Author Archives: Jeffrey Ho

Posts by Jeffrey Ho

Anti-Development Upstate Stakeholders

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

As stated in the case study of New York City drinking water issues, upstate stakeholders are against development of filtering facilities in watershed communities. According to an article from EPA Journal by Keith Porter in 1994, the watershed residents believe that installing filters would incur “unknown economic and social costs” to protect water that are mainly used by people outside of the watershed communities.

Not only does filters facilities affect the economic and social aspects of watershed communities, some alternative plans would also do damages as well. According to James Kavanaugh in an academic journal from Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, watershed protection plan as an alternative would do similar harms to watershed communities. The Watershed Memorandum of Agreement was adopted in May, 1997. This watershed protection plan has three phrases. The first phrase is land acquisition of undeveloped land around the watersheds, which may devalue properties and restrict economic development of properties in the communities. The second stage is the launch of protection and partnership programs. However, most of the negative effects of these programs will incur on upstate stakeholders instead of the primary user of the clean water. Since the watersheds are 120 miles away from NYC, NYC do not need to suffer the restrictions and limitations under the watershed protection plan. NYC will also enjoy benefits from the result of the program without having to bear any substantial cost of filtration. Those restrictions would be imposed on the watershed communities in the form of “landuse restrictions, such as restrictions on development, increased property taxes, decreased property values, and delays in the issuance of building permits”.  In my opinion, those effects on watersheds community will be similar if filtration facilities are in placed.

Also, as Kavanaugh stated, filtration facilities may create a false sense of security that can promote water contamination. It encourages a misconception that no mater how bad quality of water is before filtration, the final products would be clean and safe water because of filtration. Such misconception would reduce protection of the watersheds and affect the natural beauty of the watershed communities.

As a result, another alternative would represent both parties. According to Porter, the Whole Farm Planning program can help reduce pollutions to watersheds to ensure high quality drinking water. The program is to reduce the release of contaminants from source of pollutions like “barnyard areas, silage systems, stored manure, and sheds containing chemicals”. Besides managing the sources of pollution, the plan also desire to minimize farm field’s runoff by reducing amount realeased, and managing soil and crops. If contaminants are only released without runoff, drinking water source would be less polluted. Lastly, the program wants farms to keep a buffer zone with the water to prevent contaminants from reaching the water.

Besides that plan, the Whole Community Planning Program (WCP) would also be a feasible alternative. According to Kavanaugh, the WCP program allows residents of watershed communities to design and to implement their own protection plans instead of being subjected to NYC regulations and restrictions. The plan has to be submitted by municipal government and is approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation under the guidelines including zoning, local landuse planning, site plan review, comprehensive planning, critical environmental area designation, land conservancies, housing density guidelines, and provisions to transfer and purchase development rights. As a result, WCP would help ensure drinking water quality in NYC under the government’s guidelines without the negative effects that filtration and watershed protection plans would cause to watershed communities.

 

SOURCES:

Porter, Keith S. “New York City: Case Of A Threatened Watershed.” EPA Journal20.1/2 (1994): 24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Kavanaugh, James. “To Filter Or Not To Filter: A Discussion And Analysis Of The Massachusetts Filtration Conflict In T.” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 26.4 (1999): 809. Academic Search Complete. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Questions for Emma Marris

Posted on November 2, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

1. How do you think the publication of this book changed the view of rambunctious gardening?

2. Have you received any criticisms on the book or ideas from the book that have swayed your opinion?

3. Given Hurricane Sandy arrived on the east coast of USA, how do you think urban ecosystem is changed and how should conservation efforts be changed in accordance?

4. Other than your own backyard, what is the best example of a rambunctious garden in your opinion?

5. How do you think the urban ecosystem will change if everyone starts to implement rambunctious gardening? In the book, you mentioned a lot of benefits of this method. Is there any negatives to rambunctious gardening that you can see in the future if it becomes popular?

Potential Poster Questions

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

1. How doe the quality of NYC drinking water affect urban ecosystems in NYC?

2. Which environmental factors contribute to heart attacks in NYC? How?

3. How does urban ecology and human behaviors impact the amount of birth defects in NYC?

Chapter 10

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

In the last chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris concludes the concept of rambunctious garden by stating that we are to manage our planet in different places for different goals like historical restoration, species preservation, and ecosystem services. It is through rambunctious gardening that can achieve the combination of goals we desire for. She also describes seven goals that conservationists commonly pursue for.

The first goal is to protect the right of other species. This goal focuses on biocentric view of life, giving species and ecosystem moral status (154). Deep ecologists are the ones that take on the biocentric view and believe that all living things have intrinsic value and should be protected. Some suggests that it is a moral obligation to the natural world to reduce our intense impacts on the planet and to reduce human population (155). I find this concept a little extreme since reducing human population is restricting the rights of human to expand, which is also a part of nature.

The second goal is to protect charismatic megafauna, who are large animals that “humans like and really don’t want to see go extinct” (156). According to theories, most popular species are also keystone species, species that have great impact on the ecosystem. It would lead to umbrella conservation, where conserving the keystone species will help conserve the ones depending on the keystone species.

The third goal is to slow the rate of extinction. By that it means to return the rate of extinction back to its “back ground rate” (158). Statutes like the Endangered Species Act are also passed to make it equal weight for species to be protected. However, if we have every species equally weight and only focus on halting extinctions, some species are not to be saved when budget is tight because some are more economic feasible to save than others.

The fourth goal is to protect genetic diversity. The reason being is that species with genetic variations are likely to adapt to changing climates (161). We are to prevent genetically weird species from going extinct. If they go extinct, we can be losing a million years of evolution. However, genetic diversity might lead to preserving genes of species in a freezer that might not do anything that will help the ecosystem nor the species physically.

The fifth goal is to defend biodiversity. Biodiversity usually mean a variety of species that exist. However, true biodiversity should also expand to variety of gene within each species and variety of ecosystems on Earth (162). It is also complexity of an ecosystem where species interact with each other to form a beautiful web of interrelations produced by evolution. We should conserve so that we can maintain the complex relationships between species in ecosystems.

The sixth goal is to maximize ecosystem service. It suggests conservations to occur to preserve the services that ecosystems provide for humanity like filtering water and dampening floods (164). The services and supplies ecosystems provide are finite, where the growing population of humanity depletes them more and more. Part of the conservation effort under this goal should be to pass legislative polices like financial incentives and taxes for people not to destroy ecosystems. However, it implies that people are entitled to destroy nature, and are given compensation if they do not. Also, the effort under this goal would encourage the planting of monocultures of plants that provide the services we need most and might reduce biodiversity.

The last goal is to protect the spiritual and aesthetic experience on nature. For most people, nature is a place to refresh their spirit (167). Some ecosystem and species also represent specific culture (168). We are to conserve the beauty in the cultural and spiritual experience that nature is providing for us.

With many goals, it is difficult to fit all of them into each ecosystem. Each ecosystem has to compromise its interests and to find the best goal or goals for it to be conserved. We need to be honest about our goals and costs, and to keep land from mindless developments (171). We are also going to do everything we can to keep green on this planet, even if they are not native landscape. We are to manage earth to reach our goals, which is called rambunctious gardening.

Chapter 8 and 9

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

In Chapter 8 and 9, Marris discusses designer ecosystem and conservation in areas not commonly thought of. First, she urges conservationists to look at the future to aim for something valuable instead of trying to get a previous ecosystem back that is almost impossible (129). If biotic and abiotic changes both occur to an ecosystem, like the Eucalyptus woodland, there is no going back to the historical antecedent (129). Designer ecosystem is the system that she proposes, which uses shortcuts to get a landscape to look and work the way they wanted (125). For example, they will allow sunk ships to stay in water for coral reefs to live on or to slow down stream flow with rocks and root balls inside wire baskets. Although designer ecosystems do not bring an ecosystem back to its previous state, it does “heal wounded nature and return it to a stable “natural” state” (126). Compared to returning an ecosystem to its previous state that works with almost impossible and immeasurable goals, a designer ecosystem can work with measurable goals that are valuable, such as nitrogen reduction, sediment capture, or maintaining endangered species. However, as stated by Marris, ecosystem is too complex at the moment for humans to completely understand (130). There is no way that we know everything about an ecosystem and every interaction between species in the ecosystem, making some designer ecosystems fail. Also, natural selection and the force of nature can always outperform our plans for designer ecosystem at any time. Not to mention that a noticeable population of human race will still like to have the nature in its “raw” state. As a result, Marris proposes a “best-case future”, where designer ecosystem and island civilization coexist (131). It means that when we engineer ecosystems the way we wanted, we also leave some areas out of human population and let it run wildly.

Besides the designer ecosystem, Marris want to maximize conservation effort by urging conservation in places never thought of before. She suggests three areas where that can happen. First, she suggests building nature on farms and ranches because they are set up to grow things (142). Farm and ranch land cover half of ice-free land, which is a good idea to start conservation there since they are areas often being neglected. We can develop organic farms or pay farmers to let birds feed on and live on their plantation. Second, Marris suggests the combining interests of industry and conservation. Industrial space can become more natural by adding green (143). For example, developing green roofs on top of a factory can create habitat for organisms and help industrial processes by reducing water runoff and absorbing sunlight to reduce urban heat island effect. Lastly, Marris suggests conservational effort in our own garden space, or rambunctious gardens. She urges people to plant endangered species in their garden, to tear out lawns, to build green roof, to make rain gardens, and to create wild space without too much interference. One might argue that a garden is too small for conservation efforts. However, these small gardens are linked-up by pollinators and corridors, making them a metapopulation that can create a high biodiversity. However, when making a conservation effort, people should consider how much of nature they can handle. Conservation everywhere allows people to love nature and to support conservation instead of just leaving the responsibility to other agencies (150). Everyone can carry the responsibility of conservation.

I think both systems will be great conservation efforts toward better functioning ecosystems and higher biodiversity. There might be risks of carrying out designer ecosystem because nature can often outperform the designer ecosystem and turn it into be something undesired and unexpected. However, if successful, they are great to have to improve the functions of ecosystems. Conserving everywhere is absolutely feasible if people are willing to participate and realize its benefits. Not only can it create a pleasant and aesthetic space, it can also contribute to conservation. These gardens can also provide data for ecologists so that they can plan assisted migration and other means of conservation. They are both methods that enhances and preserves nature, which is something that is going forward instead of backward in time.

Invasive Species and Novel Ecosystem

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

Exotic species often have a negative impression for most people because they are considered invasive species. Most people think, “as species invades, the ecosystem collapses, species go extinct, and complexity and diversity are replaced with a monotonous and weedy landscape dominated by invaders” (97). However, that is only some of the cases for exotic species. In many cases, exotic species are not necessary invasive. They can help native species as well. Invasive species can flourish to create a habitat for natives or become their food source. They sometimes help endangered species to grow in number. The problem is that most people and the government associate exotic species with invasive species, and try to destroy them as a conservation effort. However, removing invasive species is not feasible because seeds can survive for decades and target species can return after they had been killed (101). They need to realize the benefits of invasive species and to reduce their effort to remove exotic species.

One important benefit that exotic species can do to an ecosystem is to increase its diversity. Extinction is often outnumbered by invasion, where the types of species in an ecosystem actually increased. Also, some exotic species takes up the empty niches of the ecosystem, which makes the ecosystem more complete and balance. As a result, we should only deal with exotic species that are causing problems, and introduce the ones we want in order help develop a well-balanced ecosystem (108). We should forget about native and non-native categories when evaluating an ecosystem as long as the ecosystem is better off in terms of its functions. Also, we will embrace new species and invasive species as native species as time moves on and as generation passes. The line between native and non-native species changes as time changes. As a result, a novel ecosystem is a great and less confusing system to implement.

A novel ecosystem is “new, human influenced combinations of species that can function as well or better than native ecosystems and provide for humans with ecosystem services of various kinds – from water filtration and carbon sequestration to habitat for rare species” (112). In most cases, exotic species are initially invasive when introduced, but they will behave over time (116). When exotic species grow in number, they become a big part of the environment. Native species learn to adapt to new species by building resistance (118). As a result, exotic species are not invasive if they are given some time. Exotic species-dominated ecosystems function better than native forests due to higher biodiversity and more balance when niches are filled. Therefore, we should not remove exotic species. We should to let the exotic and native species work things out on their own.

The fact that humans are part of nature, we cannot confine our idea of nature to a time before human arrived. Nature should be when the environment is on its own processes that are not under human control instead of a list of things that were there years ago without human intervention. It is important that we let ecosystems to balance themselves on their own against exotic species. We should introduce species to an ecosystem planning that they will benefit the ecosystems, and leave them to balance through natural selection. That way, a novel ecosystem is truly natural to let all niches to be filled for maximum completeness.

High Line and Stalter

Posted on September 25, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

The High Line is an elevated public park built on a freight rail. It is located on 10th Avenue, running between the 13th and 34th street. It contains about 20 blocks of area. I visited the High Line on September 22, 2012 at 3:00pm. It was an amazing experience since it was the first time I visited it. In my opinion, the park is the combination of nature, aesthetic, and humanity. With various plants on the side, artistic rock benches and fixtures and walkway create a beautiful and pleasant aura for visitors to enjoy their walk. The park is also full of different species of pollinators that fly from plant to plant. I could only encounter a few species of pollinators. I noticed a large amount of bees throughout the park, with small amounts of birds and other insects.

The High Line carried commercial freight form 1934 to 1980. It became abandoned when Interstate highway system encouraged truck transportation that led to the decline in rail freight. When the High Line was abandoned, Friends of the High Line fought to preserve the High Line from being demolished. Due to their effort, the High Line became a public park and pedestrian walkway that contains a high diversity of flora and fauna.

When the High Line was first created, it accumulated a shallow level of soil and organic matters as a result of the cycles of growth and death of the pioneer plants (Stalter 390). As materials and trash are being smothered into the soil and plants by train and wind, the mineral abundance of the soil increased. Also, soil compaction and fire led to greater soil quality. New species were introduced due to unintentional transport of seeds by human visitation. When Friends of the High Line transformed the abandoned rail into the High Line public park, species were introduced on newly deposited volcanic ash on sites where plants did not exist (Stalter 388). The history of human intervention created a variety of habitats that contributed to the species richness of the park today.

The High Line is a great example of a rambunctious garden. As Emma Marris stated, “Rambunctious gardening is proactive and optimistic; it creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left” (Marris 3). In other words, rambunctious garden is to allow human to work with nature instead of restoring our environment to its pristine look. We are to create green spaces by selecting the desired plants and/or maintaining the plants that are there already to create a “garden” of biodiversity. In a sense, the High Line is a garden because the New York City parks department maintains it. In a garden, we water our plants and decide which species to stay in the space to achieve our goal, whether it is to enhance the beauty of the property or to increase the biodiversity of the garden. The same goes with the High Line, plants were selected to plant in the area and some species were maintained to achieve a rambunctious garden that has a high biodiversity.

Bombus-affinis

Honey Bee

Fly

Birds sitting on a rock.

Interesting looking red insect.

 

 

Assisted Migration, Chapter 5

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

As humans continue to urbanize, we further the negative consequences we are causing on our environment. As humans burn for agriculture and for other purposes, as well as deforestation, we are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and industrial chemicals in the atmosphere. As a result, we allow the Earth to retain more heat. In turn, we contributed to global warming, or the elevation of earth’s temperature. As a result of the elevation in temperature, some species cannot survive or successfully reproduce, and they would eventually extinct. As a result, species often migrate north or up in elevation. However, species that have less mobility might move too slow to outrun the climate change. Some might be too slow compared to their supplement species, species that they need help from in order to survive (like pollinators to many plants), and would therefore die before being able to migrate to an ideal location. Some might depend on species that are moving too slow, and they as a result die off before they could outrun the climate change. For example, butterflies can fly away faster than a lot of plants. However, they only like to lay their eggs on specific species of plants and would have to wait for those species of plants to migrate first (75). Some might even encounter migration barriers. It can be as simple as a crossing a road that makes it difficult for species to migrate. As a result, species on average move 3.8 miles toward the pole every decade, according to Camille Parmesan. She called it “poleward movement”. Therefore, assisted migration becomes a concept that emerged to move species to places where they can have a better future in response to climate changes and the difficulties they have when migrating on their own. Choosing the destination of migration cannot be a place where species will currently adapt to best at the moment or a place where they will adapt best when they harvest. It has to be in the middle of the two suggestions so that plants won’t just grow in the beginning and then die off, or not being able to make it to the harvest time initially.

The pros of assisted migration would be to save endangered species and other species of commercial importance by migrating them to an ideal location to sustain their population. The arguments for cons of assisted migration exist as well. First of all, it is almost impossible to accurately predict what kind of effects assisted migration can do to species. We don’t know what species need to have in order to survive, especially in terms of soil microbes or microclimatic condition (77). They might not be able to survive in the new location just because the temperature is more desired to them. They might also become invasive species in their new location, causing destructive problems to the ecosystem. They would also threaten baselines set up by conservation efforts in their new ecosystem because they do not exist in that ecosystem prior to the baseline. I think another possible problem of assisted migration is the need of constant management. As species are assisted to move north, climate would eventually catch up and species would have to move again. It is a constant process within decades, making such project unrealistic in the long term. As a result, assisted migration remains a heated debate for ecologists and environmentalists.

Assisted migration into urban forests is helpful for the urban areas, but might not be feasible. According to Puth in the article on species richness in New York metropolitan region, species richness is generally decreasing in the city. Migrating species into the urban forests can increase species richness. However, it is not feasible because there is not much space for species to migrate into with the concentration of human population and species in the urban ecosystem. It might cause problems of unfriendly competition for survival needs. The high price of real estate in urban areas might also increase the cost for assisted migration. Also, the migrated species might become invasive and hurt the urban ecosystem. Lastly, urban ecosystems should be warmer than other ecosystems surrounding it. As a result, it doesn’t make much sense to migrate animals into urban forests from ecosystems within the range of 200 kilometers.

Assisted migration from urban forests, is more feasible and is great for endangered species and species with commercial needs. They might be able to survive better in the new location and therefore sustain their population in the future. It would also be feasible because outside urban forests, there is more space and are cooler. However, the possibility of becoming invasive species and the possibility of not being able to adapt to the new environment has to be taken into consideration.

Rewilding

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

The concept of rewilding is to look at the past as a reference to create new ecosystems (68). It is not recreating ecosystems into how ecosystems were before Europeans arrived, as many ecologists believe. It is to recreate an environment into its condition before humans laid their hands on the environment. It is also called Pleistocene rewilding, restoring nature to the way it was 13,000 years ago before human caused any extinction. As Vera states, “the only thing man did was create the conditions, and nature filled it in” (71). Rewilding creates an environmental condition by introducing proxies that resembles long-extinct large predators in a particular area. These proxies include Heck cattle for auroch and konik horses for tarpan horses. These predators would conduct population control on herbivores and its preys. As a result, plants would remain their diversity when no herbivores would dominate to reduce the population of their favorite plants. The habitat would eventually evolve in a cycle of forest, plain, and shrubs as organisms in the ecosystem interact on their own.

I think the concept of rewilding is feasible in theory. It is restoring the nature using natural force. All human would do is to find proxies to put into the ecosystem for it to regulate and to restore itself to the condition 13,000 years ago. By restoring predators in an ecosystem and by regulating it for a sufficient amount of time, it is relatively low cost compared to the primeval conservation that plans to maintain ecosystems the way it was before its baseline. It is to keep in mind that ecosystems constantly urge to change because of climate changes and evolution, making primeval conservation difficult. Rewilding is also an alternative conservation method to achieve the goal of restoring the environment to as pure as possible. Setting a baseline before European arrived is useless because, according to chapter 3, inhabitants have changed ecosystems already by killing predators and causing many species to extinct. That baseline is not pure, thus rewilding should work better than primeval conservation if it is successful. Not only can we use proxies to restore our environment, we can help these proxies by giving them a wider range of habitats to grow their numbers and solve their danger to extinction. In the theoretical standpoint, I think it’s feasible.

Scientifically, rewilding is still an experiment. Although it had some initial success like reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone, which reported unexpected and significant ecosystem shift (62). Introducing predators can create substantial changes to an ecosystem. However, it takes time and many experiments to find out whether it would turn out to be the way as planned in the rewilding. Based on the initial successes in Oostvaardrrplassen and Yellowstone, I think it is scientifically feasible until experiments reveal the plan’s failure later on.

However, I don’t find rewilding ethical. I think the experiments are cruel because they would kill the introduced species if they become invasive or if they do not work they way as expected (65).  They are lives also. It is not ethical to kill them with our strategies and weapons when they are innocent and introduced without their own will. Although population control by introducing predators works great, it is cruelly forcing deaths upon some of the population of lower-of-food-chain species. Lastly, I think by connecting the rewilded ecosystem with the human world (less populated) and let farmers and residents to put up fences up their properties on their own wills to protect from wild invasion is irresponsible. Rewilding can cause casualties and destructions as non-specialized human population are not used to living with large species. Saying that the introduced predators will not become invasive to human population is irresponsible on ecologists’ parts.

Weeding the Jungle and The Yellow Stone Model, Chapter 1&2

Posted on September 3, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

Emma Marris’s Rambunctious Garden is a book that describes a new type of conservation that we should adopt instead of trying to restore patches of our nature to pristine ecosystems. Her main point focuses on how we are losing nature by misplacing it. We should not look at nature as pristine ecosystems, but as rambunctious gardens.

Marris points out why recreating pristine ecosystem is almost impossible. First, there is no pristine wilderness on planet Earth in 2011 (2). There is no way to preserve pristine if there’s no more “virgin” areas untouched by human influence. We stirred the globe too much that it is difficult to reverse the damages and changes we had done on our planet. Second, there are few or no spots on earth with ecosystems that remained unchanged for more than 12,000 years (34). Even without human influences, climate changes and natural disasters like wildfires can change an ecosystem dramatically. Yellowstone, a model for many preservation efforts in the world, is “non-equilibrial”. The fire in Yellowstone in 1988 was an example. Species can be wiped out by one fire, where they can be recovered or be replaced by new species that better adapt to the new ecosystem created by the disaster. Third, secular climate changes occur constantly without human input, which provide constant changes in ecosystems. We are currently in the interglacial period, where temperature is getting warmer on its own and ecosystem is constantly changing. Setting a baseline and trying to counter all the human influence and natural climate changes is ineffective. Some pristine species, according to the set baseline, might not be able to survive and grow in the climate and the environment of their ecosystems today

Marris also gives some examples of recreating pristine ecosystem to prove it as time consuming and ineffective. Recreating pristine ecosystem includes getting rid of the invasive and undesired species in an ecosystem to allow the “original” species to grow. Tony Cathcart took eighteen months to conduct the removal of introduced animals in a fenced block in Scotia Sanctuary. It took more than 6 years to remove introduced species in about thirty miles of ecosystem.  As Marris states, “… unless the whole country decide that its number-one priority is ridding Australia of feral animals, these little fenced islands are all that pristine focused conservationists can hope for” (11). Recreating pristine ecosystem is ineffective in terms of time and money. Also, recreating pristine ecosystem includes forcing the inhabitants to evacuate the land they live in. It creates problems and inconveniences to inhabitants that are doing little damages to the nature. On the other hand, recreating pristine ecosystem by getting rid of thousands of species is doing way worse to the nature than what those inhabitants ever did.

I agree with the case Marris presents in the chapters about having rambunctious gardens instead of pristine ecosystems as the best conservation method. As Marris describes it, “Rambunctious gardening is proactive and optimistic; it creates more and more nature as it goes, rather than just building walls around the nature we have left” (3). I think Marris is saying that we should work with nature instead of restoring our environment to its pristine look. As she states, no single goal will provide for a well-rounded conservation program (14). Thus, a conservation program should be a collection of alternative goals (13). Part of the project can be cleared of undesired species to teach people about its ecological history; part of it can be a protected area for endangered species, another section can specialize in species that are important to the culture of its people and economics of its area. I think doing conservation projects as such is one of the better ways in achieving conservation, without damaging the true nature to recreate the pristine nature.

The Anthropocene

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Jeffrey Ho

Anthropocene is defined by Kareiva et al. as “a new geological era in which humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.” Similarly, Vitousek et al. describe anthropocene as “human-dominated ecosystem”, where not a single piece of land is free from human influence.  Both articles see the importance of anthropocene to human existence as it addresses poverty and advances our civilization.  However, the articles also describe the harms that urban developments and conservation are doing to nature. Further, they try to provide suggestions to correctly conserve planet Earth.

Vitousek et al. describe how the growth of human population leads to development of enterprises, then transformation of our environment, and then climate changes and loss of biodiversity. This article suggests several ways to reduce the adverse effects of urban development on Earth. It suggests us to reduce the rate of changing our environment, arguing that ecosystems and species can cope with these changes more effectively if they are slow changes. It also encourages the public to increase understanding of the Earth’s ecosystems and their interactions with different global changes caused by human enterprises. Lastly, the article suggests us to conserve the number of species and ecosystems as we change our environment to provide more flows of goods and services for humankinds.

Kareiva et al. discuss anthropocene in terms of conservation. Conservation is failing since biodiversity is declining although the effort for conservation is increasing. Although the effort toward conservation is increasing, the rate of destruction of our natural habitat is far greater. As described in the article, the creation of parks and protected areas are “no less human construction than Disneyland.” The value of untrammeled nature cannot be found in a park as native human communities are removed, hotels are installed, unwanted species are removed, desired species are supported, and wells are drilled for the water “wildlife”. If conservation remains focused on the creation of parks, more harm would be done to the natural habitat than good. We also create new habitats as we destroy some in urban development. Some species removed from an ecosystem are able to recover after the area is change by urban development. These species evolve to take advantage of the new environment, and are at risk only if the environment changes again. Since the article sees conservation as counterproductive, it suggests new ways for conservationists to do their jobs. One problem is that people view conservation as an enemy to human survival since resources are used to protect forests and create parks instead of supporting agriculture to feed the hunger population. Therefore, educating the public that the fate of nature and people are closely related. Conservationists should then support the right kind of developments designed to improve the economy and to benefit human beings while keeping the importance of nature in mind. We should also create natural spaces in the urban area for species and wildness to reside instead of trying to restore lands to “pre-European conditions”, which creates more disasters than benefits.

I find that combining the methods from both articles is feasible. We can educate the public about how closely related the wellbeing of nature and humankind is, as well as how human enterprises are changing the natural habitat in a fast rate. As both articles hint, we should try our best to keep the number of species and the population of ecosystems the same instead of trying to restore lands to the way it was before urban development. We can do that by creating natural spaces in the urban area for species to reside or slow down the rate of changing our environment by human enterprises. However, I do not think reducing the rate of destroying natural habitat by human enterprises is possible since capitalism is the drive of it. Hopefully, we can correctly conserve planet Earth for our future generations and for the fate of humankind.

Comments by Jeffrey Ho