Author Archives: Mariama Gueye

Posts by Mariama Gueye

NYC Water Supply Scenario: Pro- Development Upstate

Posted on December 2, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

A major point of controversy that has arisen between the groups on opposite sides of the watershed development/ water filtration and land regulation battle is the principle of land ownership. The ability for New York City to claim eminent domain over watersheds physically outside of its boarders leads to expected backlash with good reason. Many of the residents of the watershed communities rely upon their land ownership for a living. Expanding upon business and housing for an overall increasing population is one of a few standing issues in this debate. At the same time, residents of upstate New York are not without concern for their water supply. Thus, a collaborative effort to compromise between the interests of both those who are directly and indirectly impacted by the watershed management poses the best mutually beneficial solution to the issue at hand.

It was the case that NYC held the bargaining card to acquire indirect property rights to the Catskills and Delaware watershed. Under the Filtration Avoidance Determination, the City sought to dodge the filtering requirement of the SWTR that would cost around $6 billion (145) and take control over watershed areas restricting them from land development. However, in order to go with the FAD, NYC would needed the compliance of the watershed communities, which owned around 75% of the land in question. With negotiation at a stalemate, collaboration was the only means of progression.

The Memorandum of Agreement (1997) was the cooperative agreement that sought both regulation and economic benefits with regards to all interested parties by establishing the Watershed Protection Partnership Council for program oversight. “The Collaboration”, as with any compromise had its benefits and trade-offs.  Such trade-offs include the required purchase of permits by businesses, which for the most part have been granted, as well as the acquisition of potential development lands by the city- lowering the opportunity for new investment (145).  Despite this, the watershed communities have benefited economically from this bargain as well. The City’s investment in the upstate land has pumped more money into the local economy after spending the better part of a $1.2 billion budget designated for watershed purchases (146).  Watershed communities also benefited through agreed upon compensation spending by NYC. An example of such was a program put in place to upgrade the wastewater treatment plants with costs totaling in the hundreds of millions. Under this program the City provided “$10 million to local governments to do as they saw fit” (146).

Overall “The Collaboration” ultimately benefitted those seeking to develop land in the watershed communities because the stimulated economy saw greater job expansion and growth. Acquiescing land to NYC for filtration improved water quality while strengthening the spread out and thin economy of the watershed communities leading to an advantage gain by both opposing parties.

Joan Hoffman, Watershed shift: Collaboration and employers in the New York City Catskill/Delaware Watershed from 1990–2003, Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issues 1–2, 1 December 2008, Pages 141-161, ISSN 0921-8009, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.011.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908001043)

Poster Questions?

Posted on October 14, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

1.) What are the affects of the coyote’s and other predatory species migrating into the urban are? Howe are they affected and conversely how are we affected?

2.) How does the runoff from more urbanized areas affect the ph balance of ground water in surrounding boroughs and suburban areas.  Is this connected to acid rain and air pollution?

3.) How beneficial are small parks in providing refuge for wild life in urbanized areas. Are  their vicinities close enough to allow species migration? Analysis of city parks and what essentials are needed for survival.

Chapter 10: A Menu Of New Goals

Posted on October 14, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

In the concluding chapter of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris sends us off into the world with a new perspective. Having gone through the multiple and conflicting issues surrounding conservation through out the previous chapters, Marris presents her clear-cut idea of what concepts to take away from the book and which initiatives to support and follow.  She does this by laying out a set of seven goals to be taken into consideration by the human population Marris’ seven goals are direct. However, they also come with their pros and cons- as did many of the other issues in Rambunctious Garden, leaving us to somewhat fend for ourselves when searching for her resounding message.

Marris’ list of goals goes as follows; Protect The Rights Of Other Species, Protect Charismatic Megafauna, Slow The Rate Of Extinctions, Protect Genetic Diversity, Define and Defend Biodiversity, Maximize Ecosystem Services, and Protect The Spiritual And Aesthetic Experience of Nature. A few of the these concepts that stood out more to me were the last three having to do with biodiversity, ecological services and the aesthetics of nature. In my opinion these three summed up natures true overall value to us as a dominant species as well as to our ecosystems and the other species that reside within them. However, each of these goals has its trade off and not one is more important than another.

When speaking on biodiversity Marris mentions how defending biodiversity would allow us to defend a multitude of other ideologies such as species diversity, genetic diversity and population diversity. This broad almost indefinability of the term has its pro as well as its cons. Protection of biodiversity gives way to protecting ecosystems and their interconnections rather than just trying to save a particular species. However, because biodiversity is so undefined, the lines between which species are allowed in one system versus another are no so clear, leaving us to wonder why we should protect an ecosystem’s biodiversity that is forever changing.

Marris’ goal #6 to maximize ecosystem services, I felt to be the most relatable to the humans of this anthropogenic era. Many people inherently feel that although nature may be valuable in its existence, humans are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of its services. This is why suggesting the conservation of an ecosystem to preserve a tangibly valuable resource and/ or ecological service would be most effective in gaining support. Marris also explains that despite some selfish reasons for jumping on board, by preserving ecological services, we also as a result preserve biodiversity as well as a host of other environmental causes.

Lastly, Marris appeals to our sense of aesthetics and deriving pleasure from nature by asserting that we protect nature as a whole, just to experience it. Although this point seems vague and somewhat illegitimate because there I no way to quantify the pleasure derived from experiencing or interacting with nature, I agree with its validity. Ultimately if we do not seek to actively conserve what we enjoy, it will be gone or severely diminished.  With all of this said, I really enjoyed how Emma Marris ended her list of goals. With all this said and done, Marris implores us to just embrace the change in nature, whether we want to make major conservational changes or to embrace the natural cycles slowly making their own mark on the landscape. Following her aforementioned goals or pursuing a more specific tract of settling a smaller environmental issue Marris wants us to embrace what has become our rambunctious garden in hopes that we learn to appreciate nature more along the way.

Chapters 8 & 9

Posted on October 13, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

In Chapter 8 of Rambunctious Garden, Emma Marris brings her focus towards more revolutionary ideals. Different from the first two- thirds or so of the book, this section brings us to the possibilities that may come from changing our view of the natural world. Marris even says that ecologists’ views are changing to think less about restoration of areas to baselines and more towards preservation of natural systems and resources. After having examined and analyzed several main issues tackled by today’s ecologists and conservationists from types of restoration to invasive species and the process of rewilding, Marris makes her point of stating clearly that designer ecosystems looks to be a way for nature to be maintained in the future.

Although this method of designing ecosystems, as Marris describes is in ways progressively better than trying to recreate an entire ecosystem from a historical point of view, it has both benefits as well as trade offs.  With more specific goals at hand, such as lowering the nitrogen levels in streams or rebuilding riverbanks to decrease erosion and sediment degradation the chances are greater that more wildlife ecosystems will be preserved. However, at the same time there are consequences such as the increased chances of fish in waters where nitrogen-lowering initiatives are taking place to store mercury in their fatty tissues. In this section of the book, Marris argues that just because an ecosystem is restored to look like it was in the past or to look stable does not mean that its ecological processes are thoroughly beneficial. A point blatantly made by Marris is that at the end of the day, as much as ecologists know about any given ecosystem, the intricate processes within a particular system are not fully understood. Ultimately, Marris envisions the best way for nature to be conserved is for it to be via this new method of designing ecosystems with a key goal in mind.

With this in mind, Marris goes into the next chapter, Conservation Everywhere, to explain and unfold her idea on the future of conservation in more detail. In this chapter Marris describes a world where ecosystems are not designed separate from human existence but looking to integrate into the anthropocene with the use of corridors to expand the habitats of migratory species as well as those that occupy larger areas beyond the national parks and preservations in which they are contained. In this way, greater biodiversity will be able to flourish as species have a larger area to roam. Marris tells of how humans who now have a greater population in urban areas rather than in the suburbs, will in the future, by her predictions, dominate in urban areas- having less of an ecological impact. With this migration of humans to city areas, there would be even more spaces to be turned back into livable habitats for the earth’s species. Marris says that pavement is not forever, suggesting that as we turned grasslands into parking lots, we can revert them back to being natural landscapes. Over these two chapters, Emma Marris takes us into the future she sees in conservation and human interaction with the natural world as we become ever dominant. I am not so sure how much I agree with the connected corridors idea she ha for expanding conservation efforts. However, turning more parking lots and industrial structures into areas that can be used for wildlife seems as though it would be beneficial for animal and plant species as well as the human population.

 

The High Line & Richard Stalter

Posted on September 26, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

During my trip to the Highline, it was very windy which was unfortunate when it came to spotting pollinators in mid-flight. However, I was able to spot quite a few species hovering in and around the various plant-life on the sides of the walkway.I would have to say the most numerous or prevalent pollinator species seen that day were honeybees, carpenter bees and bumble bees.  These species mostly hovered around flowering bushes that alternately sprung up along the walkway, so their presence was viewable throughout. I also saw smaller flies whose species I do not know the name of as well as a small bird species that gathered in groups underneath the bushes. Something that I also found interesting at the Highline was the sound of what I think was a grasshopper coming from a particular purple bush that was planted towards the end of the strip. On my past trips to the Highline, I only vaguely made note of the plant life around me in the routine of quickly walking by urban nature. This trip, I was able to actually able hear the life that existed in such a compact and yet densely inhabited space. Here are some of the pictures of my trip and the pollinators I was able to capture in their daily routine:

 

Carpenter bee

 

 

 

 

 

Honeybee

One of fly species

Before reading the Stalter article, I thought the Highline may be a good example of a rambunctious garden by Emma Marris’ definition, because she pushes us to see any and all plots of land where plant/ animal life exists as nature, whether its an open pasture or surrounded by the worlds highest skyscrapers. From my previous visits, I was prepared to blindly walk down the strip and acknowledge a static scene of plant-life. However after my visit and reading Richard Stalter article, I was made privy to just how much live existed at the Highline and how the fact that it was an urban garden potentially help to aid this biodiversity.

Originally, before the planned reconstruction of the Highline, it had sprouted various plant-life and become somewhat of a “pristine garden” due to its lack of human contact. However, what I got from Stalter’s article is that the fact that the Highline grew out of and into an urban area with the incorporation of human interaction has lead to its increased biodiversity. Seeds, soils and minerals spread by winds, humans and pollinators from across the local city area along with the changing environmental conditions has created a home for opportunistic plants as well as those that thrive best at certain parts of the Highline. What I found interesting and a testament to the affect of environmental conditions on certain species, was how at the 29th street section of the Highline, woody species thrived due to the shadiness of the area. All in all what I could conclude both from my visit and the Stalter article is that not only does nature exist in urban areas, but urban areas and human contact can actually be beneficial to nature in certain cases.

Here I am (second from the right) at the High Line

Richard Stalter’s piece changed my view of the rambunctious garden that Marris describes because it presented he case that nature should not be shut away from human contact and that such contact may be a boon to a natural environment. Rather than just appreciating the nature in the urban areas around us we should become a part of the natural community I helping it thrive.

Chapter 5

Posted on September 13, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

I particularly enjoyed chapter 5 in Marris’ book because she takes a respite from her main point of promoting natures existence in the now human dominated ecosystem and urban settings. In chapter 5 Marris addresses that possibly some human intervention may be need to combat the changing ecosystems. Centered on the impact of climate change, Marris introduced the idea of assisted migration. She explains this idea as a means of helping save potentially extinct species in a last resort situation. Due to global warming, ecosystems have been shifting to more northern regions. Plants and animals that at one time could survive in a certain area are now being pushed further up to climates that are more suitable.

There has been much controversy surrounding this issue because physically moving animals from one habitat to another would be voluntarily increasing the population of invasive species which goes against many efforts that ecologists are making to try remove invasive species from such populated areas. Working to build back an area baseline would be done in vain with the introduction of new species. However, on the other hand of the argument, in order to increase biodiversity or rather maintain the existence of threatened species, assisted migration is promoted as a savior of sorts to cold climate species.

In my opinion, assisted migration can be a mutually beneficial effort if the necessary research is done on the species being moved, its natural habitat and the best possible ecosystem to move it into. If the migrating species is properly matched up with a compatible ecosystem, without the chance of it dying off or becoming invasive, then I would definitely approve of assisted migration because it would maintain and possibly increase the earth’s biodiversity as well as local biodiversity. However, the issue of what will become of the earths warming mountain peaks and the areas surrounding them is a potential point of contention. By moving species away from these areas, any hope there was of sustaining the mountain peaks may be considerably lessened. From a short-term perspective, I would agree with assisted migration. However, from a long- term point of view, where the eventualities are numerous, I would not be so quick to relocate a entire population of a species.

With regards to urban ecology, I again agree that maybe small-scale versions of assisted migration may enhance an ecosystem’s sustainability. At the same time, I feel that the chances of human caused disturbances affecting a species, even after being relocated pose a threat to the initiative. I would imagine that there would also be more opposition from city residents on the topic of introducing a large population of a foreign species in to the neighboring area. The major conflict with this action is that it relies upon actively moving invasive species unto areas where their affects will be unknown. Another argument that Marris presents in this chapter is that promoting assisted migration detracts from the main issue of global warming. Rather than seeking to lower emissions, ecologists suggest moving animals as a result. With the many issues surrounding this topic I am not sure how it will play out. Hopefully, we will be able to preserve land , lower emissions as well as maintain biodiversity.

Chapters 3&4 Rewilding

Posted on September 11, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

I think the concept of Pleistocene rewilding that Marris presents to us in the beginning of chapter 4 of Rambunctious Garden is one of fantasy. I found it comical that rather than merely trying to return an ecosystem back to a time period before substantial settlement, ecologist were working to reconstruct a time period even before the existence of humans. Immediately the city of Atlantis came to mind when Marris described the reservation area of Oostvaardersplassen- parts of which had been “underwater as recently as 1967” (57). Going into the chapter I wondered how reversing such a landscape to a time before humans, where many different extinct and unknown species lived cohesively would be possible. Because many of these environmental characteristics cannot be recreated, ecologists end up creating new ecosystems rather than old ones. There is also the issue of what natural life was actually like in these baseline eras. Because ecosystems are forever changing, seasonally as well as over long periods of time, there is no pinpointed time where one can say what a certain place was like on average thousands of years ago.

Despite my initially reaction to what I felt was a radical idea, Frans Vera’s experiment seemed to be doing well as it attracted numerous rare species to the constructed ecosystem. Thus, I find the main goal of rewilding in the non-pleisocene sense to be a plausible and possibly more beneficial effort than that of baseline reconstruction and conservation. Rewilding addresses the need of any ecosystem, which is diversified species. The more diversified species within a given ecosystem, the better off it will be in the face of adversity. Vera’s goal of obtaining a prehumen era ecosystem may not be so successfully accurate, however, by doing so he has brought together as well as attracted multiple species to the area.

There can be issues that arise when it comes to taking organisms from one habitat and placing them in another just for the sake of diversification. I am personally not sure whether it would be ethical depending on the case, nonetheless in the case of a reservation, I see rewilding as being more beneficial to the environment by adding to its sustainability rather than ripping away what it has with the hopes of recreating something new.

Going back to the case of Oostvaardersplassen, aside from the fact that rewilding helps with ecosystem biodiversity, Vera’s efforts to recreate a past time period is similarly paradoxical like that of the baseline remodeling. Both involve the alteration of an existing ecosystem in order to recreate something that was never truly there in the first place so that it resembles a time period before the human alteration of these land masses. In my opinion, ecologists should look to change their perspectives rather than trying to fit nature into a mold that they have made up in their minds as what true nature is to be. Like the grad student Joe Mascaro, referred to in the first chapter, I agree that nature should be appreciated for what it is. Nature is ever changing and continues to move forward despite human efforts to keep it the same. In the end both rewilding and baseline reconstruction are beneficial, I believe they are done in vain save for their purpose of increasing biodiversity in threatened areas.

Marris Chapters 1 & 2

Posted on September 10, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

In the opening chapters of Rambunctious Garden Emma Marris introduced us to the general idea of nature that is held by most and how it has come to be this great paradox. Firstly Marris delves into the idea of the “pristine wilderness”(3), explaining the generalized concept of natural world that is the essence of life untouched or not manipulated by humans.

The appreciation of nature has been one that cherished the earth’s still truly wild habitats in comparison to the great landscapes that have been resurfaced by humans. However, Marris throws away this ideal of nature blatantly stating that all of earth’s habitats in one way or another have been affected by human presence on earth. Thus, when appreciating nature we must not only look to the vast tracts of wild life to satisfy our desire to connect with plant/ animal life we can also find joy in acknowledging natures presence in our more urban areas such as city parks and community gardens, even the plots of grass on the sidewalk. Marris emphasizes the point that there is life around us even if it is not as grand as what we picture in our minds.

After highlighting the inaccuracies we use to define nature, Marris then goes further to prove how paradoxical such ideals are by addressing the efforts of conservation with the use of often-unobtainable baselines as a goal. As a case study, Marris references the Hawaiian Military Reservation that she visited in 2009. Hawaii has more non-native plant and animal species than not. This is due to western influence and takeover throughout its history. Scientists used a tract of land at the reservation to determine whether native species would be able to thrive again if non-natives were removed. However, this attempt proved disappointing. With slow if any regrowth, this 5-year experiment proved that such attempts to return an ecosystem back to a baseline before certain human influences are done in vain.

With this Marris brings up a split view of nature. Certain ecologists believe that nature is only true wilderness if it has not been tampered with. However, others believe that nature should be seen as all natural things in an ecosystem- whether they were originally there or not. There is also the ultimate paradox that supports this second view. In order to return nature to its previous state- before human alteration- humans must alter the nature that exists. And so, whether constructed or not, the land will have still been manipulated by humans.

I find Emma Marris’ points to be very interesting and logical in her argument against the idea of pristine wilderness.  I personally try to connect with nature wherever it may be. This is not to say I don’t also believe in the concept of the great out doors- pristine and far away. Growing up in the city, where vast landscapes are scarce it is easier to follow Marris’ concept. I think her points are valid because the changes that have been made to the earth are so drastic that even if we were able to recreate a past life in the history of the earths ecology it would not be authentic or without much human manipulation.

Anthropocene: Weekly Reading 8/30

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Mariama Gueye

Anthropocene is a term used to mark the time period in which human activity has a significant impact on global ecosystems. Urban ecologists study this impact and the change of ecological communities under urbanization. Through the study of trees, open spaces and wildlife, such ecologists seek to document the change in the earth’s ecology over its lifetime and in term develop means of conserving what remains of the earth’s natural life in a human dominated era. The article “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems” affirms the belief of us presently existing in the Anthropocene era with reports of the multitude of changes that have occurred over land and water due to the increase of the human population. In particular, I noted the receding of coastal lands. Around 60% of humans live on the coast. Because of this occupancy, this land is being further deteriorated. For example, the use of mangrove land for shrimp farming has left many of these shores open to greater erosion as they have been made less stable. Deeming this era to be the one of Anthropocene highlights the gravity of human impact not just on individual communities of natural life but entire interconnected ecosystems. The Second article “Conservation in the Anthropocene” goes further to state that, while humans are aware of the great impact they have made upon the environment, their also great efforts to maintain a semblance of untouched wildlife with preserves, farms, national parks and the like have been unsuccessful and in some cases further damaging to the earths delicately balanced ecosystems. For a long time, human impact in areas that are now under careful watch by ecologists have been endangering the stability of the land needed for human survival. For example, the article references replanting trees in the amazon rainforest, which has seen great amounts of deforestation in such short spans of time due to logging and clearing of tracts of land. Clearing these fields loosened the soils, making them less able to hold on to nutrient. As a result of this positive feedback cycle, when humans were able to finally realize and figure a way to correct the damage of the deforestation, the soils were eroded so much that such efforts supplied little resolution to the greater issue. The recognition and study of the current state in the world as being heavily dominated by the wants and manipulations of humanity is a successful means for understanding the huge losses that have been accrued over time. However, whether or not they are a means of resolution to such a great issue as lessening human impact on the world’s ecosystems in not definitive. In my opinion, it is possible that we have reached our tipping point on this earth ravishing it of its natural resources and entangling its intricate ecosystems. It is up to urban ecologist to denote the changes taking place although a solution is far from being found.

Comments by Mariama Gueye