Week Two Discussion Topic
For our week two discussion we'll be focusing on the topics of habitat fragmentation and biodiversity, mirroring the second module's lecture content.
Several of you mentioned urban/suburban development as a major ecological issue facing your hometown or region. This border zone where housing reaches or intermingles with wilderness is often referred to as the 'wildland-urban interface' and is becoming more common throughout the US. What are some of the challenges present in managing shared urban-wild spaces? If you were a manager, how might you try to solve one or some of these problems?
And let's dig in further... many of us have traveled around Wisconsin and enjoyed outdoor recreation in natural areas - I for one love spending my summers fishing in the Driftless area or relaxing in a cabin in the Northwoods. How should we pair our desires to be among wilderness and natural resources with the requirements for protecting habitats? Is it possible to do both, have our cake and eat it, too? Disclaimer: this is a challenging issue--one that I personally don't view as having a "right" or a "wrong" side--but still a challenge that warrants discussion.
There are many issues that accompany the urban-wildlife interface phenomena. Two major threats that occur include biodiversity loss and human-wildlife interactions that potentially lead into zoonotic spillover events. Biodiversity loss and spillover pose severe risks to ecological and economic sustainability; as such, solutions must be enacted. Despite the importance, challenges exist in implementation. For example, it is unfeasible to eliminate wildlife invasion as a growing human population demands more land for housing and agriculture. In this sense, little policy intervention would be ethical (it is of ethical/moral conflict to control human reproduction). Other possibilities include restructuring of existing cities to promote more dense living conditions, such as incentives to live in apartment complexes or smaller housing. Promotions may include tax incentives for living in more compacted housing. Additionally, improved city planning and public transportation would encourage consumers to use fewer motor vehicles for travel, thus decreasing the demand for garages/parking.
ReplyDeletePossible solutions for agricultural demand would include more urban farming. Buildings/parks could devote some sections to community gardens and tax breaks could be made for homes that provide some land for horticultural use. While it would be challenging to integrate these policies into society, the longterm benefits would be worth the effort.
The other side of this issue is that many people enjoy outdoor recreation. State parks, forests, and conservancies offer a place for consumers to immerse themselves in nature while providing a regulated environment for existing species; nevertheless, this creates more edge habitats. I believe that it advantageous to protect these opportunities for natural enjoyment, however, measures must be taken to protect biodiversity. Possible protective actions could include more regulated fishing. For example, fishermen could have to restrict their fishing intensity, much like bear hunting, via a draw of sorts which would schedule fishermen throughout different shifts. Another idea could include a mandatory report of amount of fish kept and of what species to the DNR. Finally, areas used for hiking and similar activities could impose travel restrictions where motor vehicles are prohibited and only certain activities are allowed.
This issue is incredibly complicated, and I do not know the best solution (as if anybody does!). I do think that some actions need to be taken to protect biodiversity and native species' existence. Humans have had an astounding impact on the natural environment, so whatever measures are taken, it should be done without selfishness and direct benefit to us. In my opinion, actions should focus on giving back to the Earth, because we have already taken far too much.