As an advocate of sustainability and as somebody on the quest for health- I often wonder: how can I make the most and combine both worlds? My answer has often been: spend more times in the great outdoors! Go for a walk for some wild picking, cycle around instead of driving, so some exercise in nature instead of using the gym... So you can imagine my surprise when in my ‘google scholar alerts’ this morning I received a paper titled ‘Nature as a commodity: what’s good for human health might not be good for ecosystem health’ (van Heezik & Brymer) - say whaaat? Of course I decided to open it and see what they had to say. Some good points (and my counterpoints): more people wanting to be in ‘nature’ means...... - more artificial paths -true but it doesn’t have to be. People can be in real nature and adventure instead? True it might lead to trampling but nature should recover. After all its trampled by animals all the times?! - Less space for 'unattractive' wildlife (i.e. spiders) Again possibly true, but same as above - enjoying nature should mean nature in all of its aspects, spiders and all, no? - 'greening urban environments will introduce vegetation based on an easy-to-manage or economic approach, rather than an approach that considers local biodiversity' Perhaps. But this is something 'wrong' with society as a whole in my opinion. We destroy nature to urbanise to then try recreate 'nature' within the urban structure. Should we not reconsider and de-urbanise more and more? Going back to basics... And in this the authors I believe do have a point and are right in saying that "nature" shouldn't be viewed as a commodity, but should be appreciated as what it is meant to be, respected for it, and hopefully restored one day to more pristine conditions. To leave you with their wise words: "Viewing nature as a ‘pill’ is short-sighted; more meaningful gains for human well-being can be achieved through appreciating the reciprocal human-nature relationship, developing stewardship rather than exploitation, and lifting biodiversity baselines through ecological restoration. From a psychological health perspective what is urgently needed is a principled theoretical framework, combining ecological and psychological related knowledge, to guide a more enlightened program of research and practice. Only through an interdisciplinary approach and the development of frameworks that support this approach will we promote and protect the health and well-being of people and nature."
8 Comments
Really interesting blog!! I need to sign up for these scholar alerts because I definitely think that would have been a really interesting read.... I understand what they're saying, I really do (like with the plans to have a coastal path around the UK) BUT surely having more people outside and being sensible in our beautiful environment is better than people driving around or clogging up the environment. I just hope people are ecoaware and practice "leave only footprints"...
Reply
9/12/2018 07:26:58 pm
This is so interesting.
Reply
9/14/2018 07:00:39 am
Really fascinating points and counterpoints you discuss here! Perhaps a way to find common ground between both sides here is to think of eco-consciousness as a being a process. The first step may be to want to be in nature, but now know how to do so in a way that's not trampling all over it. Then later in the process you develop the ability to respect nature to the point where you no longer want to change it to suit your own needs, but change your own needs for the greater good of the planet.
Reply
9/14/2018 12:11:20 pm
I enjoy being outdoors most when I think I’m in a place that very few people go. I like watching spiders, rats and anything else moving around. I’m trying to show my children that these are enjoyable places to be too.
Reply
9/15/2018 01:17:13 am
Sounds like an interesting paper. You might like a book called "Nature Fix" about people needing to get out in nature more and how that's beneficial for both people and nature basically.
Reply
9/16/2018 04:23:17 am
I totally agree with you about destroying nature and then trying to recreate it in urban areas: appreciating nature as it occurs naturally is a far better way to go!
Reply
Fair point. In some countries like New Zealand limitations have been placed on the number of trampers (hikers) in the area, for example on the Milford Track. When we have so many people in the world we have to protect these areas. But it's a really positive sign people want to get out there and visit them. Also there are many places - like the South Downs where I live - which are less vulnerable to tourism. Or visit a Wildlife Trust - they'd love it!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Disclaimer: some posts may contain affiliate links. At no extra costs to you, buying through the link will help me in this blogging journey!
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|