What value is there in nature? (part one - biodiversity)

One of the biggest questions that must be answered for environmental management of any kind is what we value about the system. And while there are myriad reasons why we humans might value an ecosystem, one of the most popular answers is biodiversity.

The 'Hall of Biodiversity' at the American Natural History Museum.

Biodiversity is a key word that gets thrown around in the environmental Green movement almost as much as sustainability. We'll get into sustainability later. I want to focus on biodiversity now because I feel that it is something not many people understand the value of beyond "something we should protect because it's good to have." Honestly "because it's good to have" is no reason to protect or invest any energy into caring about anything. That would be like jumping off the proverbial bridge just because all your friends are doing it, and I certainly don't condone people acting like sheep.

A Canadian education website defines biodiversity as: The diversity of life on earth, consisting of genetic diversity, species diversity and ecosystem diversity. I think this definition describes much more than what generally comes to mind. It is also the definition that the government ostensibly works with, and what most biologists mean when they use it. Recognizing this sort of all-encompassing approach to biodiversity is essential to understanding its ultimate importance.

You might think about it this way: What kind of team is more successful? One in which everyone has the same or similar skills? Or one in which people have different skill sets with the potential to complement each other? Ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity all contribute to a collective whole with a greater power to survive and prosper in the world.

The most important reason we should care about biodiversity is a little something called ecosystem services. You've no doubt heard of this before, but take a moment and let something sink in. If there was a sudden decrease in the world's pollinators, what would the effect on people be? No more crops, flowers, trees... any plant relying on an outside species to pollinate them would be crippled. Unable to reproduce. This is a bit of an exaggeration - but, honestly, there are so many ways in which life on Earth intertwines that we aren't even sure what all the consequences would be of eliminating ANY species. 

We do however know that biodiversity affords humanity the following things: 

- food in the form of crops, spices, seafood, game meat

- clean water

- any number of medicinal uses

- products for use in industry as well as energy production

- regulation of: climate, carbon, waste, purification processes, pollination, pests, diseases

All of these things are absolutely essential if we'd like to go on living the life the way we have. And I didn't even mention the cultural or spiritual values we find in nature. The entire ecotourism industry is hugely popular and constantly growing as well.

This is a brief overview of this large and all-encompassing topic. If you'd like to hear about anything in more depth, I will gladly do more posts on specific aspects of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Just let me know. 

All right! Now that you understand why biodiversity is important, you have one HUGE reason to value nature. And we also have much of the information we need to delve into my next weekly broadcast.... Introduced and Invasive Species. Oooooh.... Ahhhhh....

Communication is key.

"So many scientists think that once they figure it out, that's all they have to do, and writing it up is just a chore. I never saw it that way. Part of the art of any kind of total scholarship is to say it well."
--- Stephen Jay Gould ---

One of the biggest issues standing in the way of truly carrying out the spirit of forest ecosystem management is communication. Or rather, lack thereof. Not only do scientists need to be better at communicating their findings to the public so that people are better informed, but managers need to be better at learning the public's value and opinions. At the moment, no one seems to be happy. Neither scientists or the media think the media does a good job at handling scientific stories. People aren't hearing the things they should be. And there has simply been a lack of taking people's values into account in general when it comes to ecosystem management. Or at least placing a heavy importance on them.

If scientists could better communicate with the public, they could change the perceptions of the public on important issues. We have seen this happen with fire regimes as I mentioned in an earlier post. Another good example is the recent public debate over global warming. Better communication by scientists would also help explain natural disturbances to the public and avoid panic reactions to large events that may be seen as disastrous, but which are actually fairly normal and maybe even necessary parts of the ecosystem.

(Better communication by scientists would also secure much-needed political will and funding for further scientific studies. Need I mention how important this is? You have only to look at the most recent presidential election to understand that American students are woefully far behind the global curve in their scientific training and knowledge.)

Meanwhile, once managers learn to make public values a larger part of their plans, forest management should become a smoother process. Knowing these values will help determine how people will react to management plans as well as helping to deal with the inevitable conflicts that will arise over these plans. Social research can identify unanticipated social responses before they occur.

Preparation and communication can arguably solve any problem.

"All forms of life modify their contexts." -- Lynn White

I took a course that focused on environmental ethics when I was an undergraduate student, and I maintain that it is one of the best things I could have done for myself as a scientist. Understanding the evolution of social and logical thought involved in the approaches we take to the environment is helpful toward both understanding public reaction to environmental management practices as well as learning how to communicate effectively with non-scientists.

Ethics is tricky business. And saying that we want to incorporate public values in forest ecosystem management is easy. Doing it is entirely different. But the opinions and values of the average person in relation to forests should matter greatly to forests scientists and managers. Without the understanding of the public, both science and management efforts will lack the necessary funding and political support needed to advance their causes.

The utilitarian philosophical base of traditional forestry has largely ignored the emerging aesthetic, spiritual, amenity, and ecosystem function value of forests. In general, we (and I say this as a person, not just as a scientist) are now interested in how forest ecosystems fit into the Earth system as a whole. Our management practices should reflect this change in values. Managers should be required to ask the following*:

--- How and for whom should public lands be maintained?

--- What objectives should we use to guide forest management?

These are questions that simply cannot be answered by science.

To that end, we need to delve a little deeper into the ethical basis of things. My environmental ethics professor explained it to me this way: when trying to reach a conclusion to a moral debate, there are four questions that need to be answered. What do people think the problem is? Whose welfare are we considering in the matter? What values matter in this situation? And how do we count what matters? By answering these questions, we can come up with either a prioritizing solution or a balancing solution. Prioritizing solutions satisfy the strongest moral claim in the matter. Balancing solutions seek to split the moral claim equally among those involved.

When it comes down to making the nitty-gritty decisions in forest ecosystem management plans, whether we use prioritizing or balancing solutions is still hotly debated. I suspect that this is a matter that must be decided specific to the situation every time by the people who are directly involved.




* These questions were specifically mentioned in a paper from Society and Natural Resources by David N. Bengston called "Changing Forest Values and Ecosystem Management." (1994)