There is a debate on whether urban rewilding is the next step to ecological restoration, as its goal is to restore natural processes and habitats in more urban areas. Rewilding is a worthwhile, beneficial approach to preserving nature, as well as implementing it into more urban environments. Enforcing the idea of rewilding in attempts to conserve nature and increase green space sparks opportunity. Writers Jepson, Paul, and Frans Schepers argue that the process "reflects innovation and creates the possibility for a common, but differentiated (situated) mode of conservation" (Document B). Saving as much wildlife as possible is a consistent motive in today's society. In this case, the fresh concept of rewilding will do more good than harm, if anything at all. There is also a need …show more content…
In Document C, Dr. Scott proposes a question to his audience of those who may have their doubts. He asks "If people don't spend any time outside, why are they going to care about their local places, let alone the national parks in the distance?" Document C. -. Although childhood experiences have evolved over generations, embracing the outdoors should not be something that turns into a fairy tale for future children. Despite the great effects rewilding may have, there are its downsides as well. Writer Lincoln Garland lists off negatives such as "degradation by trampling, visual and noise disturbance, fire, invasive species, effects of predatory pets etc." Document D. The. Sure, going through with the idea of rewilding isn't going to be an entire, shall I say, "walk in the park." However, the benefits in the end will outweigh the difficulties along the way, and the goal of restoring nature will have one more task ticked off the list. When taking the time to look, the statistics are right before your eyes. Sarah Fastnacht provides the numbers, and they are
The Deep Creek Conservation Park was full of wildlife and plants. Many people in the group saw lots of kangaroos and bird species that live in the area (See figure 8). We saw a few animal tracks on the camp as well which shows that the area is full of wildlife. While there the group also noticed some human impacts such as paths, long drops or other sustainable practices that humans have made to make the environment more sustainable in the long run. Although these practices were effective many small improvements could be made such as teaching people who use the park correct usage such as not feeding the animals. Other improvements that could be made could be things such as putting lights in the toilets so people can see or making paths easier to walk on.
There should be no man made machinery operating in the park unless absolutely necessary. The creation of the National Park Service is to preserve wilderness in a way that gives people the opportunity to experience nature in all its wonder. It was never intended to create amusement parks where people never leave the safety of the modern age and look at the natural world through glass. Being completely enveloped in nature has many benefits, from physical such as lowering blood pressure, to psychological in boosting moods. According to Tyler Tapps in Parks & Recreation: “Recent research indicates that outdoor activity is associated with positive mental and physical benefits, including increased cardiovascular function, decreased stress levels, and reduced blood pressure” (Tapps). Abbey understood this, as did many Americans. Today however the number of people willing to immerse themselves in the nations parks is decreasing. In Desert Solitaire, abbey puts it this way: “A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourist can in a hundred miles” (Abbey). Today many members of the younger generation have lost that sense of joy and wonder in the outdoor setting. This change would bring back the love of nature in this
We are so fortunate to live in California and have access to so many of the properties operated by the National Park Service. There are thirteen national parks in California and I have been to seven of them. Enjoying the outdoors is something that is innate to our family. Even before our children could walk they were enjoying hikes through Yosemite in backpacks. This is an amazing fact that I learned from the map given to me in Sequoia National Park; “The only place Giant Sequoias grow now is on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California. The 75 distinct groves are found within a narrow band about 260 miles long and 15 miles wide, at its widest point.” (Sequoia National Park, 2012). Without the National Park Service protecting and maintaining parks like Sequoia National Park, there may not be any place like this for my children to learn about this beautiful country that we live
The entire letter was written on the premise that nature should be saved for the sake of the thought, not for what it could tactilely do for people. If you are going to have a clear-cut, concise idea about what nature is, enough of one for it to be a sobering idea, you would have to be out there in it at some point. You may have a thought but you don’t know and therefore it isn’t what is holding you together as a whole. The letter has some genuine concerns for the wildlife and forests and the wilderness itself, but it is just that, a letter voicing Wallace Stegner’s concerns.
Muir’s wilderness is rooted in the idea of an aesthetically pleasing natural scape given they fit into certain criteria such as, “ none of Nature’s landscape’s are ugly so long as they are wild” (Muir). The attachment of this emphasis on an aesthetically pleasing landscape was partial truth, which drove people out the national parks. While these places where indeed wild and beautiful, Muir sold the masses on this idea of all nature being pristine and pure, when in reality that was not the
ABSTRACT: Robert Elliot's "Faking Nature," (1) represents one of the strongest philosophical rejections of the ground of restoration ecology ever offered. Here, and in a succession of papers defending the original essay, Elliot argued that ecological restoration was akin to art forgery. Just as a copied art work could not reproduce the value of the original, restored nature could not reproduce the value of nature. I reject Elliot's art forgery analogy, and argue that his paper provides grounds for distinguishing between two forms of restoration that must be given separate normative consideration: (1) malicious restorations, those undertaken as a means of justifying harm to nature, and (2) benevolent restorations, or, those which are akin to art restorations and which cannot serve as justifications for the conditions which would warrant their engagement. This argument will require an investigation of Mark Sagoff's arguments concerning the normative status of art restorations.
Cronon argues that “any way of looking at nature that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature—as wilderness tends to do—is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behavior” (87). Yet if we were to view ourselves as one with nature, as we are, then perhaps society would be more concerned with protecting and preserving the entire natural world, versus specific areas that have been deemed worthy. I personally achieve a much more satisfactory escape from human modernization by simply going off the grid and finding my own wilderness that is distant from all signs of humans versus a regulated park. A national park is similar to a museum; one simply looks around and attempts to gain insight on the subject at hand, yet there is no possible way to actually immerse yourself in the display. Although individuals do not realize this – they are not aware of what true wilderness looks like given that no one boasts about it. There is such a distinct line between actual wilderness and the false one that people idealize, that genuine wilderness is disappearing, since it is not actively being preserved. However, by actively preserving wilderness, would we not be separating ourselves further from
Since its creation in 1916, the National Park Service (NPS) has had to balance between its two goals, which are to preserve wilderness and nature and to provide the public with access to these wonders in a monitored environment. These two goals tend to create a conflict for the NPS because as soon as one goal is given more priority than the other, the administration of national parks is harshly criticized by the public. The accusation that by allowing people to experience the wilderness, the NPS is corrupting the natural environment is very common, as well, as the criticism towards the lack of government funding to preserve nature and history. However, regardless of arguable criticism and a certain need for improvement, after one hundred years,
The documentary “The National Parks- America’s Best Idea” explained the history of national parks and how they came to be. Monuments, battlefields, and military parks were transferred to become national parks. Though they weren’t what they are now at first, they seemed a lot like zoos, focusing on tameness and less on wildness. There is an abundance of life in the national parks, and George Wright tried to let everyone know the equilibrium was out. People were getting in the way of the plants and animals, instead of letting the plants and animals thrive on their own. Each of these species, including the predators should be protected. He saved the trumpeter swans.
...hat it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us" ("Greenpeace usa," 2014). By closely viewing the reasons for national parks, the definition of wilderness, a critique of reasons to build or not build roads in a national park, a comparison of preservation, cost-analysis, and conservative approaches to the environment, I feel that the best approach is preservation. This preservation approach would not eliminate access to the park but seek to control public access to protect the natural environment. The end result would allow the current generation to enjoy Yellowstone Park and make sure that future generations could as well. In speaking about wilderness, Robert Nash may have expressed it best when he said, “Its preservation is not only one of the best ideas American culture ever had; it may be a better one than we ever knew” (Nash, 2001).
Richard Louv, the author of, “Last Child in the Woods: Saving our children from nature deficit-disorder,” talks about nature and its benefits to a healthy development. Time Experiencing with nature allows people to have healthy development since it promotes creativity and imagination. It does not take more than a couple of steps outside to see nature. It is all around us. It can even be right outside our window. Leaving the blinds open can bring peace of mind, just by viewing it. As people experience time with nature, no matter the age, they develop greater creativity and imagination. It is like people today fear nature.
Tourism in Yellowstone has increased since the wolves have been reintroduced (Dan). There are pros and cons to the reintroduction to the wolf. The good thing is that people come to Yellowstone and spend money in and around the surrounding States. But all the people are pro-wolf that want to go green and save the wolves would have you think about the amount of pollution that comes from all of the 4-Wheelers, Recreation Vehicles, and Cars.
“… It is apparent, then, that we cannot decide the question of development versus preservation by a simple referral to holy writ or an attempt to guess the intention of the founding fathers; we must make up our own minds and decide for ourselves what the national parks should be and what purpose they should serve.”-Edward Abbey, Desert Solitaire
An important feature of green roofs is their potential to provide habitation for urban wildlife, therefore many animal species such as rats and ants would benefit from green roofs. Coffman and Waites, (2008) explains that the urban development practices recognised as roof greening offers habitat for wild species within the towns and it also helps rise the home-grown natural diversity. However, roof greening is not a method restoration ecology, but it is method of reconciliation ecology, where entirely new habitation is formed for non-human species. In addition Green roofs certainly delivers some form of habitat, it is also possible that the properties of the roof could harm the wildlife diversity.
With more needs for nature experience and sustainable development in urban areas, increasing importance has been attached to urban open spaces since they play a crucial role to support the ecology system and form a natural network in the cities (Chiesura, 2004; Tzoulas et al., 2007). Urban open spaces include plazas, parks, campus, greenways and other green spaces. They serve as islands of nature, enriching urban landscapes, adjusting the microclimate, promoting biodiversity and providing habitats for other species (Chiesura, 2004; Do, Kim, Kim, & Joo, 2014; Morimoto, 2011). Apart from these benefits, they also show a great impact on urban dwellers’ health, since open spaces offer places for outdoor activities and opportunities for contact with nature (Chiesura, 2004). Tyrväinen et al. (2014) indicated that even short-term visits to urban green spaces have positive psychological and physiological effects on perceived stress relief. People were attracted to urban open spaces for physical activities, social interactions, and a relief from daily life, which benefit their mental and physical health (Thwaites, Helleur, & Simkins, 2005). A large epidemiological study in Britain looked at mortality and morbidity among three income levels in relation to urban residents’ access to green open space (Mitchell & Popham,