Author Archives: Johanna Mattsson

Posts by Johanna Mattsson

Alternative Rat Assignment

Posted on December 1, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Source:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005794

Glass GE, Gardner-Santana LC, Holt RD, Chen J, Shields TM, et al. (2009) Trophic Garnishes: Cat–Rat Interactions in an Urban Environment. PLoS ONE 4(6): e5794. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005794

This article questioned the potential negative impacts of decreasing predator species and the resulting effects this decline could have on an ecosystem, including on prey inter-specie disease and the resulting impact this could have on humans. The focus of this study was on cats and rats in the urban environment of Baltimore, Maryland.  The study was specifically concerned with the ratio of cats to rats in the urban environment of an alley. The experimenters seemed to first have hypothesized that the number of predators and prey were directly correlated. To determine if this actually were the case, experimenters manipulated the rat populations in an urban alley, in which they trapped and took away rats twice, once a year for two years. They wanted to examine the relationship between the numbers of predating creatures to the number of prey creatures, and ultimately observed that although the decrease in rats temporarily decreased the rat population, it had “no negative long-term impact on the size of the rat population” and “the sizes of the cat population during the two years were also unaffected by rat population perturbations.” This observation suggests that the rat population is not necessarily immediately impacted by predators.  This study assesses the potential benefits, or lack there of, that would result from an introduction of  predators to stabilize and control the rat population over a long-term span of time. According to this study, this does not seem to be  the best solution to excessive rat populations in an urban environment since the “structure” and not the “abundance” of rats were significantly impacted by the larger predation population in comparison to the prey population. These results lead me to question what solutions we can implement in our urban environment in New York City, where rats are cohabiting, to an extent,with humans. The “long-term goal” of this study was to ultimately examine the link between predation and prey and the resulting impacts on urban ecological systems and the spread of diseases should the prey population increase as a result. This is particularly relevant to NYC where so many people are in contact with rats. If we were to introduce, or increase, the number of rat predators to the city we would have to ensure this predator would indeed use this rat as part of a daily diet and that it would not just change the structure but rather have long-term impacts on the abundance of the rat population since this study suggests otherwise. To fully accept this study’s results it would be beneficial to conduct similar experiments or to read more experiments with a similar focus.

 

NYC Water Supply

Posted on December 1, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

As an upstate stakeholder, my primary concerns lie in the nature of our precious watershed communities and the impact that development would have on our property value. Development, such as that involved in building a water filtration plant or that necessary to carry out hydraulic fracking, inevitably comes with detrimental impacts to nature which results in declining property value. It is therefore essential that we prevent such plans from being further developed and ultimately executed. Due to the impacts development has on nature and the community, property values are in turn negatively impacted.
According to a study by Dr. Mark Broomfield for the “European Commission DG Environment,” the cumulative impacts of one type of development that is in question for upstate New York (fracking) have the potential of being detrimental. The “risk assessment” for fracking in Europe, as conducted by Broomfield, demonstrates the potential for negative impacts on the surrounding environment. Although a few of the impacts were only considered to be of “moderate” risk when measured in individual sites, the “high” level of noise and traffic that could accompany the type of development in question in NY can accumulate to “highly” impact such aspects of nature as biodiversity and water quality that were considered in Broomfield’s study (Broomfield).  When discussing the noise pollution that accompanies development, for example, Broomfield addressed the continuous 24 hr/day nature of this type of development that could impact nearby environments. The negative effects of the excessive noise,traffic and pollution will extend to impact both our natural world as well as the surrounding property, the value of which is often dependent on the presence and quality of natural space.
Development’s impact on nature extends beyond impacting the immediate animals and wildlife that reside in the watershed communities where the development would hypothetically take place to directly impacting the value of the upstate property that is in question. Development such as that concerning fracking is particularly detrimental for homeowners in search of a mortgage loan,for example. If homeowners have given leases for this type of development, the future property value is in question since the lease remains, regardless of whom the house owner is. Freddie Mac’s manual, as cited by the “Tompkins County Council of Governments,” says that “surface or sub surface rights within 200 feet of a residential structure would not be acceptable for conventional financing in the secondary market,” illustrating the detrimental impact development has on nearby lying property.

 

Sources:
Broomfield, Mark. “Support to the Identification of Potential Risks for the Environment and Human Health Arising from Hydrocarbons Operations Involving Hydraulic Fracturing in Europe.” European Commission DG Environment 17 (2012): Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

501c (3) nonprofit advocating for the Catskills: “Catskill Mountainkeeper.” Catskill Mountainkeeper. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2012. <http://www.catskillmountainkeeper.org/our-programs/fracking/whats-wrong-with-fracking-2/mortgage-problems/>.

Retrieved from cornell.edu: Gas and Oil Leases Impact on Residential Lending, by Greg May, VP – Residential Mortgage Lending Tompkins Trust Company, March 24, 2011. Tompkins County Council of Governments.

Emma Marris Questions

Posted on October 27, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

1. In the future, do you plan on perhaps revisiting the studies you discussed in your book and seeing what progress has been made or how these ecosystems have changed?

2. At the beginning of your book, you mention you attended Audobon camp, is this the moment you realized your fascination with the natural environment? How did you become particularly interested in urban ecology?

3. Is there one ecosystem you visited as part of your book that demonstrates your idea of conservation the best?

4. As urban dwellers, is there any advice you have for us as to how we should recognize, care for and appreciate the nature that is in our city?

 

 

Poster Questions

Posted on October 7, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Poster Questions:

What is the trend in the prevalence of different cancers in various geographic locations? What possible environmental factors could have led to this?

How does drinking water quality differ in various parts of NYC and what factors contribute to this? What health issues have resulted?

How does the use of pesticides differ geographically and what health effects can result from exposure to pesticides?

 

Marris Chapter 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Emma Marris concludes Rambunctious Garden by suggesting there is a multitude of environmental decisions to be made that are influenced by a variety of factors. Given the amount of time, money and effort many of these processes require, there is undoubtedly going to be debate and controversy regarding which progressive action is best. I agree with Marris that reaching a “common goal” can be difficult since “no single goal will work in all situations” (154). Considering the variety of sources, of both utilitarian and intrinsic belief, and the wide range of opinions these sources feel strongly about, reaching a common goal can be “extremely difficult” (154). I agree with Aldo Leopold’s idea regarding how humans should perceive nature, specifically the importance of reaching the point when “taking care of ourselves becomes the same thing as taking care of the environment” (154).  If we, as a population, recognize that our existence is directly connected to both animal and plant species, perhaps we will learn that we can in fact coexist and that we have no option but to respect and appreciate the nature that surrounds us. We can then progress to make this coexistence possible by experimenting with the various processes Marris introduces, such as rewilding and assisted migration. Marris makes a valid point when she says that we must refrain from “shying away from the occasional bold experiment” (170) and work together to preserve biodiversity. This is only feasible if we are progressive and willing to try new things.  To compromise with those that oppose radical change, we could perhaps begin by testing our methods on a smaller scale and then, if successful, extend their implementation. Although I agree with the majority of Marris’ goals, I oppose that which focuses on solely protecting “genetic diversity” as it seems rather impractical if it implies practices, even if not as radical, as “bluebirds existin[ing] only as frozen tissue samples” (162).  One particularly interesting concept in chapter ten that illustrates the complexity of our ecosystem is that concerning elephants and the importance of having a balanced number of species in an ecosystem. Prior to this reading, given the rarity of elephants, it had never occurred to me that in some places too many elephants in an area have been of concern.  The consequences of having too dense of an elephant population can be detrimental to the ecosystem, threatening the continuous growth of crops and wildlife. This case illustrates both the complexity and interrelated nature of ecosystems. By studying elephant populations and the specific needs of their habitat, for example, we can recognize the importance of treating each ecosystem with a unique perspective without generalizing from one to the next. By doing so, we can work with local populations to meet goals that are both specific and more feasible in that particular region.  It is often human nature to be concerned with those things that are relevant to us, as is demonstrated by Marris’ discussion of ecosystem services. We must therefore emphasize that both animal and plant species directly relate to each and every one of us as we live in what Leopald refers to as “the grand web of life” (154). In parallel to the anthropocentric mindset, we cannot think of nature as a separate entity and must do what Marris suggests in the beginning of her book and “admit our role and even embrace it” (2). Marris concludes her book with a powerful message, emphasizing, “it is our duty to manage” nature and that we can do so for “different ends” (171). But in order to do so, we must be optimistic and recognize all possibilities with an open-mind, understanding that “aesthetic and spiritual values,” among others, “are not limited to native or pristine-seeming places” (168).

Marris Chapters 8 & 9

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

One idea Marris brings up in these chapters is that regarding “building to achieve a particular goal” (126). Rather than focusing solely on returning nature to a “baseline” that is often falsely held, it would be far more beneficial for us to decide on a specific goal we wish to achieve and then progress and build on that foundation. She provides us with examples of these goals, ranging from “nitrogen reduction” to “sediment capture” (125). Although all of these processes could require both funds and effort, they seem more practical than having the broad goal of returning to a pristine, untouched piece of land that would be significantly difficult to maintain. A concise summary regarding this process is made on page 127, where Marris suggests that this process can be evaluated based on a few factors: what it is you are striving for, as well as the “size of project, budget, and how much the place has already changed” (127). After assessing these aspects of the proposed project, one might even come to the conclusion that “a designer ecosystem may be better than the recreation of a historical ecosystem” (127). I appreciate the idea Marris brings up regarding many ecologists’ flexible approach to designer ecosystems, often fueled by the optimistic motto of “whatever works” (127). Given the difficulty of predicting the exact behavior of plants, animals, climate and ecosystems as a whole, this open-minded perspective will be beneficial when it comes to adapting to an environment that is undergoing constant change. We cannot hold on to this superficial baseline of what we assume is “pristine wilderness”. In chapter 9, Marris continues to bring up interesting suggestions as to how we should interact with the nature around us. I support the ideas she brings up regarding utilizing spaces in industrialized regions, such as the land surrounding parking lots. Perhaps we could turn these areas into more interesting places that host a variety of plant and animal species as opposed to solely concrete and pavement. This is what Marris refers to as appreciating the nature that surrounds us. It also addresses the possibility we have of creating more nature. It was particularly interesting to read about New York City and the potential increase in the diversity of our city if we “were willing to plant species with less pest resistance and accept the tattered leaves and petals that come with it” (146). I understand the difficulty of achieving this as many are concerned with the “conventional aesthetic standards,” which is an understandable concern, however, also an unfortunate hindrance to the potentials of our environment.  I am fascinated by the idea of “bees zooming across the five boroughs” that “could tie isolated specimens together into a metapopulation” (146).  It would be very interesting to observe “the insect fauna” and diversity this process would attract and the effect it would have on the city as a whole. Marris continues to explore the endless possibilities of incorporating nature into our daily lives by examining privately held gardens and the ability to use these smaller-scale gardens when it comes to experimenting and providing larger scale projects, such as those in agriculture, with feedback and results. This could be beneficial as “gardeners can afford to be ahead of the curve” and perhaps take more risks that those who financially depend on the targeted processes (149). Marris concludes chapter 9 with the basis behind these unique efforts, suggesting that if we solely accept “pristine wilderness” as nature, we are not allowing those who live in more industrialized neighborhoods to appreciate and enjoy the “humble natural settings” that do exist and are dismissing the great possibilities of “spiritual and aesthetic experiences” that urbanized areas have to offer (150).

Marris Chapters 6-7

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

The negative perspective towards invasive species is fueled by emphasis on such “new germs and viruses [that] can make people and animals sick” or the “introduced species [that] can cost farmers and ranchers big money, as they destroy crops or displace more palatable species on the range” (Marris 99). By focusing on such cases as the introduced brown tree snakes species that “has killed off ten of twelve native forest-dwelling birds on the island of Guam,” (99) we are only considering the negative aspect of introducing new species to a region. When it comes to invasive species, similarly to other topics Marris addresses in her book, we could perhaps benefit from being more open minded with the ability to recognize the possible beneficial impact a species could have on the new ecosystem it is being introduced to. One example that illustrates the potential benefit of new species is that in Britain, where climate change caused chicks to hatch early, leaving them without caterpillars to eat. In this case, the newly introduced European Turkey Oaks were beneficial to the survival of the chicks as they brought with them wasps that served as food in lieu of the caterpillars. Examples like these are necessary as they illustrate the recurrent benefits that many so called “invasive species” can have on ecosystems. Marris brings up a valid point by questioning why we are inclined towards disliking the introduction of new species. I agree with the notion that perhaps it is because we “merely fear and dislike any change” (107). I also agree “the invasive species paradigm is so easy” and that it is simply convenient for us to implicitly immediately judge new species as invasive and dangerous and solely welcome natives in ecosystems (108). Ecologist Mark Davis brings up another valid idea, suggesting we should “forget about where they came from, identify species that are causing us problems…and then deal with them” and perhaps we could deal with each species as a “separate case” rather than categorizing based on native or invasive status (108).   I appreciate Marris’ introduction of novel ecosystems, as they appear to be a good balance between complete conservation and radical moves such as assisted migration. Novel ecosystems are “defined by anthropogenic change but are not under active human management” (114).  I am optimistic regarding the concept of introducing a species to an environment and allowing it to thrive, perhaps even assisting the processes of evolution and natural selection. My optimistic outlook towards the idea of introducing new species to an ecosystem stems from the positive results from scientists such as Ariel Lugo who “found that the novel forests [in his study], on average, had just as many species as native forests” (119).  Although I, like Mascaro states, recognize that ”we will always have to deal with the risk [new species] pose to other systems,” I think we should further work towards and research novel ecosystems as it would be unfair to simply dismiss their potentially beneficial role in our environment.

High Line/Statler

Posted on September 22, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

My visit to the High Line

When Emma Marris talks about the “Rambunctious Garden,” she stresses the concept of “creating more nature” by avoiding the notion that the only areas that can be appreciated as nature are those that are as pristine as they were long ago. In an interview for her book, Rambunctious Garden, Marris shows viewers a patch of land between two roads that many might not consider to be “nature”. She opposes this view throughout her book, however, and stresses the importance of appreciating the nature that surrounds us, whether that be “pristine wilderness” or not.

A bumble bee sits on a plant that resembled bluebonnets parallel to the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment facility.

The patch of land Marris shows us in her interview is comparable to the High Line as both areas are surrounded by urban, industrialized structures and have been managed by humans.  I have a new found appreciation for such places as the High Line that are only made possible through human intervention. Prior to recognizing the High Line as one of these places, I was skeptical regarding the concept of “selective maintenance” that is so necessary in these places (Statler). I now recognize the true beauty and wonders of such places that, without human intervention, would not be able to host such vast biodiversity as the High Line does. The High Line is a prime example of Marris’ approach to what can be classified as nature. Even though the High Line does not look identical to, nor remotely close to, what it looked like  thousands of years ago, it is still a place where one can observe nature.

A honey or killer bee found north of the Diller-von Furstenberg Sundeck

Although approximately 50% of the Highline’s species are native and this aspect is not essential for Marris’ classification of a place as nature, the majority of the High Line’s characteristics are parallel to Marris’ perspectives.   One such parallel idea is the idea that “the factors and forces involved with community development at the High Line may be similar to the factors and forces associated with primary succession” (Statler). Marris brings up the concepts of assisted migration or rewilding that also contribute to natural cycles such as growth from grass to shrubs and trees. Humans have had a significant impact throughout the High Line’s history, both during its time as a railway and now through the “Friends of the Highline’s” maintenance of the park.

After my eye-opening visit to the High Line, my opinions regarding human intervention were further reinforced by Statler’s paper.  I was pleased to learn that “the High Line may have one of the highest levels of species richness (38.8 sp/ha) of any temperate zone urban environment in the region,” (Statler), despite not being untouched

The above image shows what look like Eastern Boxelder bugs near 17th street on the High Line

or unaffected by humans. Human intervention, on the contrary, may be among the factors that have enabled the region to be so diverse.  According to Statler, “several factors may contribute to the high vascular plant species diversity on the High Line,” ranging from “human visitation” to “trampling and soil compaction” as their combined influence “may account for the multiplicity of everchanging habitats which may account for high species diversity on the High Line” (Statler).

Upon first being introduced to human maintenance of nature, I was skeptical of the concept.

What appears to be a honey bee and a fly near the walkway that extends out from the High Line to provide a scenic place to stand (middle of High Line)

After revisiting the High Line, a place I enjoy bringing visitors from Sweden, a country where nature is often as rambunctious as Marris describes it as, I recognized that a favorite place of mine is indeed one of these places that are only made possible through the human intervention that Emma Marris describes in Rambunctious Garden.

Assisted Migration

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Although assisted migration may appear beneficial to those animals whose habitats have been significantly altered by global warming, there are undoubtedly downsides to the process of manually moving animals to a new habitat.
Those who favor the idea of assisted migration seem to solely be concerned with the threat that extinction is posing to specific creatures. We must, however, not overlook other factors that could also be threatening to the migrating species as well as those that are not the central targets of the process.
The only way for the process of assisted migration to become a feasible process that would gain the support of more scientists is to investigate the “unknowns” (conditions in the new environment, insects, etc.) that ecologist Daniel Simberloff fears. Prior to moving a species to a new environment, particularly a diverse environment like an urban area, we must make inventory of what is already living there and examine the role the migrating species would have in that new ecosystem.
Camille Parmesan, among others, published a paper that appears to sufficiently sum up the debated topic of assisted migration. If this process were to be considered, we must follow what the authors refer to as the “first-pass analysis,” stating “species should be moved if they are at high risk of extinction from climate change, if they can be feasibly transported, and if ‘the benefits of translocation outweigh the biological and socioeconomic costs and constraints’” (82). Prior to making such a drastic decision as moving animals to an entirely new habitat, such as an urban environment they have not previously been familiarized with, we must consider the effects it would have on both the species being moved as well as the environment to which it is being moved to.
Questions we must ask as part of this analysis include: is this new urban environment familiar with this type of animal or will it come as a complete shock to both the people and animals that already inhabit the region? Will this new species actually be able to thrive in this new environment or will it face another threat that could be just as detrimental to its existence as global warming? What will happen to the rest of the species it leaves behind that are part of the “coevolved ecosystem” that Marris mentions?
It is not enough to say that assisted migration is feasible because the urban environment we are moving the species to would have a similar climate to the one it was previously living in. Ecologist Jessica Hellmann also makes a valid point, saying “what makes climate change different from re-establishing from a glaciation is that these northern areas are already full” (88).
As is evident by Puth and Burns’ article, species richness is something that needs to be further studied. Although there have not been enough studies done, “most of those that did report data over time showed declines in species richness” in metropolitan USA (Puth and Burns). Although we must encourage more studies to be done in order to get a clear and accurate picture, extinction and declining biodiversity are both credible threats. Assisted migration, however, does not seem to rectify this situation nor impact all creatures equally, prioritizing those that have commercial purposes or intrinsic value, often at the risk of the remaining species.
To come to a conclusion regarding the risks and benefits of assisted migration, such studies as that conducted in British Columbia as well as those groups working to find scientific discoveries regarding assisted migration are essential. The only way I can see this happening widespread is if the “sentiment” that Marris refers to is strong and persuasive enough to fuel the movement as commercial gains are often prioritized when it comes to decision-making.

NYC DOH Environmental Health Tracking Portal

Posted on September 9, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson
  1. In 2010, Brooklyn (1,621), followed by Queens (860) and the Bronx (752), had the most carbon monoxide incidents. Manhattan,however, had the highest rate per 100,000 buildings (12.2%) of carbon monoxide incidents in 2010. Queens (2.2%) and Staten Island (2.3%) had the lowest rates of incidents per 1,000 buildings in 2010.
    2. In the graph below, the medium level of poverty does not always correspond with the middle number of carbon monoxide incidents. The highest level of poverty, however, does correspond with the highest level of carbon monoxide incidents but the lower levels and medium levels of poverty do not always follow the anticipated pattern that the higher the level of poverty, the higher the number of carbon monoxide incidents. 
    3. The correlation between the percent of households rated good or excellent with the number of carbon monoxide incidents suggests that the better quality of the housing structure, the less carbon monoxide incidents occur. Perhaps the better quality housing and neighborhood structure and appliances (such as the furnace), the smaller the chance of carbon monoxide incidents occurring.
    4. From 2004 to 2005, all boroughs experienced an increase in the number of carbon monoxide incidents.  Staten Island experienced a less significant increase than the other boroughs from 2004 to 2005 and then appears to have remained rather stable. After their increase in 2004-2005, the other boroughs appeared to have gradually decreased until another gradual increase in 2008. The carbon monoxide incident levels appear to be at a slightly higher level in 2010 than in 2004 (most notable difference in Brooklyn).
    5. Rate of carbon monoxide incidents per 1,000 buildings appear to increase the more north one travels on Manhattan and then gradually decrease the more north one gets in the Bronx. Staten Island had a low number of incidents (light yellow). Queens also had a low number of incidents, with the largest being in the middle of queens (more orange than surrounding areas). Brooklyn experienced a range of 1 to 15 buildings per 1000.

“Rewilding”

Posted on September 8, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Emma Marris introduces the debated idea of rewilding nature in chapters 3 and 4, a topic I have mixed opinions about. Although the general notion behind the idea seems both logical and optimistic, I fear that it is difficult to achieve in large scale and can have unforeseen consequences.

I agree with Josh Donlan, an ecologist, that the opposition against this idea should not  solely be fueled by the dislike of humans managing nature. This critique is not specific to the idea of rewilding. He says that it is imperative we start “admitting to ourselves that we live in an intensely managed world” (64) and perhaps this is a healthier impact humans can have on the environment as it seems to be a way that man can work with nature. Although I understand why many oppose this idea and I also dislike the idea of humans managing nature, I do not believe this should be the sole platform on which the opposing opinion specific to rewilding is formed. I appreciate Donlan’s optimistic attitude towards the end of chapter 3, stating “we can make things on Earth better, not just less bad” (56). We must keep this optimistic attitude and do all we can to refrain from being idle and stagnant. Although rewilding may not be the ideal or perfect solution, it is more proactive than giving up and not embracing nature.

When we consider the idea of rewilding, I think it is imperative for us to pose a few questions that will determine if the process is a good fit for the area. Such questions might include: Is this process sustainable and feasible? What effect will it have on the environment, its species, as well as the people that inhabit nearby land?  If we are successful at carrying out this process on a small scale, we could then move forward to see if the plan can be executed on a widespread, larger scale.

Aside from perhaps the financial or timing aspects, the ideas brought up by Frans Vera appear logical if carried out successfully.  Essential processes such as “intensive grazing” and “population control” (62) would be facilitated, which could in turn have significant positive effects on the ecosystem. Vera’s suggestion of using rewilding as support for the necessary cycles that change land from forests to shrubs and grassland is logical. To see the impact of this process and determine its feasibility on an area of land, one would have to examine and study it for a long time.

Although the aforementioned effects of rewilding appear promising, there are a few possible downsides to the process. One such fear is the introduction of dangerous animals to habitats and the “threat of death” (64) to areas that are not accustomed to such “dangerous carnivores” (64).  Another uncertainty regarding this process is brought up by ecologist Dustin Rubenstein who says “proxy animals…could become invasive pests, or escape their parks and cause trouble with local landowners” (65).  I also understand this critique as Rubenstein explains “these ecosystems have changed” and “attempting to fill gaps that closed long ago with proxy animals could generate unpredictable results” (65). Prior to carrying out this process, we would need to be certain regarding the possible behaviors of these animals when introduced to a new environment.

Regarding the future of the environment and its precious species, it is often easier to be critical and harder to make feasible and practical suggestions. It is therefore important that we consider all options and thoroughly examine the respective pros and cons before coming to decisive conclusions.

Rambunctious Garden: Chapters 1 and 2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

Emma Marris begins her book, Rambunctious Garden, by saying the “dream of pristine wilderness haunts us. It blinds us,” a point I predict she will continue to emphasize (1).  I agree with Marris’ perspective that we cannot solely mourn the last remaining pristine places, but we must rather look to the future, understand the change and “admit our role and even embrace it” (2). If we fail to recognize that nature is continuously changing and that man is involved in this process, I fear that conservation would become a competition between man and nature that can leave us hopeless with the inclination to give up.
I anticipate that Marris will continue to write from her “proactive and optimistic” mindset of “creat[ing] more and more nature”(3), in lieu of areas of “pristine wilderness”. I think Marris’ thesis follows this theme and will concern the importance of being  “proactive and optimistic” when approaching conservation, ensuring that we work to incorporate nature and man in accepting change and understanding the environment.
Marris’ introduction of the “baseline” seems well supported by her inclusion of the various accounts that devalue this theory. The baseline theory seems to be the opposite of what she calls being “proactive and optimistic” as we are, by adhering to the “baseline,” working towards a goal that is not very feasible nor practical. Marris is successful at conveying the negative impact of having “protected areas,” places Michael Soule and Bruce Wilcox introduce in their book as the “most valuable weapons in our conservation arsenal” (26). This process is both time consuming and costly and has had, and can continue to have, detrimental impacts on the indigenous peoples of these regions. Once again, this process would be “mourning” what we don’t have anymore by trying to return to the “baseline” state of an area.
I appreciate Marris’ honest and direct attitude towards the idea of conservation and I anticipate this mindset will carry on throughout the book.  This perspective is illustrated by such responses as “ nothing is going to go all the way back to the way it used to be, not even the Laupahoehoe Natural Area Reserve, so valued for its pristineness that it is used as a reference area-a contemporary baseline–for all similar forests” (8).
In her first two chapters, Marris successfully introduces unique and relevant ideas that seem well supported by research. I appreciate her inclusion of arguments that support her view as well as those that oppose it. This gives readers a well-balanced view of conservation and the opportunity to form opinions and perspectives on the issue.
I look forward to reading more about “pristine wilderness,” an idea that seems to contribute to her overarching theme.
I agree with her insight to the apparent wilderness of “pristine areas,” locations which have often been altered by man to look wild and natural. Despite an area’s apparent wilderness, it is often these areas, according to Marris, that are the least wild and natural.
Understanding “anthropocene” and Marris’ ideas of “cutting edge conservation” (14) is vital for the future of our environment. I anticipate that Marris will continue exploring the dangerous mentality of viewing humans as the only factors impacting the environment. This mentality could make the situation a man versus nature case as opposed to man working with nature, thus perhaps making what Marris refers to as the “mistake” of “thinking that nature is something ‘out there’, far away” (1).

Reading: 8/30/12

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Johanna Mattsson

The term “Anthropocene” refers to the human population’s increasing impact on the Earth’s environment, the processes that allow it to function and the species that inhabit it. The human population’s presence on Earth and our daily activities can have destructive effects on the environment. These activities, such as building dams and cutting down trees, are increasingly threatening to our environment and the species that populate Earth’s land and water.
In order to improve on the issues that “Anthropocene” addresses, it is imperative for us to focus on the source of the problem and then work to install a long-term and sustainable solution. The Science Magazine article suggests that we “must reduce the rate at which we alter the Earth” and make sure we have an “understanding of the Earth’s ecosystems,” emphasizing that we “cannot escape responsibility for managing the planet” (Science Mag). Although the aforementioned techniques sound rational and make sense, the article entitled “Conservation in the ‘Anthropocene’” approaches this issue in a very unique and promising way that could be more practical to execute. In the Breakthrough Journal article, the authors bring up the idea of “nature exist[ing] amid a variety of modern, human landscapes”, an idea parallel to “urban ecology”. In order to make conservation a “societal priority” we must make sure people “believe conservation is in their own best interests” (Breakthrough Journal). We must therefore mix modern ideas of improvement and innovation with ideas of conservation, paying attention to the condition of our environment and the species that inhabit it while still enjoying modern development.
The way in which we view this issue is most important. We cannot speak of the environment in a far-reached sense, but rather as an issue that is relevant and familiar to humans worldwide. It is out of human nature for people to care about the “health and prosperity” (Breakthrough Journal) of their friends, families and themselves. In order to make conservation a priority, we must do what the Breakthrough Journal suggests and “intertwine” nature and people to recognize that the status of one’s health depends on the status of the other (Breakthrough Journal). It is essential for this connection to be made by all at an early age.
The Breakthrough Journal article suggests a unique approach to issues such as rising CO2 levels and deforestation that the article in Science Magazine thoroughly discusses. The idea of urban ecology and an approach that depicts the issue of conservation in a more optimistic light will be beneficial towards improving current conditions. We need to adhere to a mindset that encourages us to continue searching for ways to improve and refrain from giving up.
A hopeless perspective towards the issue of conservation could serve as a potential self-serving prophecy. By viewing the environment as a hopeless cause, we are in turn discouraged to do anything productive to remedy the situation, escalating the very problem we are trying to solve.

Comments by Johanna Mattsson