Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.013Get rights and content

Biodiversity loss is a matter of great concern among conservation scientists, but the wherewithal to reverse this trend is generally lacking. One reason is that nearly half of the world's people live in urban areas and are increasingly disconnected from nature. If there is to be broad-based public support for biodiversity conservation, the places where people live and work should be designed so as to provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with the natural world. Doing so has the potential not only to engender support for protecting native species, but also to enhance human well-being. Accomplishing these goals will necessitate conservation scientists forging new collaborations with design professionals, health practitioners and social scientists, as well as encouraging the participation of the general public.

Introduction

The magnitude of the current extinction crisis is widely appreciated in the scientific community, particularly among ecologists. The erosion of biodiversity is documented and potential strategies to reverse this trend are detailed in an ever-increasing number of journals and at the annual meetings of numerous professional societies. However, the wherewithal to reverse the degradation of our natural heritage in a meaningful way is still lacking. One reason for this is that conservationists have failed to convey the importance, wonder and relevance of biodiversity to the general public, preaching to the choir rather than reaching the unconverted 1, 2.

This failure stems, in part, from the assumption that an ‘educate-the-public’ approach will be sufficient to motivate change [3]. Rather than fostering support for conservation, some forms of ‘education’ might have the opposite effect. Entrepreneur, environmentalist and author Paul Hawken observes that endlessly repeating the calculus of biotic impoverishment and the litany of environmental wrongs might eventually take on the ring of a ‘the sky is falling’ admonition, making the listener feel helpless or incredulous [4]. However compelling the evidence might appear to be, Hawken notes that fear of a future characterized by environmental degradation has rarely been an effective motivator [4].

Failure to engender broad-based support might also be a function of the estrangement of people from nature. This possibility was driven home to me by an Australian radio report of the results of a survey of primary school children in Perth, many of whom were apparently unaware that milk is produced by cows and that the cotton in their clothes comes from plants. There are, of course, similar examples from other countries. In the USA, for instance, high-school students in Harris County, Texas, were given a multiple-choice test that comprised scaled black-line drawings of mammals that were either extant or historically present in the region, as well as basic questions regarding their natural history [5]. Results revealed that many students could not correctly identify common mammals with local distributions, incorrectly designated common species as extinct or never having existed in the area, and were generally ignorant about the relationship among urbanization, habitat loss and species declines [5]. The line that separates that which is deemed relevant by the public from that which is not is brought into sharp focus by the assertion that most Americans can identify hundreds of corporate logos, but fewer than ten native plant species [4], and that adolescents in south-central Los Angeles are more likely to identify correctly an automatic weapon by its report than they are a bird by its call [6].

Such examples suggest a widening gap between people and the natural world. As ecologist and author Robert Pyle points out [7], collective ignorance ultimately leads to collective indifference. To be successful in conserving biodiversity, the value and relevance of nature in the public mind must be made clear to raise awareness of the broader ecological realities that provide the context for human life. Here, I discuss some of the factors that have brought about this current state of affairs and then focus on the way forward. It is not my intention to argue that conservation biologists should abandon strategies aimed at protecting biodiversity or spend less time studying the ways that human activities impact native species. Rather, I suggest that more effort should be expended in making the natural world fundamental to people's lives.

Section snippets

The estrangement of people from nature

One factor responsible for the widening gap between humans and the natural world is straightforward; more people live in cities than ever before. Currently, >48% of people worldwide live in urban areas, a figure that is projected to exceed 60% by 2030 [8]. Some developed countries have already reached or exceeded this figure. In the USA, for example, half of the population lives in suburbs and an additional 30% live in urban centers [9]; nearly 90% of citizens of the UK live in cities [10].

Opportunities for reconnecting

Environmental psychologist Peter Kahn concludes that the genesis of estrangement from nature lies in childhood and it is there that we must begin to address the problem [17]. With increasingly mobile societies and the fragmentation of extended families, he warns that it is especially important to engage children in dialogues about elements of the natural environment that have been lost. He further suggests involving children in local conservation or restoration efforts.

Given the chance, a child

Urban nature conservation and human quality of life

Greater integration of nature and the built environment not only has the potential to foster support for preserving biodiversity and to create opportunities for native species, but also to better the human condition. Throughout recorded history, people have gone to great lengths to incorporate nature in urban environments, suggesting a belief that contact with elements of the natural world would contribute to their well-being [35]. Indeed, conservation strategies that emphasize quality-of-life

Conclusion

Landscape ecologists and conservation biologists alike have emphasized the vital role of habitat connectivity in maintaining viable populations of native species 43, 44, 45, 46. More attention must also be paid to restoring human connections with the natural world by affording the possibility of meaningful interaction with nature in close proximity to the places where people live and work. The same emphasis placed on spatial and temporal scale in conservation circles must also be extended to

Acknowledgements

I thank J. Fraterrigo, M. McKinney, N. Sodhi and W. Turner for insightful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References (49)

  • C.E. Adams

    Urban high school students' knowledge of wildlife

  • G.P. Nabhan et al.

    The Geography of Childhood

    (1994)
  • R.M. Pyle

    Eden in a vacant lot: special places, species, and kids in the neighborhood of life

  • Urban and Rural Areas 2003

    (2004)
  • Statistical Abstract of the United States

    (2003)
  • World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision

    (2003)
  • M.L. McKinney

    Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation

    Bioscience

    (2002)
  • W.R. Turner

    Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature

    Bioscience

    (2004)
  • S.R. Kellert

    The Value of Life: Biological Diversity and Human Society

    (1996)
  • P.H. Kahn et al.

    Environmental views and values of children in an inner-city black community

    Child Dev.

    (1995)
  • P.H. Kahn

    Children's affiliations with nature: structure, development, and the problem of environmental generational amnesia

  • J. Gleick

    Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything

    (1999)
  • D.W. Orr

    Political economy and the ecology of childhood

  • R.M. Pyle

    The extinction of experience

    Horticulture

    (1978)
  • Cited by (904)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text