living memorials to loved ones who have died (Dwyer
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
et al. 1991). In many cities some old trees are seen as important elements of cultural identity that have “crucial inherited and inheritable connotation” and “transgenerational significance” (Jim 2005a, 2005b). These trees are classified as heritage trees (see below). The death of a large old tree may awaken especially strong emotions related to the feeling of permanent loss of something that has developed over a very long time (Kimmins 2003). Not surprisingly, the threat of losing those objects due to development often causes large scale protests (e.g., Burton 2004; Arrhenius 2010). Trees in general are valuable as objects with symbolic meaning, and people often develop parallels between the images of trees and humans. For example, in S. Silverstein’s 1964 The Giving Tree a tree gives the main child character selfless love to the point of its own destruction, and yet the story ends with the sentence, “And the tree was happy.” Appleyard (1980) considers the sheltering nature of trees as being “parental” in nature and old trees as looking “wise” to people. In many cultures, trees symbolize wisdom, health, and enlightenment (Schroeder 1988; Coder 1996). In many religions, large trees are important spiritual symbols that link human and divine spheres. For example, Buddha is said to have achieved enlightenment when he was sitting under the “wisdom tree” (Schroeder 1988). Even in today’s Western civilization, the idea of trees as sentient beings is often expressed, for example, the treelike beings that shepherd the forest in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. The symbolic meaning of large old trees is often used in contemporary popular culture. In the movie Avatar, by J. Cameron, the native clans live gathered around sacred home trees and are “immersed in a religious mysticism” (Fatu-Tutoveanu & Pintilescu 2012). Cameron builds on the traditional myths of many nations, such as the Scandinavian Yggdrasil, Mayan Cosmic Tree, and the Tree of Life from the Near East, all of which consider a large tree the source of all life and of great powers (Haberman 2013). At the same time, popular culture frequently invokes the dark side of large old trees, making them objects of anxiety and fear, for example, the Tree of the Dead in the Sleepy Hollow movie by T. Burton; the child-eating tree in Poltergeist, a movie by S. Spielberg; and the whomping willow, a human-slaughtering tree in the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. Religious and Spiritual Value In many regions of the world some large old trees are protected and secured against logging or other terminal uses for religious reasons or due to taboos, as in India, where certain large old trees are often maintained for religious practices (Fig. 3). Such sacred trees may be the object of rituals of religious nature (Haberman 2013), but in some cases these trees are a source of material used in traditional activities or religious ceremonies (Frese &
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
5
Figure 3. A large fig tree in the sacred grove devoted to Shiva in northern Western Ghats, India (photo by J. Sarnaik).
Figure 4. A large oak tree in the Białowie˙za National Park in Poland (photo by J. Korbel).
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
6
Gray 1995). Dafni (2006) listed 24 reasons for establishing sacred trees worldwide. Some of the important reasons were that trees commemorated events in the lives of saints, the species was religiously blessed, the tree was dedicated to a prophet, religious and social meetings took place under the tree, or a saint was buried near or under the tree. On the Indian subcontinent a typical example of sacred trees are large old fig (Ficus religiosa) specimens, often located in sacred groves (Prasad et al. 2006; Haberman 2013). Although the entire sacred grove is important to the local people (even younger and smaller trees), special respect is given to the largest and oldest individuals. Their leaves are essential for many religious ceremonies at the household level (Blicharska et al. 2013), and other materials collected from them are used to produce medicines for a whole spectrum of disorders and infections (Singh et al. 2011). Haberman (2013) writes “the human impulse to venerate trees appears hard to wipe out.” He mentions today’s efforts to revive tree worshiping practices by contemporary Wiccan and Neo-Pagan movements in both Europe and North America and refers to the attempts to base tree conservation efforts on the spiritual values of trees. The book Sacred Trees by N. Altman (2000) underlines the deep connection between people and trees that should lead to better protection of them. Historic Heritage Large old trees can be important from a historic point of view because some trees preserve elements of cultural heritage from pre-industrial times. For example, a study in northern Sweden around Sami settlements found scars on culturally modified trees resulting from bark-peeling ¨ practices and blazes from marking borders (Ostlund et al. 2003). Such traces on old trees may be used as an important source of information on historic cultural practices and as a means to select areas for protection due to ¨ their cultural heritage (Zackrisson et al. 2000; Ostlund et al. 2002). Special types of heritage trees are specimens planted on the occasion of a historic event or by important persons (e.g., kings)—a tradition present in many cultures that appears to continue today (Dafni 2006). Because heritage trees are important to people, there are many initiatives to protect them, with an aim to maintain the cultural heritage they embody. For example, the University of Arizona in the United States has launched a large preservation program to protect heritage trees on their campus (http://arboretum.arizona.edu/heritagetrees). In Poland single large old trees of exceptional historic value are often protected as “monuments of nature” independent of their location (i.e., in urban areas, agricultural landscapes, or forests) (Przybył 2007). Similar practices are apparently used in other countries, where such trees are called living history trees, champion trees, heritage trees, legacy trees, or amenity trees and are to
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
some extent protected. However, no general recommendations for protecting this kind of trees exist in international policies.
Recognition of Social and Cultural Values of Large Old Trees Large old trees have important ecological functions (Lindenmayer et al. 2012, 2013), but they often have enormous social significance as well; therefore, protecting them for ecological reasons also supports maintenance of aesthetic, symbolic, religious, and historic values (i.e., these different kinds of values can be protected in a synergetic manner). Many conservation policies already highlight the necessity to include people, their needs, and values in conservation decisions. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity (UN 1992) underlines the need to preserve traditional knowledge and practices and the lifestyles of indigenous and local communities. The Aarhus Convention (UNECE 1998) introduces an obligation to involve the general public in environmental decision making. Finally, the European Landscape Convention (Council of Europe 2000) takes an innovative approach in that it defines landscape and its values largely based on people’s perceptions and states that landscape is a key element of individual and social well-being encompassing natural and cultural heritage that ought to be protected. These relatively new policies illustrate the on-going trend of increased considerations for dimensions other than the purely ecological in environmental matters. To our knowledge, none of the present environmental policies at the international level explicitly include the need to protect large old trees based on various social-cultural values and benefits they deliver. However, there is an increasing general trend to consider both the natural and social dimensions in conservation (Meine et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2007; Carpenter et al. 2009); the idea is to take into account not only ecological functions of nature, but also the benefits they provide to people. The notion of ecosystem services (MA 2005) has recently gained importance both among scientists and policy makers. The concept frames an ecosystem as something that provides benefits to people and is seen as a tool to convince decision makers of the need to protect the biodiversity that underlies these benefits (Balmford et al. 2002; Armsworth et al. 2007). Certainly, both tangible and intangible benefits provided by large old trees can be directly translated into the ecosystem services concept so that the important role of large old trees for people can be visualized to strengthen arguments for their protection. A number of cultural and provisioning services can be derived from the large old trees. Additionally, large old trees provide many regulatory services that indirectly make contributions to human
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
well-being (e.g., carbon sequestration increases as the diameter of the tree increases) (Laclau 2003). The context in which issues are represented has the potential to affect the actual action because context induces particular ways of understanding the issue and thus may lead to new types of actions in the policy process (Hajer 1995). Therefore, framing the conservation of large old trees from a human perspective, for whom they are protected and for whom they deliver important services, may facilitate creation and implementation of relevant policies. If both close emotional links between people and large trees (Kimmins 2003) and people’s perception of the actual services they get from large trees are to a larger extent understood and incorporated in general conservation policies and specific management guidelines, there is a higher chance that these policies will be taken seriously and implemented effectively. Thus, we believe that social values attached to large trees may be important drivers of large tree conservation policy implementation. The generally increasing demand for cultural services (Carpenter et al. 2009) may provide incentives for conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity in general (Guo et al. 2010) and, we believe, ecological functions of large old trees in particular. Because old trees evoke emotions, they may serve as flagship elements of conservation strategies or even broad conservation policies; components of policies that readily appeal to the general public. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century people’s concerns for large trees instigated an action resulting in safeguarding the future of giant sequoias in Sequoia National Park in California (U.S.A.). People perceived these trees as natural temples (Grosvenor 1921); thus, these trees embody the very idea of a cultural service. This flagship function of large old trees appears to be more universal than that for other types of flagship species. The latter are usually limited to a particular environment and geographic area, whereas large old trees are highly valued by humans across cultural and environmental realms.
Policies for Protecting Large Old Trees Lindenmayer et al. (2013) proposed a set of management recommendations to support conservation of these trees. Examples of such measures include new retention harvesting approaches (Gustafsson et al. 2012), focusing production of tree commodities in areas where it is unlikely that large old trees would occur, and managing the entire landscape in a way that enables maintenance of large old remnant trees or single legacy trees (Mazurek & Zielinski 2004). Lindenmayer et al. (2013) recognize, however, that particular solutions that would support maintenance and restoration of large old trees depend on ecological context and should be deter-
7
mined by the ecological requirements of each particular species, the management regimes in place, and the needs and requirements of people managing the particular system. The social value of large old trees is also usually very context and place dependent and thus the design of concrete management solutions at international or global level will be difficult. However, acknowledgment of the values (ecological and social) of large old trees on an international or global scale, particularly policy documents, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, European Landscape Convention, or The European Union Forest Strategy, or even creation of a distinct global policy that urges countries to recognize and document the various values of large old trees in their particular context, would contribute to increased awareness of the value of trees and the threats they face and to better protection of these organisms. The recognition of the social benefits large old trees deliver and of their importance to people worldwide is a necessary step toward building capacity for managing their global decline. This may also include economic valuation of such trees based on those benefits as demonstrated by Becker and Freeman (2009). What is worth underlining in the general policies and the specific management guidance documents is the potential synergies that may arise from protecting large old trees for particular (ecological or social) reasons. For example, in reserves, trees that are protected due to their ecological values often also have social importance, such as the historic heritage value (Fig. 4). In contrast, protection of large old trees due to social values may go hand in hand with their exceptional value for biodiversity conservation. For example, protected sacred sites (protected due to religious reasons) in the eastern Himalayas have trees that were larger than trees in non-sacred areas; thus, protection of these trees contributes to overall biodiversity (Salick et al. 2007). Also, valuable large old trees are in many cases found in urban or suburban environments because they have been protected due to their historical value (e.g., Jonsell 2004). The inclusion of social and cultural values linked to large old trees may strengthen the policies devised to protect them, particularly in cases where the presence of large old trees is linked to certain traditional land uses and where large old trees are important cultural heritage features or are threatened by changes in management regimes. Here one can expect a synergetic effect, where maintenance (e.g., through subsidies or cultural programs) of traditional activities contributes to protection of large old trees and vice versa. In such cases, the close cooperation between conservation authorities and institutions working with maintenance of cultural heritage would be beneficial. Bans on the logging of large old trees have been introduced locally (Białowie˙za Forest in Poland [Blicharska & Angelstam 2010]) and could be part of national forest
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
8
policies that would limit logging of such trees to particular circumstances (e.g., safety hazards or traditional use). This would require regional analyses of what tree species are attaining large dimensions and great age and what ecological, social, and cultural values are linked to such trees. International policy recommendations can only be very general in nature, but they can provide a framework that includes consideration of all values of large old trees in locally tailored management documents. Conservation planning for the protection of large old trees must also consider the potential adverse impacts of the presence of these trees (e.g., fear and anxiety associated with old trees due to religious or other beliefs and superstitions; potential danger due to falling branches or trees, and trees that pose a danger to drivers). Information campaigns concerning the exceptional value of large old trees and better inclusion of those trees in environmental impact assessments based on cooperation with relevant authorities (e.g., road administration, local administration) would be possible ways to deal with these problems. In general, policies and management guidelines that support maintenance of large old trees should be landscape scale oriented and longstanding. The restoration of large old trees takes a long time and thus requires particularly long-term thinking in management and conservation activities (Lindenmayer et al. 2013). To protect large old trees, policies need to go beyond the traditional individual species-based approach to conservation. For example, trees of certain species above a particular height, age, and dimension could be included in the European Union Habitat Directive (EEC 1992) as “habitats of community interest.” In this way, large old trees would be considered as complex structural elements of the environment, that is, as habitats or even entire ecosystems unto themselves that support numerous species while provisioning people with elements of great social and cultural value.
Acknowledgments We thank K. L. Nicholson for language editing and useful comments that improved the paper. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. Literature Cited Altman, N. 2000. Sacred trees. Sterling Publishing Co., New York. Anderson, K. 2004. Nature, culture and big old trees. University of Texas Press, Austin. Appleyard, D. 1980. Urban trees, urban forests: what do they mean? Pages 138–155 in Proceedings of the National Urban Forestry Conference. November 13–16, 1978. State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
Armsworth, P. R., K. M. A. Chan, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, C. Kremen, T. H. Ricketts, and M. A. Sanjayan. 2007. Ecosystem-service science and the way forward for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:1383– 1384. Arrhenius, T. 2010. Preservation and protest: counterculture and heritage in 1970s Sweden. Future Anterior 7:106–123. Balmford, A. et al. 2002. Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science 297:950–953. Becker, N., and S. Freeman. 2009. The economic value of old growth trees in Israel. Forest Policy and Economics 11:608–615. Blicharska, M., and P. Angelstam. 2010. Conservation at risk: conflict analysis in the Białowie˙za Forest, a European biodiversity hotspot. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management 6:68–74. Blicharska, M., and G. Mikusinski. 2013. Old trees: cultural value. Science 339:904. Blicharska, M., G. Mikusi´ nski, A. Godbole, and J. Sarnaik. 2013. Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services of Sacred Groves – experiences from northern Western Ghats. International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services and Management 9:339– 346. Buhyoff, G. J., L. J. Gauthier, and J. D. Wellman. 1984. Predicting scenic quality for urban forests using vegetation measurements. Forest Science 30:7 l–82. Burton, P. S. 2004. Hugging trees: claiming de facto property rights by blockading resource use. Environmental and Resource Economics 27:135–163. Carpaneto, G. M., A. Mazziotta, G. Coletti, L. Luiselli, and P. Audisio. 2010. Conflict between insect conservation and public safety: the case study of a saproxylic beetle (Osmoderma eremita) in urban parks. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:555–565. Carpenter, S. R., et al. 2009. Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:1305–1312. Coder, K. 1996. Trees and human kind: cultural and psychological bindings. University of Georgia School of Forest Resources extension publication for 96–046. 11/1996. Council of Europe. 2000. European Landscape Convention. ETS No. 176, 20.X.2000. Dafni, A. 2006. On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2 DOI:10.1186/1746-4269-2-26. da Silva Medeiros, R., and G. Vieira. 2008. Sustainability of extraction and production of copaiba (Copaifera multijuga Hayne) oleoresin in Manaus, AM, Brazil . Forest Ecology and Management 256:282–288. Dwyer, J. F., H. W. Schroeder, and P. H. Gobster. 1991. The significance of urban trees and forests: toward a deeper understanding of values. Journal of Arboriculture 17:276–284. Edwards, D., et al. 2012. Public preferences for structural attributes of forests: towards a pan-European perspective. Forest Policy and Economics 19:12–19. EEC. 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Fatu-Tutoveanu, A., and C. Pintilescu. 2012. Religious “avatars” and implicit religion: recycling myths and religious patterns within contemporary U.S. popular culture. Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 11:182–205. Frese, P. R., and S. J. M. Gray. 1995. Trees. Pages 26–33 in M. Eliade, editor. The encyclopaedia of religion. Volume 15. Macmillan Library Reference USA, Simon and Schuster and Macmillan, New York. Garner, A. 2004. Living history: trees and metaphors of identity in an English forest. Journal of Material Culture 9:87–100. Gold, S. M. 1977. Social and economic benefits of trees in cities. Journal of Forestry 75:84–87. Green, T. L. 1984. Maintaining and preserving wooded parks. Journal of Arboriculture 10:193–197.
Blicharska & Mikusinski ´
Grosvenor, G. 1921. The National Geographic Society completes its gifts of big trees. Science 54:43–44. Guo, Z., L. Zhang, and Y. Li. 2010. Increased dependence of humans on ecosystem services and biodiversity. PLoS One 5 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0013113 Gustafsson, L., et al. 2012. Retention forestry to maintain multifunctional forests: a world perspective. BioScience 62:633–645. Haberman, D. L. 2013. People trees: worship of trees in Northern India. Oxford University Press, New York. Haider, W., and L. Hunt. 2002. Visual aesthetic quality of Northern Ontario’s forested shorelines. Environmental Management 29:324– 334. Hajer, M. 1995. The politics of environmental discourse. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Hauru, K., S. Koskinen, D. J. Kotze, and S. Lehv¨avirta. 2014. The effects of decaying logs on the aesthetic experience and acceptability of urban forests – implications for forest management. Landscape and Urban Planning 123:114–123 Heimlich, J., T. D. Sydnor, M. Bumgardner, and P. O’Brien. 2008. Attitudes of residents toward street trees on four streets in Toledo, Ohio, U.S. before removal of ash trees (Fraxinus spp.) from emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 34:47– 53. Jim, C. Y. 2005a. Outstanding remnants of nature in compact cities: patterns and preservation of heritage trees in Guangzhou city (China). Geoforum 36:371–385. Jim, C. Y. 2005b. Monitoring the performance and decline of heritage trees in urban Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 74:161–172. Jim, C. Y., and H. Zhang. 2013. Species diversity and spatial differentiation of old-valuable trees in urban Hong Kong. Urban Forestry Urban Greening 12:171–182. Jonsell, M. 2004. Old park trees: a highly desirable resource for both history and beetle diversity. Journal of Arboriculture 30:238–244. Kalmbach, K. L., and J. J. Kielbaso. 1979. Resident attitudes toward selected characteristics of street tree plantings. Journal of Arboriculture 5:124–129. Kaplan, R. 2007. Employees’ reactions to nearby nature at their workplace: the wild and the tame. Landscape Urban Planning 82: 17–24. Kaplan, R., and M. E. Austin. 2004. Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning 69: 235–243. Kimmins, J. P. H. 2003. Old-growth forest: an ancient and stable sylvan equilibrium, or a relatively transitory ecosystem condition that offers people a visual and emotional feast? Answer—it depends. Forestry Chronicles 79:429–440. Korbel, J. 2012. ´Sladami bartnik´ ow w Białowieskim Parku Narodowym. Towarzystwo Ochrony Krajobrazu, Białowie˙za, Poland. Laband, D. N. 2013. The neglected stepchildren of forest-based ecosystem services: cultural, spiritual, and aesthetic values. Forest Policy and Economics 35:39–44. Laclau, P. 2003. Root biomass and carbon storage of ponderosa pine in a northwest Patagonia plantation. Forest Ecology and Management 173:353–360. Lindenmayer, D. B., W. F. Laurance, and J. F. Franklin. 2012. Global decline in large old trees. Science 338:1305–1306. Lindenmayer, D. B., et al. 2013. New policies for old trees: averting a global crisis in a keystone ecological structure. Conservation Letters 7:61–69. Liu, J., et al. 2007. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317:1513–1516. Long, A. J., and P. K. R. Nair. 1999. Trees outside forests: agro-, community, and urban forestry. New Forests 17:145–174. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
9
Mazurek, M. J., and W. J. Zielinski. 2004. Individual legacy trees influence vertebrate wildlife diversity in commercial forests. Forest Ecology and Management 193:321–334. Meine, C., M. Soule, and R. F. Noss. 2006. “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:631– 651. Mikusi´ nski, G., and P. Angelstam. 1999. Man and deciduous trees in boreal landscape. Pages 220–224 in P. Kovar, editor. Nature and culture in landscape ecology. Experience for the 3rd millenium. The Karolinum Press, Prague. Nelson, W. R. 1976. Aesthetic consideration in the selection and use of trees in the urban environment. Pages 1329 in Symposium proceedings: better trees for metropolitan landscapes. USDA Forestry Service General Technical Report NE-22. ¨ Ostlund, L., O. Zackrisson, and G. H¨ ornberg. 2002. Trees on the border between nature and culture, culturally modified trees in boreal Sweden. Environmental History 7:48–68. ¨ Ostlund, L., T. S. Ericsson, O. Zackrisson, and R. Andersson. 2003. Traces of past Sami forest use: an ecological study of culturally modified trees and earlier land use within a boreal forest reserve. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 18:78–89. Prasad, P. V., P. K. Subhaktha, A. Narayana, and M. M. Rao. 2006. Medicohistorical study of “a´svattha” (sacred fig tree). Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine 36:1–20. Price, C. 2007. Putting a value on trees: an economist’s perspective. Arboricultural Journal 30:7–19. Przybył, K. 2007. Fungi and minerals occurring in heartwood discolorations in Quercus robur trees. Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 76:55–60. Salerno, G., P. M. Guarrera, and G. Caneva. 2005. Agricultural, domestic and handicraft folk uses of plants in the Tyrrhenian sector of Basilicata (Italy). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 1:2. Salick, J., A. Amend, D. Anderson, K. Hoffmeister, B. Gunn, and F. Zhendong. 2007. Tibetan sacred sites conserve old growth trees and cover in the eastern Himalayas. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:693–706. Schroeder, H. W. 1988. Psychological and cultural effects of forests on people. Pages 10–14 in Proceedings of the 1988 Society of American Foresters National Convention. October 16–19, 1988. Rochester, New York. Schroeder, H. W., and W. N. Cannon Jr. 1983. The esthetic contribution of trees to residential streets in Ohio towns. Journal of Arboriculture 9:237–243. Schroeder, H. W., and S. R. Ruffolo. 1996. Householder evaluations of street trees in a Chicago suburb. Journal of Aboriculture 22:35–43. Schroeder, H., J. Flannigan, and R. Coles. 2006. Residents’ attitudes toward street trees in the U.K. and U.S. communities. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 32:236–246. Seburanga, J. L., and Q. Zhang. 2013. Heritage trees and landscape design in urban areas of Rwanda. Journal of Forestry Research 24:561– 570. Seeley, T. D., and R. A. Morse. 1978. Nest site selection by the honey bee, Apis mellifera. Insectes Sociaux 25:323–337. Singh, D., B. Singh, and R. K. Goel. 2011. Traditional uses, phytochemistry and pharmacology of Ficus religiosa: a review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 134:565–583. Slotte, H. 1997. Pollarding—a look back on its history, and advice to nature conservationists. Svensk Botanisk Tidskrift 91: 1–21. Smardon, R. C. 1988. Perception and aesthetics of the urban environment: review of the role of vegetation. Landscape Urban Planning 15:85–106. Turner, N. J., Y. Ari, F. Berkes, I. Davidson-Hunt, Z. F. Ertug, and A. Miller. 2009. Cultural management of living trees: an international perspective. Journal of Ethnobiology 29:237–270.
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
10
Tyrv¨ainen, L., H. Silvennoinen, and O. Kolehmainen. 2003. Ecological and aesthetic values in urban forest management. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 1:135–149. Ulrich, R. S. 1985. Aesthetic and emotional influences of vegetation: a review of the scientific literature. Document D22: 1985. Swedish Council for Building Research. UN. 1992. Convention on biological diversity. Concluded at Rio de Janeiro on June 1992. United Nations – Treaty Series No. 30619. UNECE. 1998. Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in envi-
Conservation Biology Volume 00, No. 0, 2014
Value of Large Old Trees
ronmental matters. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Wassink, J. T. 1974. The man-wood Relationship. Page 69 in Communication #68. Department of Agricultural Research of the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Zackrisson, O., L. Ostlund, O. Korhonen, and I. Bergman. 2000. The ancient use of Pinus sylvestris L. (Scots pine) inner bark by Sami people in northern Sweden, related to cultural and ecological factors. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 9:99– 109.
