Author Archives: Manal Janati

Posts by Manal Janati

PRO DEVELOPMENT UPSTATE STAKEHOLDER

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Manal Janati

Given the increase in demand for drinking water, land in upstate New York should be set aside for hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking.

Underneath New York state is the Marcellus Shale, which is one of the largest shale formations used for natural gas. Hydrofracking is a technique that pumps millions of gallons of water, sand, and other chemicals below the Earth to fracture underlying rock and thus pump the natural gas located in the shale to the surface. While hydrofracking does raise question about where to dispose “flow back water,” it is possible for the fluid to be disposed in proper injection wells, which are located in other states. With cooperation by states, they can insure that the fluid is properly disposed.

Even though hydrofracking has many opponents in New York, it reaps many added benefits to the state including large amounts of natural gas. It is estimated that hydrofracking will produce 410 trillion cubes of natural gas reserve. Furthermore, it will also create jobs; in fact, approximately 13,491 to 53,969 jobs will be created as a result of this project. Future job growth is also anticipated; by 2025 one million jobs will be created. Moreover, the state also benefits from hydrofracking with gains estimated to be $2.7 billion and $1 billion in federal, state and local taxes (514). Thus, economically, New York state will benefit tremendously from hydrofracking both through job creation and increased revenue for the state.

For the New Yorkers who are skeptical about the benefits of hydrofracking, currently 90% of the 14,000 wells have undergone hydraulic fracturing. Furthermore, state officials also imposed regulations on the gas industry regarding drilling methods to ensure that their methods are safe. In fact, the rules imposed by the state of New York are “‘equivalent to the federal Fracturing Awareness and Responsibility (FRAC) Act of 2011.” Under New York state regulations, the industries must show state officials that there is a significant amount of impermeable rock between the well and groundwater before they can start drilling.

In addition, another added benefit of hydrofracking is that it is a “cleaner source of energy than oil and coal.” Given the United States reputation as the largest consumer of petroleum, adopting natural gas as another means for energy will led to significant economic benefits. For example, it will reduce dependency on oil and create a more “stable energy market.” Moreover, the cost of natural gas is relatively low, which makes it a great alternative to petroleum for fueling various modes of transportation.

Those who are against hydrofracking, oppose it for few reasons, one includes the increased likelihood of earthquakes. While this is a valid concern, more research is needed to explore the correlation between “oil and gas production and seismicity.” Furthermore, many opponents claim that natural gas will release unsafe amounts of methane into the air; however, they fail to acknowledge that the EPA has significantly reduced the amount of methane emissions through the New Source Performance Standards NSPS. Through its regulations on hydrofracking, will ensure the same level of safety.

Therefore, the benefits of hydrofracking drastically outweigh the minor negative claims. Land in New York State should be used for hydrofracking because through this project it will lead to the creation of jobs, increased revenue for the state and less dependence on petroleum for fuel.

 

Source: Nolon, John R. and Polidoro, Victoria, Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides? (2012). 44 Urb. Law. 507 (2012 Forthcoming). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2066780      pgs(507-522)

 

Questions for Author Emma Marris

Posted on October 28, 2012 by Manal Janati

1) How did you coin the term the “rambunctious garden”? Why did you choose the adjective “rambunctious”?

2) In your novel you detail going to various places i.e. Mammoth Hot Springs, Bialowieza Primeval Forest etc. At the time did you have the intention to write a novel based on your findings ? If you did not what inspired you to write your novel?

3) Since your first stages of writing the novel, were there any chapters or information that you added or deleted before it was published?

4) What is the general reception towards the idea of a “rambunctious garden” do other conservationists or ecologists believe that it is a feasible approach? What are their counter arguments, if any?

Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Manal Janati

1) How is land conserved in New York City? What are the factors that conservationists and ecologists take into consideration when deciding what plots of land to conserve? Is it based largely on the biodiversity of the land? What species are more likely to be protected?

2) With the recent sightings of coyotes in New York City, why are coyotes settling in certain areas in NYC and not others. Is the probability of coyotes migrating to other densely populated parts of NYC high or low? How long will it take for coyotes to become an integral part of its new ecosystem ?

3) What types of diseases do invasive species bring with them? Or do the species get diseases after coming into a new ecosystem? Do these diseases pose a threat to animals, humans or both?

Conclusion of the “Rambunctious Garden” Ch 10

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Manal Janati

Compared to her rather idealistic approach to nature conservation in the chapters prior, chapter 10 offers a more realistic take on this issue. In this reading of the “Rambunctious Garden” Marris acknowledges that “no single goal will work in all situations” rather she believes that the proper solution would be for owners, managers and government alike to create a set of common goals, which on its own can be quite difficult (Marris 154).

Marris offers a set of seven goals, the first of which is to protect the rights of other species. Under this goal, she cites Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess who developed the term “deep ecology” which refers to the idea that nature should be conserved “for its own sake” rather than for the self-interest of the people (154). Ecologists who share this belief agree that nature has “rights” so to speak. However, there are instances when animal rights conflict with the broader goal of conservation. Marris includes the example of a cat that is killing the albatross on an island. In this case the rights of the cat conflicts with the goal of protecting the albatross from extinction.

Secondly, Marris also mentions the importance of protecting the “charismatic megafauna” which includes species such as whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, tigers and pandas (156). While protecting the descendants of the megafauna is important, it leaves out other smaller species such as nematodes, lichens and parasites, which are just as important in the ecosystem. Marris suggests that the reason for this is because the charismatic megafauna are “keystone species” or species that shape how an ecosystem works and how it is shaped. An example of this is the elephants in Africa that live on a piece of land with a low area in respect to the population. Since the density of elephants is large the pachyderm landscape lacks a variety of plants. Some ecologists suggest trying to manage the elephant population. Perhaps a better solution would be to expand the ecosystem so that the elephants can thrive in the pachyderm without decreasing the plant biodiversity.

In her fourth goal, Marris includes the importance of defining and protecting genetic diversity. According to the Endangered Species Act there is no definition for “species” and “sub-species” (160). This is because the definition is not clearly outlined. Marris mentions that some brown bears are genetically closer too polar bears than they are to other brown bears. In this case it is clear that protecting genetic diversity is the more appropriate term than “species” because “there can be more genetic diversity between populations of one species than between two closely related species” (162).

After reading chapter 10, it is clear that Marris has strong opinions in regards to the steps to take to create a “rambunctious garden.” She stresses the importance of setting common goals; however, in order to do so it is also important for ecologists and conservationists alike to educate communities about conservationism and how they can go about preserving nature properly. In society there favorability towards nature that is aesthetically pleasing; however, through reading the scientific evidence mentioned in the text it is clear that nature is best when left alone. Nature that is unkempt is a better house for biodiversity than maintained nature because it allows for species to thrive. Ultimately, creating a common goal is important in order for conservationists to narrow their focus; however, they alone cannot conserve nature the responsibility also lies on people as a whole.

Marris Chapter 8+9

Posted on September 30, 2012 by Manal Janati

Chapters 8 and 9 of the “Rambunctious Garden” offer a different approach to conservation. In previous chapters Marris discussed the process of rewilding according to a specific baseline. However, in these subsequent chapters, she introduces a new term: “designer ecosystems” in which land is conserved based on a specific goal rather than a baseline. Some goals include “nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or the maintenance of one or a small number of named species” (Marris 125).

Ultimately, this is a better approach than conserving land based on a baseline because according to stream restoration expert, Margaret Palmer the baselines are “arbitrary” because it does not “(take) into account the changing nature of the landscape” (124). Nature undergoes both abiotic changes such as climate, soil chemistry and biotic changes such as extinction of species (128). Therefore, a major fault with conserving nature according to a baseline is that nature is constantly changing and it is difficult to recreate an ecosystem that occurred thousands of years ago because since then there have been changes both in the species composition as well as climate. Replicating this ecosystem requires huge efforts, both monetary and manual labor.

Creating designer ecosystems is a better approach because baselines are too complicated and arbitrary. On the other hand, having a clear goal like nitrogen reduction is more feasible because it is easier to measure the nitrogen content of water than it is to recreate the ecosystem of the Pleistocene era. Goals such as nitrogen reduction and removal of excess sediments will help the ecosystem. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico the nitrogen “mostly comes from fertilizer, and boosts the productivity of plankton,” which in turn uses the oxygen in the water and as a result, creates excessive amounts of slimy algae (126). However, even this has to be carefully monitored because nitrogen reduction may also lead to high levels of mercury in fish (126).

In her next chapter Marris returns to her idea of the “rambunctious garden” where conservation happens everywhere. In fact, she even suggests that rather than having a lawn, families should use their backyard to house smaller species or “metapopulations” such as insects, plants and fungi. Hanski, a metapopulations researcher at the University of Helsinki adopted the idea of conservation in his backyard, and according to a biologist, Helsink reported 375 species including 2 endangered species of “’one wasp and one beetle” (Marris 147). However, there are few downsides to this method of conservation; firstly, it is not aesthetically pleasing because in order to house the metapopulations people have to refrain from cutting the lawn and let it grow naturally. Secondly, there is a lack of an “organized mechanism” for the amateur gardener to speak to scientists about what occurs in the piece of nature he/she is taking care of. According to Marris, for there to be a rambunctious garden, society has to change its view of pristine nature and accept “nature that looks a little more lived in than we are used to.”

Ch 6+7 of the “Rambunctious Garden”

Posted on September 27, 2012 by Manal Janati

When a new species is introduced to an ecosystem a major concern on part of conservationists and environmentalists is whether the new species will become “invasive.” In Chapter 6 and 7of Marris’ “Rambunctious Gardens” she gives numerous examples of nonnative species that have caused the decline of native species. For instance, in Stephens Island, a nonnative cat caused the extinction of the flightless wren. The wren did not have any predators, so it did not develop the ability to fly overtime and as a result was an easy prey for the cat. Furthermore, in Guam the brown tree snake, originally from Australia, killed “ten of twelve native forest-dwelling birds” (Marris 99). Ultimately this decline affected other populations in the ecosystem, in Guam the fruit trees were less dispersed because there were few birds left to carry the seeds across the land.

When the term “invasive species” is used, it has a negative connotation; it almost implies that the species is destructive. However, Marris also shares examples of “invasive species” that have a positive effect on the new ecosystem. For example, in Rodrigues Island during the 1970’s its native species of two songbirds and a fruit bat were declining rapidly almost towards the point of extinction; however, following the introduction of an exotic species of timber, the land was reforested and ultimately increased the population of the declining species to healthy numbers.

In fact according to Marris “the vast majority (of exotic species) are not (a huge problem)” (98). The term of “invasive species” was revamped by some scientists to “novel ecosystem” to include species that have both a positive and negative effect on the ecosystem. Still, there are many scientists who believe in the restoration of the native species even if it means taking out an invasive species that could be helpful. For example, ecologist Shahid Naeem of Columbia University “‘would love to get rid of every invasive species on the planet and put all the native species back in their place” (100). Moreover, in 1999 Bill Clinton also signed an executive order “declaring war against invasive species.” From these two examples, it is clear that there is a lot of contention towards invasive species and they are rarely seen as having a positive influence on the ecosystem. In fact, after Bill Clinton’s executive order, it influenced many volunteer efforts to combat the threat of invasive species. For example, Marris’ states that she recalls volunteering at a Seattle park to pull out English Ivy and holly because the species was spreading too rapidly.

Now, however, Marris believes that exotic species have the potential to create more diversity in the future and will eventually “evolve by adapting to local challenges and by genetic drift” (109). Instead of “invasive species” a few scientists have coined the term “novel ecosystems” to describe ecosystems that have been drastically changed in its species composition within a recent time period. These scientists noticed that many introduced species eventually calm down over time; for example, the strawberry guava was a very pervasive plant that eventually won the hearts of many Hawaiians and caused no conflict. In my opinion certain harmful invasive species such as the zebra muscles and phragmites should be removed because they will destroy the ecosystem, whereas the strawberry guava actually benefits the people of Hawaii and should not be removed just because it is a nonnative plant.

the Highline and Stalter

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Manal Janati

Although I went to the highline a year ago for IDC to see the Chelsea Galleries, upon my second visit, it was a completely different experience. This time I turned my attention away from the architecture and artistic displays, and refocused it on the inconspicuous pollinators along the boardwalk. I started the journey on 23rd street and 10th avenue and immediately I saw a bee on what I believe to be a Rosaceae plant. The bee was attracted to the inner most part where the pollen is located. As I walked towards 19th street I noticed that the bees were predominately settling on the parts of the plant with a lighter color. The bees were rarely nesting on the green plant leaves. Less common were the wasps, I managed to come across a wasp on the Rosaceae plant, but unlike the bee, its stripes are more defined and it was located on the green leaf rather than white bulb.

Other than bees and wasps, I also came across flies. The flies were harder to find because they moved around often and tended to blend with the green leaves. Most of the flies were on the tip of the leaf and towards the side closest to the boardwalk. Within a block’s distance of the fly was a ladybug. In comparison to the bees, wasps and flies, the ladybugs are less apparent. In fact, the insect was almost hidden within the leaf. Given the insect’s unusual green color, it was a bit ironic that the ladybug was hidden in a reddish colored leaf. The last of the pollinator species I came across were birds. The birds tended to nest either on the fence or on poles. I believe this is the case because the species of plants nearest to the fence is the Poaceae flora, which resembles tree branches, which birds use to create nests. In fact in the picture below it seems that the group of birds are working together to create their own habitat.

The highline is unique space that allows New Yorkers who want to escape the crowded streets of the city to enjoy a more serene stroll above the traffic. The highline does fit into Marris’ rambunctious garden. In her novel “Rambunctious Garden” she states “this garden isn’t restricted to parks and protected areas. Conservation can happen in parks, on farms, in the strips of land attached to rest stops…” (Marris 2). From this excerpt it is clear that the highline represents a rambunctious garden because it is not a secluded area of nature. Marris’ definition is inclusive of all and any type of nature that is set aside no matter the size. Given the small area of the highline, it can very well be a rambunctious garden because a major goal of the highline according to Stalter is to create a space for people and nature to interact. Based on the Stalter piece, the highline was an abandoned area that once served as a highway for freight trains, but with the organization “Friends of the High line” it became a “rambunctious garden” or a place where people and nature can coexist. I must admit that initially I did not think that the highline was in any way a “rambunctious garden,” because it seemed that the same plants were distributed throughout the entire highline. However, after reading Stalter’s work, I learned about the many species that thrive in the highline including the Poaceane, Rosaceane, Asteraceae etc. The highline may only have an area of 4.2 hectare, however it is the home to 163 total species and the embodiment of Marris’ rambunctious garden.

A green ladybug on a reddish colored leaf.

At the highline 23rd and 10th avenue. I am second from the left.

Birds creating what seems to be a nest.

Ch5 and Puth&Burns article

Posted on September 12, 2012 by Manal Janati

Since the Industrial Revolution there has been a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, which in turn causes global warming. One of the more obvious affects of global warming is climate change. In Chapter 5, Marris discusses the affect of climate change on various species in different ecosystems across North America. For example, she mentions how the “pika,” a small mammal that lives in the West, is slowly dying because according to an experiment conducted in the 1970’s these mammals are not able to survive in temperatures over seventy-eight degrees (Marris 73). With global warming, the temperature of the Earth is steadily increasing and a major concern for scientists is how to protect species like the “pika” from extinction. Over time the population of species who need to live in cooler conditions will decrease because given the cone shape of mountains, the higher up the species goes the less land they will be able to occupy. Consequently, scientists and conservationists introduced the idea of “assisted migration” as a way to “save biodiversity under threat from climate change…” (88).

However, this proposal is rather idealistic because there are many species that suffer from climate change and with “assisted migration” there is always the risk that the species might become invasive. Ecologist Hellmann has conducted a research experiment in British Columbia to determine whether or not the Garry oak will migrate further north in response to climate change (85). In conclusion, Hellmann was concerned about the extent to which assisted migration could protect biodiversity from climate change. She believes that people are only going to want to save the “important” species i.e. timber and wood, but other species like microbes or beetles will be left to fend for themselves. Ultimately, the determining factor behind what species to assist will be based on finance because there is a lack of funds for assisted migration. The only other way to get funds is through private corporations, which will most likely want to profit from the experiment.

Assisted migration for some species would be useful in an urban setting. More specifically, species such as trees or other small, harmless organisms would be valuable in cities. Given the large population of cities like New York City, if there are small and harmless organisms that need to be in a colder climate, it would be beneficial to move them to an urban area. Through educating communities about climate change and its affect on biodiversity, people will be more receptive towards those organisms. With the current green movement people in general would like to live closer to nature. However, one limitation of assisted migration in urban areas is the lack of space for organisms to live. If these organisms originally come from a wide, open area it would take time for it to adjust to the smaller space. Furthermore, as Marris pointed out in the chapter, there is also the possibility that this new species might become invasive and cause another species to go extinct as a result of its migration. In an urban setting there needs to be a specific plot of land set aside for the new species that closely resembles its previous ecosystem to make its transition easier. Then, slowly the species will be able to adapt to the new ecosystem and thrive there.

　

Rewilding Ch3 and 4

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Manal Janati

In chapters 3 and 4 of the Rambunctious Garden, Marris introduces a new concept called rewilding, in which scientists and conservationists attempt to recreate an ecosystem that predated human arrival by bringing native species back to their original ecosystem. However, further research suggests that humans are not solely responsible for the extinction of the “megafauna” or large animals that inhabited North America (Marris 44). As a result, scientists and conservationists introduced “Pleistocene Rewilding,” which refers to a baseline about 13,000 years ago (Marris 57). Ultimately, this baseline is deemed to be a more accurate indicator of how the land was before it was reshaped by humans and nature. Analyzing North America before the “megafauna” is a better approach because research shows that humans are not the only ones responsible for changing the land. In fact this claim is shown to be outdated, but using the Pleistocene era as a reference will provide scientists and conservationists with a better picture of the ecosystem. By researching the species that thrived on the land, scientists can then make inferences about the landscape and how it has changed over the past 13,000 years.

However, since these species have been extinct thousands of years ago, scientists and conservationists needed to use other similar species as “proxies” to determine how the ecosystem was during this era (61). The “proxies” are species that bare resemblance to the “megafauna” But this is controversial because it authorizes conservationists to move nonnative species out of the land and bring in the “native species.” Field ecologist, Josh Donlan, who worked closely with the scientists and conservationists behind “Nature,” an outlined plan for “Pleistocene Rewilding,” has actively been removing nonnative species (62). In fact, Donlan recalls working in Mexico’s Gulf of California, but because he was not able to remove all the cats on the island, the native wood-rat species went extinct. In this example, it is clear that rewilding is important to keep native species from going extinct.However, it still leaves the question of whether or not it is okay to remove a species from its habitat and put it in a new ecosystem that its ancestors have lived in thousands of years ago.

 Moreover, rewilding still enforces the barrier between humans and nature; Donlan mentions that when bringing native species back to North America they will be separate from human civilization. For some, this contradicts the idea of a “pristine nature.” A prime example of this is the Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, which was designed to showcase “pristine nature” however, Marris argues that is “far from pristine” because the species are living on a plot of land surronded by Civilization (70). These animals cannot roam wildly because of the Oostvaardersplassen’s proximity to people.

Even though it is important for conservationists to prevent the extinction of native species, it is also difficult to determine whether or not removing a species from its habitat and putting it in a new ecosystem will do more harm or good. Given the lack of scientific information about the Pleistocene era, scientists have to rely upon a “few long-term ecological studies” (62). This will take scientists a lot of time to analyze and compile conclusions. Rewilding is scientifically feasible but because rewilding is a new concept, the only way for scientists to conclude whether or not the concept is the best approach is to conduct long-term research on the species in their new ecosystems.

Manal’s post of Ch 1+2

Posted on September 6, 2012 by Manal Janati

In Emma Marris’ “Rambunctious Garden” she offers a more contemporary view of nature and its relationship with humans. She believes that the eighteenth and nineteenth century quest to conserve “pristine” nature is outdated because there is no such thing as unchanged nature. Ecosystems have undergone many changes both “anthropogenic” and not. In the first two chapters of Marris’ novel she explains why the manner in which nature was viewed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is an outdated approach.

Marris explains that in society we are conditioned to believe that nature is “distant, wild, and free” with no human interference (Marris 1). However, she offers a new outlook on conservation, which she dubbed the “rambunctious garden” (2). According to Marris, the rambunctious garden is a “hybrid of wild nature and human management.” Rather than preserving a large plot of land where no people live, she believes that conservation should be intertwined with cities, or places with a high concentration of people. Marris stresses that the “rambunctious garden is everywhere” and does not have to be a large open space (2). She gives examples of “strips of land attached to rest stops” and “city traffic circles” as rambunctious gardens. In order to do so, she explains that society’s view of what constitutes nature must change.

In society, the idea surrounding nature is that it must be a “stable, pristine wilderness” (3). When nature is preserved it is done so according to a “baseline,” which is how the land was believed to have looked like before the influence of people (5). However, this becomes very tricky because nature undergoes many changes over the years be it “anthropogenic” or through a natural occurrence ie volcanic explosion. Furthermore, preserving nature according to the baseline poses potential problems, because species and humans who were living on the land are in most cases forcefully expelled. For example, in the Scotia Sanctuary, the rabbits and foxes were deliberately poisoned because they were viewed as a “threat” to the species already in the Sanctuary. I agree with the author’s position that preserving nature according to a baseline is not the most effective way for land conservation because it becomes difficult to decide what makes nature “pristine.” Also given the large amount of people who live in the cities, it is crucial that nature is included as part of their daily lives rather than something that is “distant.”

Furthermore, Marris also describes the historical transition of the connotation behind nature. In the 1860’s literary Romantics like Henry David Thoreau and Percy Shelley praised nature as “the stuff of life” (18). It was a place where people can be in solitude, which means that nobody can live there permanently. Consequently, this is also the time when the Miwok Indians were forcefully removed from Yellowstone because of the belief that there should be no people living in the park. However, towards the end of the nineteenth century, ecologists began to research how nature itself changes and achieves stability. For example, Australia over the millennia has drifted towards the north, but the overall global climate was cooling so it managed to reach a “stable climate” (33). All in all, ecosystems are always changing be it “anthropogenic” or by nature, and according to Marris, it is ultimately impossible to find an unchanged ecosystem to preserve. Ultimately, the only feasible solution for the twenty-first century is to create a “rambunctious garden.”

Manal’s Post of the Kareiva and Vitousek Reading

Posted on August 29, 2012 by Manal Janati

The denotative meaning behind “anthropocene” is literally the era of humankind. More specifically it is referring to the time period from the Industrial Revolution to the present day where humans have “dominated” the ecosystem: both land and ocean. With the growing population worldwide, humans have expanded into lands and ecosystems previously untouched. However, in recent years various intellectuals and scientists have pushed for “conservation” in an effort to increase biodiversity. Moreover given the growing population it is also important to use land for the best interest of the people. With this being said, “urban ecology” refers to the balance between preserving biodiversity but also keeping the best interests of people in terms of the usage of the land. Urban ecology is the interaction between humans and the ecosystem in an urban area, where there is a higher population of people than living organisms. Both Kareiva and Vitousek agree that the human dominance over the land and ocean is largely a negative one and needs to be addressed and fixed immediately.

According to Kareiva, nature is not as fragile and delicate as scientists supposed it was in the 70’s and 80’s. Rather, nature has shown to be resilient to human influence. For example, the American chestnut was overtaken by a foreign disease but according to the author, “the ecosystem (was) surprisingly unaffected.” Kareiva continued to explain that while humans would like to conserve land and build parks to “preserve” the ecosystem, they are still transforming it. For example, when a park is built, humans decide what species should thrive in the area, build wells for drinking water etc. By wanting to preserve the land, humans end up changing it.

Furthermore, Vitousek also describes the extent to which humans have transformed the land in a more scientific sense. The rise of population has increased the need for resources to satisfy the wants and needs of influx of people. Humans have transformed the land for various purposes including: farming, industry and fishing. According to Vitousek, human land use accounts for the most “substantial human alteration of the Earth system.” Furthermore, humans have also affected the oceans through over fishing as well as the sprout of algal blooms in coastal areas, which indirectly produce harmful chemicals. Lastly, human alteration of resources has also led to the extinction of “one-quarter of the Earth’s bird species.”

While both authors state the negative affects of anthropocene, they do however, express optimism and offer feasible solutions to address the issue. For Kareiva, a better means of achieving conservation would be to understand the needs of the indigenous people as well as biodiversity. Moreover, for Vitousek, he stresses educating people about the ecosystem and having them understand the need to take responsibility for “managing the planet.” Both solutions are feasible, but the most effective way to make change is for people as a whole to be conscious of their affect on the environment and find the balance between preserving biodiversity and land use.

Comments by Manal Janati