{"id":571708,"date":"2010-05-20T10:35:08","date_gmt":"2010-05-20T14:35:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dirt.asla.org\/?p=4574"},"modified":"2010-05-20T10:35:08","modified_gmt":"2010-05-20T14:35:08","slug":"restoring-balance-between-people-and-nature-through-wildlife-habitat-design","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/571708","title":{"rendered":"Restoring Balance between People and Nature through Wildlife Habitat Design"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>
\nDuring the Dumbarton Oaks symposium on “Designing Wildlife Habitats<\/a>,” a range of ecologists and landscape architects analyzed various aspects of the relationship between people and nature, and how these relationships take form in natural, managed, and even restored\u00a0wildlife habitats. Speakers also explored cutting-edge thinking on “ecological infrastructure” and\u00a0”human-nature\u00a0interaction design,”\u00a0ideas that\u00a0can guide the\u00a0future development of\u00a0both designed landscapes and conservation systems.<\/p>\n

Wildlife Habitat Design<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jane Carruthers, Professor, Deparment of History,\u00a0University of South Africa<\/a><\/strong>, outlined the case of Pilanesberg, South Africa<\/a>, a “ground-breaking”\u00a0game reserve\u00a0started in the 1970′s that\u00a0created a wildlife conservation and eco-tourism\u00a0model in\u00a0marginal farmland. The designers guiding the creation of Pilanesberg believed that “wildlife must make money. The landscape must be productive and also used sustainably.” In addition, they rejected urban-based romantic ideas about nature in favor of prioritizing local culture and incorporating the community into the park’s functioning.<\/p>\n

The park designers removed buildings and invasive species while, at the time,\u00a0introducing native animal species. While species translocation was largely successful, there were problems with moving\u00a0elephants into the park because delicate herd structures were disrupted by the addition of more young males. Cheetahs were also\u00a0problematic because they “ate all the expensive species.” Carruthers said the park largely ended up reconstituting what was there, but the park managers still needed to “maintain the ecosystem by watching who’s eating how much.”\u00a0The park’s overall\u00a0longevity (and ultimate sustainability)\u00a0is\u00a0linked with the number of\u00a0tourists who visit and number of people\u00a0who are\u00a0employed through the park.<\/p>\n

Thomas Woltz, ASLA, Principal, Nelson Byrd Woltz Landscape Architecture<\/a><\/strong>, explored how landscape architecture can encourage plant and wildlife biodiversity within “productive agricultural lands.” Woltz said agriculture can be “lethal” to plants and animals, given it often involves “pollution, chemicals, steroids, soil erosion, and large-scale machinery.” Agricultural landscapes often look “bleached and ironed,” with the tiny rippley places where biodiversity actually exists\u00a0ripped out.<\/p>\n

To illustrate his firm’s innovative restoration work, Woltz highlighted the Young Nick’s Head sheep farm project in New Zealand<\/a>. “This is a devastated landscape that should be temperate rainforest. It should not look like Scotland.” Woltz and his team tried to combine the restoration of wildlife structures\u00a0with sustainable agriculture and livestock. “We wanted to build value for the wildlife of the region.” The project involved retiring 20 percent of the farmland. With the improvement in habitat health, the sheep’s health also improved.\u00a0Some 50-acres of wetland, including 20-acres of salt marsh wetlands, were re-created.<\/p>\n

The team also\u00a0included the local Maori community in the project. Maori first arrived in the\u00a0area in\u00a01,100 AD. A local Maori horticulturalist was involved in the reforestation, and the project financed a small Maori-run tree nurseries. So far, more than 500,000 of the Maori-grown trees have been replanted, recreating\u00a0a forest in the process. To restore the original mix of wildlife, excluder fences were added, which prevent rats and weasels from eating rare seabird eggs. “We called the massive fence our eco-Christo.” To encourage birds to nest on the restored habitat, the team brought in nesting boxes, decoy birds, and played looped tapes of birds’ calls.<\/p>\n

Woltz argued that manipulating the landscape was key to its preservation. “We tried to get all the ecosystem services we could out of it.” Instead of bleaching or ironing landscapes, it must be about “stitching, sowing, or\u00a0weaving.” Learn more about the ASLA award-winning project<\/a>, and check out an article by Elizabeth Meyer on the site\u00a0in Harvard Design Magazine<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Stuart Green, Green & Dale Associates<\/a><\/strong>, is a landscape architect who used Alice Springs Desert Park<\/a>, Central\u00a0Australia to discuss how to best incorporate educational resources into wildlife habitats. Really, Green said, wildlife habitat\u00a0is\u00a0the educational resource. If indigenous communities\u00a0are brought into the design process early, true collaboration can occur between\u00a0conservation park designers and the\u00a0local communities who value biodiversity (and can, in turn, teach it to visitors).<\/p>\n

In Alice Springs, a 1,000 hectare park was created, which recreates the “biotic diversity” of the area. Working with the local Aborigines helped avoid disturbing sacred sites. “However, this was hard because they often\u00a0wouldn’t tell us\u00a0where they were.”\u00a0Many\u00a0Aborigines\u00a0ended up employed in the park as tour guides because of their deep reverence for the local biodiversity. “The\u00a0caterpillar is a creation figure.”<\/p>\n

For one part of the park, more than 8-acres of red sand was trucked in.\u00a0On top of the rehabilitated lands, more than 400 types of native plants were\u00a0used to restore the\u00a0ecosystem.\u00a0Existing waterways were widened and new riverine systems were added.\u00a0For some, salt was added to recreate natural salt bodies. Termite mounds and\u00a0aviaries were integrated into ecosystem walk-throughs. “We also brought in parrots and kangaroos.” The idea is to give visitors a habitat immersion experience and education in conservation. David Attenborough visited and said “no museum or wildlife park can match it.”\u00a0<\/p>\n

Creating Infrastructure for\u00a0Biodiversity
\n<\/strong>
\nJoshua Ginsberg, Senior Vice President, Global Conservation Program, Wildlife Conservation Society<\/a><\/strong>, explored the impact of scale on the design of conservation strategies. Ginsberg said at the small-scale people relate to landscapes. In the conservation world, this means zoos. Small-scale interventions are relatively easy to replicate. But at the larger scale, there are issues. At that scale, “we are dealing with exploded zoos or fragmented landscapes.” Exploded zoo\u00a0challenges relate\u00a0to\u00a0restoring diversity, intensive management, and the “amplification of nature.” Fragmented landscape issues\u00a0can only be\u00a0resolved through land-use changes and regional plans for returning the biodiversity functions\u00a0to landscapes.<\/p>\n

The issues\u00a0are increasingly critical given only 15 percent of the world’s land is now untouched by humans. In the vast majority of the world in which humans and wildlife interact, species are threatened most by (in descending order of importance) climate change, roads and infrastructure, deforestation, fire, invasive species, exurban development, and hunting. “Climate change and road connectivity swamp all other issues, including human population growth.”<\/p>\n

Designing for different species involves thinking through the scales they need. “Wild dogs, grizzly bears require the broadest scales; black bears can survive at the smallest.” Ginsberg pointed to the Krueger National Park in South Africa<\/a>, which reintroduced a wild dog meta-population, and must keep reintroducing the species for it to survive at a large-scale in the wild. Ginsberg said wild dogs are special because they require enormous ranges (or scales) to survive.\u00a0 Wild dogs went extinct in this area more than 100 years ago. At the cost of some $200,000, 100 wild dogs were translocated into the park. However, repeated reintroductions were needed given all the challenges the dogs faced. Even at the broadest scales, Ginsberg said, small-scale interventions are needed to keep individual species alive. Population-level management, land purchases, resettlment, anti-poaching measures, and translocation\u00a0are all strategies to be considered.<\/p>\n

In Thailand, 90 percent of the original forest cover has been cut down. To connect isolated natural preserves, natural corridors have also been created, enabling some species the scale they need.\u00a0In the Russian Far East, tigers, another species requiring large-scale habitats,\u00a0are moving north, demonstrating that “climate change is real.” To deal with tiger migration, Russia has implemented a plan to establish protected areas, manage the “matrix of species,” and create connectivity. Tigers are also now moving into China. “I’ve tried to convince the Chinese that they are just getting their tigers back instead of harbouring Russian tigers.” (Ginsberg also expressed cautious optimism in the World Bank’s Global Tiger Initiative<\/a>, which has resulted in an end to World Bank financing of\u00a0infrastructure projects that cut through tiger ranges. In September, 14 heads of state from nations with tiger ranges will meet in an attempt to “put wildlife at the center of planning.”)<\/p>\n

Ginsberg concluded that a “landscape species” approach was needed. “Wildlife generate landscape patterns and use landscapes differently from people.” It’s important to pick 4-5 landscape species and track the causal chains. “You can’t just design for one species.” Titling the lands of indigenous peoples may actually aid in this type of landscape species\u00a0conservation because it gives local communities more direct control over conservation. In addition, the scale of ownership is also important — small lots need to be aggregated to create scale.<\/p>\n

To sum up, (1) scale is important, (2) animals have different scale needs, (3) humans operate at all scales, but their impacts change with scale. In the design process, it’s crucial to (1) design at scale, (2) determine what you are trying to conserve, (3) collaborate, (4) recognize that species interact with human influence differently.<\/p>\n

Yu Kongjian<\/a>, International ASLA, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Peking University, and president of Turenscape<\/a><\/strong>: Yu explored the idea of integration across scales, and using “ecological infrastructure” to protect biodiversity. Yu said the earth is\u00a0now an\u00a0endangered species. China is almost completely a brownfield. Some 75 percent of China’s water is heavily polluted, and 50 percent of wetland habitat has been lost. Over 25,000 dams have been created in China, and the channelization of rivers has led to the destruction of most natural riverine systems. Over the past 30 years, Beijing has expanded almost 700 percent. “Virtually, the whole natural system in China has been destroyed.” Yu asked: How can we minimize the impact of development and urbanization? One answer may be ecological infrastructure.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In contrast\u00a0with Ginsberg’, Yu said ecological infrastructure, which is characterized as a “systems approach” to restoring the entire environment, is needed\u00a0instead of a landscape species approach. Ecological infrastructure uses biological conservation patches, networks, and corridors\u00a0to marry ecosystem services with infrastructure. An ecosystem services design approach involves planning for all types of services, including “provisioning,” and “regulating” natural services. Patches, networks, and corridors\u00a0can then be\u00a0used to save essential natural processes. This involves evaluating the sources, surface areas, and security patterns\u00a0needed to protect various species.\u00a0 For instance, “we can build ecological bridges to stop roadkill.”<\/p>\n

On an aesthetic level, it means moving to “messy, complex landscapes” that embrace biodiversity. “We don’t need any more domesticated, pretty gardens.” In fact, Yu believes people should “embrace the messy.”<\/p>\n

Professor Yu made a few key arguments:<\/p>\n