When I want to spend some time in nature, I often go to my local forest preserves, but
when I'm doing field work, I'm on conservation land.
So when it comes to nature and green spaces, what's the difference between preserve,
conserve, and reserve?
We can start by taking a look at the literal meanings of these words.
To preserve is to "maintain something in its original or existing state."
To conserve is to "protect something - especially an environmentally or culturally important
place or thing - from harm or destruction."
Definitions for "conserve" often include phrasing that implies that the protection
is being done so that limited use can be made of the thing being protected.
To reserve is to "refrain from using or disposing of something; to retain for future
use."
So when used in the context of nature, all 3 terms imply setting aside land to not be
used for much, if any, human uses, with the levels of human use allowed varying with the
format of the individual preserve, reserve, whatever.
It's also probably worth noting that the Wikipedia entry for "Nature Reserve" sort
of treats all 3 terms as interchangeable synonyms, which indicates to me that there's not always
a clear distinction between them.
But it's not just about how we use these words now.
Most of the distinction between these words, especially between preservation and conservation,
was established during the environmental movement in the United States in the early 1900s.
While many people and issues were part of this movement and the ideas that came out
of it, the classic example story is still John Muir versus Gifford Pinchot in the fight
over the damming of the Hetch Hetchy Valley to provide water to San Francisco.
John Muir said that the Hetch Hetchy Valley was beautiful and valuable all on its own, and
that it shouldn't be destroyed for human gains.
He was the face of the preservation movement.
Gifford Pinchot believed in the wise use of natural resources.
He had trained in the forestry schools of Europe, and he became the face of the conservation
movement.
While Muir lost the battle over Hetch Hetchy, his faction did wind up winning many other
large victories.
The idea of wilderness preservation led to the first national parks in the US - stay
tuned for a video on what "wilderness" really means.
And our national parks are great!
But it is worth noting that a large part of the reason they were able to so easily be
set aside as "preserves" was because they were parcels of land that hadn't already
been developed.
I mean, nobody wants to plow fields in Yellowstone!
Aesthetics were another major reason for the parks being protected, even though some of
us may wish that they had been chosen for their contributions to biodiversity or other ecological
significance.
The government would have had a much more difficult time selling the idea of national
parks to the public if they hadn't also been beautiful places for people to hike and drive
through.
All of this really gets to the heart of the issue: these words are value judgements of
nature.
Conservation is about the wise-use of natural resources, and preservation is about the
intrinsic value of nature undeveloped.
Neither is all-right or all-wrong, but the perspectives that each provides are interesting.
When we return to the present-day context of these words, we can see that even more
ideology has gotten wrapped up in them.
Specifically, there can be political motivation behind using conservation versus
preservation.
Studies have shown that "preservation" sounds very restrictive to many people, while
"conservation" tends to sound more appealing, especially to traditionally conservative voters,
because it allows for human use of natural resources.
There's also this idea of preservation as "letting nature take its course," so
not disturbing ANY wildlife, plants, bodies of water, or geologic features, versus conservation,
which is the idea of "managed" or human-affected nature.
However, the whole "nature's balance" thing is kind of a myth, because all systems
in nature are dynamic and go through changes, so in essence preservation might not be possible.
And at this point, we can't really say that there are many (or maybe any) ecosystems left
on Earth that aren't managed by humans.
All ecosystems on our planet have been indirectly affected by humans, and most are also directly
affected in at least one way.
What happens when we choose to rigidly preserve land - i.e. give it the hands-off treatment,
so no or minimal management - but the ecosystem might actually benefit from active management
or disturbance?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately due to my research.
The pine forests of the southeast and the midwestern prairies evolved with fire, but
if those areas aren't actively managed they won't receive that fire disturbance.
Or what if a preserved area received an invasive exotic species?
Would we stand by while the invader pushed native species out of ecological niches,
or would we be okay actively managing the situation?
Regardless of what words we use to describe them, it's more important than ever that
we protect areas of our world that are still home to natural ecosystems.
Wikipedia lists 23 countries that have some sort of established nature reserves, refuges,
and/or national parks.
But The Nature Conservancy estimates that only about 5% of land at high-risk for development
is protected world-wide.
Without these protected places, we will lose our biodiverse species and the systems that
clean and restore our air and water.
We need to set aside protected areas for our own species's survival.
Of those 23 countries, World Atlas has a top-10 list determined by the total percentage of
land cover a country has set aside as protected.
Venezuela is #3, with almost 54% of their land area protected,
and Germany is #4, with almost 48% of their land area protected.
The US doesn't make this top-10 list, with only about 14% of our land area and 12% of
our marine areas protected.
But since these are percentages, we have to keep in mind that the United States is the
3rd biggest country in the world by land area.
That means that even though we've protected a relatively small amount of our own land, the US's protected
lands account for approximately 1/10 of all protected lands on the planet.
Federal protected lands in the United States are managed by the National Park Service,
the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or the Bureau of Land
Management, plus all of the states and many local municipalities have their own protected
lands as well.
So are protected lands in the US preserved or conserved?
Uhm… yeah.
There's a little bit of everything, and it very much depends on who's in charge,
where the protected area is, and what sorts of resources it includes.
Many of our protected lands still allow for resource extraction, including but not limited
to timber harvest; coal, oil, and other mineral resource mining; livestock grazing, hunting,
and fishing.
They're also often open for recreational activities ranging from hiking to speed boating.
To make it even more confusing, there doesn't seem to be any pattern to the convention of
using the words "conservation" or "preservation" to indicate the kinds of uses permitted in
a particular area.
For instance, in some places you'd be permitted to go hunting in a "preserve," even
though that's not necessarily what the word implies!
If you'd like to explore all of the protected land and marine areas in the United States,
I found a really cool interactive map that you can check out using the link in the description.
You can zoom in to see particular protected areas, then click on them to find out what agency
is in charge of managing them.
What do the words "preservation" and "conservation" signal to you, and which one do you prefer?
Had you heard about the classic Muir-Pinchot debate?
What do you think is the best method for protecting natural areas?
I'd love to hear what you think down in the comments.
If you liked this video, don't forget to like it!
If you didn't like this video, please share it with someone who would.
And if you'd like to support The Roving Naturalist, remember to hit the subscribe
button and the bell notification icon.
You can also follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
I'll be presenting at the SXSW EDU conference in Austin in March, so if you'll also be attending,
be sure to come say hi!
Thanks for watching, and I'll see you next time.
For more infomation >> This Couple Has a 20 Year Age Difference and Zero Trust between Them! - Duration: 3:47. 
For more infomation >> What is the difference between Siser EasyWeed, EasyWeed Stretch, and EasyWeed Electric? - Duration: 10:08. 
For more infomation >> Is it hard to tell the difference between hemp and pot? - Duration: 3:50. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét