Advertisement

Development Doesn’t Have to Be a Dirty Word : Environment: Preservation is good. But combined with human management, it would be even better.

Share
</i>

Expanding populations and increasing use of our resources will continue to cause ever-worsening conflicts between developers (for people) and preservationists (for wildlife) until we acknowledge that the interests of people and wildlife are ultimately the same: clean air, clean water, healthful food and a pleasing environment.

This reconciliation is long overdue. The impetus for this change has come from the growing awarene s s among ecologists that human management has helped create and maintain many eco-systems that were once considered natural and wild. For example, researchers have learned that the Kayapo Indians of the Amazon gather trees and plants from an area as large as Western Europe to create the forest gardens they inhabit that produce food, medicine and building materials, among other things.

It has also become clear that preservation can protect only a very small part of the Earth’s surface. We need to manage resources more wisely to meet human needs, maintain habitat for wildlife and species diversity and restore areas that have been ruined by abuse and neglect.

Advertisement

Although development has become a dirty word, it doesn’t have to be. Development can provide benefits for both people and wildlife if it is done well. Recent studies of ecologically sophisticated traditional agriculture and agro - forestry systems from around the world have provided insight on the methods that can be used to combine development with conservation. The species diversity within some of these developed environments is remarkably high, with up to 250 species of trees and plants in some of the villages we have studied in Mexico. These man-made changes improve the environment for humans and wildlife, and more bird species are found in developed oases than in wild oases. The diversity of plant species and a more reliable food supply from managed landscaping can improve wildlife habitat and provide a better living for people.

Developers have been crippled by a lack of information and understanding of resource-conserving approaches to development. While environmental issues are often viewed by developers as a nuisance (at best), our studies for the City of Davis showed that strategies for improving energy efficiency and comfort often reduced costs to developers.

Development in California is destructive largely because planners, developers and politicians are the product of an educational system that artificially separates development from food production, wildlife and quality of life. Engineers, planners and decision-makers learn little about ecosystems management and resource-conserving design. Farming, which can play a positive role in improving the cityscape and the quality of life, has been completely divorced from urban development. This doesn’t have to be the case. Shanghai, for example, still grows 80% of its food within the city, and all Chinese cities have forestry departments that plant and manage city trees intensively to provide a wide range of products for people and animals.

Development that is good for people and the environment can be undertaken in the cities and suburbs of rich as well as poor countries. To meet the goal of long-term sustainability, development must clearly account for the short- and long-term cost of services and resources and make a firm commitment to both environmental quality and quality of life.

Advertisement