All of us depend upon our planet’s state of health. The preservation and protection of its health imply reasonable use of our natural resources, the restoration of the environment which we spoil with our existence, i.e. exhaust the soil and pollute the air and water. The majority of ecological crises arise because of people interfering with normal natural processes, without understanding the dangers that might threaten them. Additionally, the relations in our ecosystem can resemble an artful design of various interrelations of each live species with many other live and inorganic objects. Such relations allow organisms not only to survive but also to maintain the balance among themselves and the resources. For example, the vegetation is inseparably linked with the regulation of water level and air humidity, and it is necessary for the maintenance of the balance of oxygen and carbonic gas in the atmosphere. Due to the complex nature of the relations in ecosystems, the disturbance of one of their parts or the removal of one of its objects can influence the functioning of many other components. Accordingly, due to the incomplete knowledge of these relations, the results of such disturbances are substantially unpredictable.
In light of the aforementioned, this paper analyzes practices of maintaining ecosystems such as preservation and conservation, outlining their main differences as well as their implementations.
It should be noted that the terms preservation and conservation are often confused in regard to their practices and goals. In that sense, the general difference can be seen in that “Conservation” commonly is taken to refer to intelligent use of resources in the service of human wants and needs, whereas “preservation” commonly is taken to refer to leaving nature alone for its own sake.” (Varner, 1998, p. 123) In regard to conservation, there is a distinction between two categories of natural resources that should be acknowledged, i.e. resources that are renewable and resources that are not.
The first category includes such resources as forests, wild animals, water, land and etc. The second category includes such resources as coal, gas, oil, minerals and etc. Thus, conservation implies “a management style that uses nature intelligently and efficiently” (Varner, 1998, p. 124), i.e. using resources in the first category at a particular rate so they can be renewed, and reasonably using the resources in the second category so they can remain for future generations. In that sense, an example of conservation practice can be seen through planting trees initiatives, where such contribution, in addition to keeping the area green, manages renewable resources. Additionally, wild animals programs help to maintain the biodiversity balance in both directions, i.e. the decreased or the increased population of specific animals, e.g. deer management programs. (“Urban Deer Management,” 2009).
Preservation, on the other hand, implies that certain areas on the planet remain untouched. In that regard, it cannot be said that preservation is more natural practice the conservation, where both practices can be met in neutral point. Preservation, as a duty can be seen through the definition of an ecosystem,
An ecosystem has maintained its integrity… if it retains (1) the total diversity of the system – the sum total of the species and associations that have held sway historically – and (2) the systematic organization which maintains that diversity… (Varner, 1998).
In that regard, interference within the ecosystem can be seen as the disturbance factor mentioned earlier, in that a slight influence on an object or a part of an object will result in shifting the balance in nature. An example of the practice of preservation can be seen through natural regulation, i.e. a protected area where its community of organisms does not interfere with humans and the balance of the ecosystem is kept by the nature. (Raven, Berg, & Hassenzahl, 2008) In that regard, it can be seen that natural regulation is a sort of preservation with the exception that preservation might maintain certain human influence in certain cases, while natural regulation implies non-involvement in any case. Some criticism has been given to the natural regulation approach stating that the natural balance does not exist, where parts of the ecosystem vary independently of human interference (Dovel, 2008).
Thus, it can be seen that preservations and conservation mostly vary in two directions, where in the first direction the interference of people in managerial, while in the second approach is rather observational. Another distinction is in the form of ideology and perception. If summarizing in one phrase, the ideology of conservation can be stated as “development with the least harm”, while preservation can be stated as “save at least what is left.” Summarizing the paper, it can be seen that conservation is more directed toward a neutral position where the interests of humankind are accordingly considered, while preservation puts the emphasis on nature. The natural regulation in that matter can be seen as an approach that despite being related to preservation as a concept, it lacks the best features of both approaches.
References
- Dovel, G. (2008). The Truth about Our Wildlife Managers’ Plan to Restore “Native” Ecosystems. Western Institute for Study of Environment.
- Raven, P. H., Berg, L. R., & Hassenzahl, D. M. (2008). Environment (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
- Urban Deer Management. (2009). Stevens Point.
- Varner, G. E. (1998). In nature’s interests? : interests, animal rights, and environmental ethics, Environmental ethics and science policy series. Web.