Coalition for Chrisitan Colleges and Universities
Global Stewardship Initiative
"Bio-Regional Ecosystems and the Form
and Function of Public Policy:
Improving the Quality of Natural and Social
Life"
Timothy Peterson
Malone College
October, 1996
With rapid human population growth and widespread urbanization have come serious damage to the earth's biosphere which include rapid specie extinction, changing climatic conditions, loss of ecological habitats, and increased environmental degradation. These issues demonstrate our limited understanding of the earth's natural processes, the environmentally destructive potential of human social patterns, and the ineffectiveness of public policies to bring positive changes resulting in health and sustainable ecological conservation, preservation, and restoration. Our lack of knowledge (either due to forgetting what our ancestors knew or simply not knowing enough) regarding the integral relationship between natural and social life combined with consumptive and exploitative patterns of human activities have resulted in the degradation of nature's capacity to support our social systems and a reduction in the quality of all natural and human life.
It has become not only important, but necessary, for those of us living in the United States to reform and redesign our social systems in ways which will protect and preserve species, ecosystems, and landscapes in order to sustain and enhance the survival of life on our planet. The loss of underlying and supportive regional ecosystems is having an increased negative social affect on burgeoning human populations living in urban locations to maintain a sustainable, high quality of life and coexistence with nature. Solutions to these problems will only be found if people take responsibility within various groups, organizations, and agencies by intentionally developing alternative methods of human patterns of development, supportive of regional ecosystem and natural habitats.
What policymakers and analysts have known for a long time, and those within the scientific community are just beginning to accept, is the fact that the world we participate in is not static or fixed. Those in the public sector recognize that any particular problem or issues can be defined on the basis of various perspectives. The context of the problem is central to the inquiry and an understanding of the cultural perspectives of those involved throughout the policy process (Brewer and de Leon, 35-f). Human behavior is considered to be subjective, selective, open to variation, and adaptive. The bottom line is that our world is not constant, but changing, and policy and science ought to empower people with the means of accounting for, adjusting to and becoming intentionally involved in those changes (Greenberg, 243). This dynamic process of ongoing natural and social change causes us to be faced with uncertainty, finding it difficult to predict outcomes, and leads us to consider more seriously the contextualization of problems and issues.
Public policy does not occur in the abstract, but in the real, the physical. A policy is formed within the context and interpretation of nation-state territorial and relational jurisdictions which cross boundaries and overlap levels of interaction. In the context of environmental issues, especially with regards to land-use and planning, a number of factors have influenced the process and product of policies. This paper considers the significant role science and public policies have in offering our society a different type of operational paradigm to address our current environmental problems within this process of ongoing natural and social change. This alternative perspective directs human inquiry and response toward the level of regional ecosystems and what that means in terms of ecological sustainability, resource stewardship, and the empowerment of people to act responsibly in terms of their immediate natural and social processes.
Increasingly, scientific research, especially in the field of conservation biology, is focusing on a regional scale of analysis as being primary to any serious inquiry (Soule, 39). Being specie specific can limit an analysis in terms of its interrelatedness to other dependent communities or populations. Focusing on broad macro-issues can make it difficult to resolve anomalies found within a particular location. A regionally-based approach challenges traditional scientific approach to resource management by suggesting that an interdisciplinary understanding of biodiversity within regional ecosystems will provide a more effective response than separate approaches and policies which tend to be conditioned by economic self-interest, aesthetic concerns, or short-term planning periods (Luccarelli, 219).
Research and analysis at a regional ecosystem level can improve the limitations of traditional scientific approach by focusing attention on key species which are needed for ongoing support of the local ecosystem. This emphasizes an importance of the ecological context upon which that "keystone" specie and others depend. Underlying links exist between all species within a region. Human study of those relationships need to include understanding the role and impact of resident human groups and knowing what population threshold levels need to be maintained for each specie community in order for the ecosystem to maintain its balance.
Consistently U.S. actors within political structures on both federal and state levels have viewed access to and control over natural resources as playing a primary role in shaping political institutions, directing public policy, and providing political stability (Grumbine, 14). Resource acquisition and development has been judged by political actors as critical to state security. Decisions regarding resource allocations (e.g., grazing shall predominate on public rangelands) has led to the development of particular bureaucratic organizations allowing for self-interest participation and control (e.g., grazing advisory board membership being primarily ranchers) and thereby maintains what appears to be a "stable" political environment, though not necessarily representative. As a society we also believe that it is good to preserve some natural environments (e.g., national parks), primarily for aesthetic purposes and provide public support of certain American values. These conditions within our political system makes social change not only difficult, but viewed as a threat to the status quo and the institutions and values it supports.
Yet the reality is that current environmental public policies and laws are not effectively addressing the crises of biodiversity. As the "safety net" of US environmental laws is being "stretched thin," reform is needed in order to have current policies be implemented effectively and have the development of new policies adequately address our natural and social needs (Grumbine, 6). We are in need of developing appropriate mechanisms to protect environment sustainability and provide for environmental stewardship as we reach and exceed the carrying capacity of local and regional ecosystems to support urbanization, industrial expansion, population growth, and resource consumption.
COMPONENTS FOR BIO-REGIONAL PUBLIC POLICIES
As indicated by the relationship between science and law within the context of environmental public policy, an underlying perspective of regionalism is already present. Science offers a view which considers the inherent sustainability of regional ecosystems, while law suggests important management aspects of resource stewardship. Sustainability and stewardship can be viewed as two defining principles for developing a bioregional perspective which could be used to direct further scientific investigation and improve the development and application of public policies.
Sustainability
The global biosphere we depend upon for life is provided to us as a "gift" and we are responsible for its care and well-being. This responsibility comes to us because of our capacity to be the most adaptive, while at the same time most destructive of all creatures on earth. The sustainability of the earth and its ecosystems is protected and maintained by humans only when we operate on an understanding of how natural processes are intended to function and the role each specie plays within the ecosystem. A lack of human wisdom has often resulted in a scarcity, deterioration, and extinction of species, habitats, and ecosystems. In earlier periods of human history, as a regional ecosystem failed to physically support a growing human population, that group would often migrate to another location. Today this condition of ecosystem failure and the loss of specie diversification has grown to include the entire earth. The crisis of biodiversity is forcing us to reevaluate our lifestyles and cultural assumptions about our role within the natural environment and what we should be doing about these ecological changes (Grumbine, xiii). There is increased evidence of a global decline in bird and amphibian populations and of regional declines of freshwater fish and invertebrates. There is also a decline of natural habitats for species which demonstrates that the formation of parks or reserves have not been evenly distributed in ways which would preserve and protect species and ecosystems (World Resources Institute, 24). As habitats and species are lost, rapid social changes are occurring, most obviously from increased urbanization.
A number of subsequent events occur when ecosystem biodiversity is reduced. Not only is there a reduction in the variety of flora and fauna, but this decrease immediately limits our opportunity for additional cultural and scientific knowledge about those particular species and the role they had in a particular ecosystem. Specie extinction means we will never know its full role or "life-gift" capacity, that we will remain ignorant regarding what a particular specie offers or the role that specie plays in the natural process. The loss of species results in an increase of environmental degradation which leads to further erosion of natural processes and decreased human knowledge about nature.
These issues of biodiversity relate to ecosystem design criteria and approaches which reflect an appropriate understanding by humans of the symbiotic relationship between all residents of regional ecosystems and, on a larger scale, the interaction which exists between all ecosystems (Loucks, 50). The change of one condition or the removal of one actor affects the operating pattern of an entire ecosystem. Change in this situation is not necessarily "bad" or to be avoided, rather it is viewed as a constant. What is important from a sustainability perspective is the role and responsibility humankind has to understand what the potential impact will be of natural and social change, especially that which has an anthropogenic source.
The scientific perspective that views biodiversity as an important and valuable characteristic of every regional ecosystem is based on a number of underlying assumptions, considered by natural and social scientists be normative (Soule, 42). It is assumed that maintaining a variety of species and organism within a region has intrinsic value, that there is an inherent strength to ecological complexity, and that a slow, adaptive process of change is good. The inherent worth of species and ecosystems is based upon the mere fact that these components and structures exist. It is humankind's responsibility to live in ways which sustain those systems and to not degrade or destroy them. Increasingly research in the field of conservation biology indicates that in order to preserve and protect endangered and diminishing species it is necessary to save and restore habitats within which that specie lives (Williams, 300).
One way of responding to this biodiversity crisis is by establishing regions as natural reserves selected on the basis of providing a habitat for a diverse number of species. It would be important to first maintain and protect those areas already supporting diversified populations. Work would then focus on strengthening those groups and linking the region to other areas where species have experienced a numerical decline. At the same time, regions could be targeted based on the evidence of a rapid decline of a number of regionally based species. Finally, it is important to consider underlying social factors of human populations living in and/or near designated reserve areas. In many cases economic and political forces influence the design and function of a natural reserve which limits its ability to accomplish the goal of ecological sustainability (Soule and Simberloff, 56). This can be illustrated graphically by considering the sustainability of natural ecosystems in relation to human settlements.
Table One: Relationship of Natural and Social Habitats within a Regional Ecosystem
| Social Habitat Sustainability | |||
Natural Ecosystem Sustainability |
Low |
High | |
| Low | (1) Natural & Social Habitat Degradation |
(2) Social Habitat "Islands" | |
| High | (3) Uninhabitable Environments for Human Populations |
(4) Integrated Regional Ecosystems | |
In sector (1) natural processes have been subject to natural and/or social disturbances resulting in environmental degradation. In order for human social processes to operate it is necessary to bring resources from other locations. People and nature are unable to live in a sustainable fashion within this location. Often this is the characteristic of a central city or highly urbanized location, but it is increasingly a condition which characterizes most human settlement patterns in both urban and rural, first and third world settings (Fitchen, 266; Gilbert and Gugler, 27; Parenteau, 92). Sector (2) occurs when natural habitats and processes function as "islands" within human habitational areas and/or natural processes are in the process of being integrated into social activities within human settlements (McPherson, 151). In this situation natural processes are considered to be only secondary to growth and development of human habitat patterns. If policies and programs are designed and implemented in ways which enhance the natural ecosystem the urban area could move towards sector (4). If on the other hand, sensitivity is not given to the regional ecosystem in the process of urban development, then the human settlement will move towards sector (1). A current example of an urban location which is seeking to increase the regional ecosystem in the midst of maintaining the sustainability of its urban population is the city of Toronto (Hough, 51).
Human social processes and settlements in sector (3) areas are, generally speaking, either non-existent or minimal. Human understanding of and ability to work with natural and social disturbance patterns within regional ecosystems is limited and/or the size of the settlements are small enough to where social processes are not having a negative affect on the natural ecosystem. The majority of these locations currently exist in either high altitude alpine areas or deep sea locations. Historically, most of the earth's natural ecosystems have been able to maintain a high level of sustainability because of limited human impact. When indigenous populations relied upon the surrounding region for sustainability, their social habitats and processes were usually integral to and supportive of natural habitational areas. If environmental degradation occurred the human population would typically move to another location and the larger surrounding ecosystems would eventually restore a damaged area. Today most of the world's surface has been impacted by human social activities and has experienced a reduction in regional ecosystem sustainability. In the context of the northeastern U.S. and northern Europe, no matter how large or well managed the natural aquatic or land reserve, these regions are negatively affected by acid rain and are in need of response by citizen groups and political organizations on every level (Soule and Simberloff, 57).
Sector (4) represents the type of habitat locations which need to be developed where there is a close integration between sustaining the natural ecosystem and supporting the resident human population. A growing body of literature reflects the feasibility of constructing these types of places (Aberley, 1994; Hough, 1995; Keil, Wekerle, and Bell, 1996; Platt, Rowntree, and Muick, 1994; Rajan, 1993; Spirin, 1984; Van der Ryn and Calthorpe, 1986). In these locations, human habitat patterns are not destructive to the regional ecosystem and support for all forms of life within the region is maintained. This quadrant presents a model of human habitat settlements within regional ecosystems designed for preserving and restoring natural and social processes in ways which improve the quality of life. The close linking of natural and human systems could facilitate social economics becoming regionally based and autonomous. All social economies are conditioned by the health and vitality of regional natural economies, but in contemporary situations human economic activities move from one location to another when the capacity of natural economic systems fail to meet social demands. Human economies need to be changed so that social activities maintain the host ecological region and its resident natural economies while simultaneously support life within human habitats (Katz, 140). This will result in greater care given to the health, vitality, and productivity of regional ecosystems by human groups.
The ability for regional ecosystems to experience long-term health and vitality has, up until recently, been an activity which did not require human attention or intervention. But, now as a result of human population growth and the globalization of ecologically destructive social patterns, the continuance of biodiversity and natural ecosystems depends upon when and how humans intervene. No longer can we take a passive role in terms of the sustainability of the earth's biosphere. Conservation Biologist, Michael Soule writes, "For the foreseeable future, such a passive role for managers is unrealistic, and virtually all conservation programs will need to be buttressed artificially" (1994, 38). This support will come from actors and agencies which offer to the public successful models of regional ecosystem management and workable models of proper ecological stewardship.
Stewardship
A second area of consideration in terms of a regional ecosystem approach is the role of stewardship in defining how we are to be involved in the process of ecological sustainability. The concept of stewardship offers a structured approach to the care and management of natural ecosystems, upon which human activities and habitats depend. Stewardship is the recognition that we have been entrusted with the care of the earth and the careful management of its natural and social communities. There is an underlying responsibility for humans to act as trustees of the earth and its resources. We have a responsibility to preserve and protect the life-sustaining ecosystem for future generations. The diversity of natural and social life as a complex, inter-dependent "gift community" that has been entrusted into our care.
This trusteeship is to be demonstrated in how we manage the ongoing sustainability of natural ecosystems and the human communities which depend on those ecosystems. In this way, stewardship is a political activity and affects the form and function of public policy. In order for proper stewardship to be accomplished, local governments need to be given the relevant scientific information necessary for making informed ecological decisions and the regulatory and financial authority necessary for effective making sustainable community development decisions (Beatley, 116). The concept of economic "development" needs to be conceived differently, where resources are used for socially and ecologically sustainable activities. In this situation social equity and collective participation in the decision-making process are essential. Policies need to be design so that distributive effects will come as a result of decisions and activities. Public participation in designing and implementing ecologically sustainable strategies will increase the probably that policies will be implemented effectively and consistently.
Communities which use stewardship as a primary management principles will focus on the efficient and equitable use of urban space, strategies will be developed to reduce the consumption of resources, and programs will be developed to support the ecological and social health of the region (Aberley, 78: Engwicht, 90; Tietenberg, 542). Ultimately, these human settlements will be less polluted, physically healthier, and economically less expensive locations. The types of activities developed to enhance the quality of natural and social life will result in greater accessibility for all people to various amenities and increased social cohesion. People living in these locations will become more self-reliant and secure in terms of energy, food, and economic production, than social life experienced in our current cities and towns. A goal of human management from a stewardship perspective will be not simply "sustaining" the quality of life, but actually improving it. This could be accomplished in three inter-related ways of increased regional "self-sufficiency" and autonomy, the intentional revitalization of smaller ecosystems and communities, and the development of an ecologically-basis for community design and development.
Ecosystem based management will work towards increasing local and regional economic "self-sufficiency" in the production of goods, services, and amenities through an intentional redistribution and regrouping of the human activities, changes in the means and modes production, and altering the patterns of trade (Aberley, 10). This will include the development of production technology which reflects the needs and conditions of the regional environment and the utilization of renewable natural resources (vegetative growth, climatic cycles and energies, etc.). The process of production will encourage small-scale, intensive, human-labor skills and limit the use or dependency on large-scale, industrial based technologies. It is recognized that humans are an integral part of the natural ecosystem and human actions have a fundamental influence on the condition of the ecosystem (Grumbine, 8). For this reason changes in human social activities must be considered if health and vitality is to be restored to a region's ecosystem.
This management approach intentionally focuses on the revitalization of smaller "urban places" (small towns and communities which serve a defined local geographical area) in order to improve and strengthen their economic autonomy, political stability, and cultural uniqueness (Mollison, 49). Economic autonomy has the potential of putting responsibility for regulation and development at the local level. Ecosystem based revitalization will be characterized by the use of ecologically appropriate technologies, reduce the reliance on "value-added" export manufacturing, and should expand only to the extent that regional ecosystems can continue to be sustained.
These economic conditions demonstrate the importance of an approach to human governance characterized by being democratic, responsible to local control, focusing on improving the quality of life, and working towards achieving social justice and equity. This approach is sensitive to the relationship of all members (natural and social) of an ecosystem and works toward full representation and involvement in the decision-making process (Bullard, 36). Connections exist within each ecosystem between members, groups, and levels which will be affected by changes occurring within the region. For this reason, political structures would work to increase citizen participation in and commitment to public policies and resource utilization. The increased involvement of local citizens could prove helpful in developing regionally based economic alternatives, evaluating current policies, and holding regional actors accountable for their decisions and actions (Szaro and Johnston, 158).
As has been stated, bioregions are to be used as the basic unit for the planning and management of ecosystems, recognizing that people are important components of every ecosystems in need of being managed. In human settlement areas, semi-abandoned and under-used areas are developed to provide a sustainable yield and help support the soil, climatic, and biotic conditions of the region (Ludwig, Hilborn, and Walters, 330). The goal is to accomplish desired future ecological conditions and socio-economic objectives while reconciling conflicts between competing uses and values. This is achieved by recognizing two underlying conditions: ecological integrity and ecological boundaries. Long term managed care of native ecological integrity will occur only through protecting and preserving all the components of the regional ecosystem and by maintaining ecological patterns and processes that maintain that biodiversity (Szaro and Johnston, 246). The "yield" from nature for human production and consumption cannot be considered "sustainable" if the regional ecosystem is eroded and degraded in the process.
Extended, careful management of an ecosystem will also include the recognition of ecological boundaries. Both natural and social groups have identifiable boundaries which must be understood, respected, and negotiated in the process of ecological management. It may also require establishing new boundaries, developing an alternative set of partnerships, and/or forming more relevant decision-making jurisdictions (Van der Ryn and Cowan 156). Natural ecosystems often cross political boundaries requiring cooperation, coordination, and collaboration in management and demonstrate the need to have these regional areas serve as the primary basis for economic, political, and social relations and institutional patterns . The recognition of ecological boundaries necessitates collaboration, participation, cooperation, and mutually shared ownership between the various actors and groups of the ecosystem which respects and negotiates those boundaries of difference (Szaro and Johnston, 52). This leads us to consider some possible examples of how these principles are being applied.
The following examples can help illustrate this bioregional approach as it applies to public policy. In California, an interagency policy proposal on regional biodiversity (referred to as the Memorandum of Understanding or "Biodiversity MOU") called "The Agreement on Biological Diversity" was developed and approved by a coalition of ten different federal and state agencies (Jensen, 276). In the agreement a commitment was made by the agencies to design a statewide strategy for conserving regional biological diversity and to be implemented through existing local and regional organizations and institutions. According to this plan maintaining and improving regional biological diversity are assumed to be part of the responsibly of these participating resource management agencies. Decisions regarding the function and role of natural resources are to be conditioned by biogeographical boundaries and conditions, not political or historical interests. It is assumed that successful approaches to conservation and land-use management depend upon coordination and participation between many actors, agencies, and organizations and the plan seeks to build and encourage those relationships. Since each regional ecosystem has distinct resource characteristics, issues of land-use, and local social values, the solutions to the problems of biodiversity will take on differ shapes and styles. From a management perspective, emphasis is placed on local actors being involved and responsible for policy formation and implementation.
One of the problems federal and state actors have had in implementing this memorandum is resistance and fear on the part of local actors regarding the full intentions of this approach and its policies. Local citizens are afraid of increased environmental regulation and additional "top-down" mandates from state and federal agencies. They are skeptical that the federal and state agencies really desire public participation and instead assume this is an attempt to take land use authority from local government by concentrating it in the state capital. These concerns came, in part, because the "Executive Council" was the first organizational level to be formed by the "Biodiversity MOU" and did not include strong grassroots participation.
The memorandum does not require local agencies to take any particular approach to or implement any predesigned agenda of biological conservation. It is attempting to provide local, state, and federal actors with a "forum" for discussion and is only operating within existing political jurisdictions and seeking to implement current federal and state legislation (Jensen, 276). But an unexpected function of the memorandum is its ability to link agencies and organization which are mutually committed to biodiversity conservation, yet separated by public and private sectoral boundaries. Additional steps need to be taken beyond this dialogue stage to empower those outside of the existing structures to be represented and involved. Of special concern are situations where local economic and political interests negatively impact the broader public interest of biodiversity conversation. What the "Biodiversity MOU" does provide is an important step in recognizing the significant role of biodiversity and bioregions in land management policy formation and decision making. Problems and issues related to land-use and conservation are used to link actors and agencies which have historically been separated by artificial political boundaries and jurisdictions. This approach recognizes the fundamental role biogeography and biodiversity have in the policy process, encourages participation by all those involved and affected by the issue, and encourages a collective, holistic approach to problem-solving, rather than piecemeal solutions (Jensen, 278-9).
Another example of bioregional activity is in the Great Lakes Research Advisory Board which links state, federal, and international actors. Up until the late 1970s, U.S. and Canada had cooperated on numerous ventures designed to correct uncontrolled polluting of the Great Lakes over the previous one hundred and fifty years. These approaches and measures had limited success to restore, much less reduce over all environmental degradation. The Water Quality Agreement between U.S. and Canada was reviewed in 1978 and changed in order to emphasize a regional ecosystem approach to Great Lakes management of policies and improvement of natural habitats (MacKenzie, 294).
It's purpose of restoring and maintaining the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes watershed basin was to be accomplished by creating policies, developing programs, and using appropriate technologies which would reduce and eliminate ecologically harmful pollutants in the Lakes system. Characteristics of this ecosystem planning and management approach have as a primary concern the ecological integrity and sustainability of the region. The Advisory Board recognizes that this ecosystem has the potential of being self-sustaining within its naturally determined boundaries and that this ecological context includes humans and nature as co-participants within the same interactive biosystem. It is recognized that the regional ecosystem has "threshold limits" to natural and social disturbances and that the successful and proper functioning of the ecosystem requires that all parts (including humans) work together. Finally, the policies and plans implemented by the Advisory Board reflect an understanding that the members of the ecosystem are interdependent and that successful management of the region will be determined by what those actors do within ecological boundaries, not necessarily because of arbitrary political boundaries or jurisdictions.
The Great Lakes Research Advisory Board is responsible for accomplishing the goals of the Water Quality Agreement and has identified forty-three "hotspots" or areas of concern which are currently being addressed through the development and implementation of "Remedial Action Plans" (MacKenzie, 294). These plans demonstrate the possibility of overcoming institutional barriers at the local, state, federal and international levels and include all organizations, agencies, and community which are affected by the negative ecological conditions.
Bioregional Applications
In order for effective change to occur in environmental policy, a number of underlying economic, political, and social issues need to be addressed and/or resolved. Economic interests need to shift from goals of maximizing production and increasing revenues, defined by the social economy, to long-term impacts of current activities upon the regional natural economy. The "burden-of-proof" for economic strategies needs to be placed on those who would propose increased exploitation and use of local resources, rather than those who support less. Increasingly the fundamental question we face is whether a social economy based on consumptive-use activities is compatible with a natural economy based on the sustainability and careful maintenance of those exploitable resources (Keiter, 113). This shift in economic interests and goals needs to include a transition from exclusive property rights to a goal of protecting ecological integrity within the local habitat we hold in common with each other and the rest of the region's inhabitants.
Local policy implementation should be supported by a broad section of state and national actors in order to be free from the inappropriate influence and control of powerful business actors and interests. The scientific community has an important role to play within the public sector by providing important and relevant information to policymakers and give evaluative feedback after the implementation stage. The best scientific information will have limited impact if it is not articulated in a way which fits the legal constraints confronting policy makers. This means it is the responsibility of the scientist to make her/his work known and work to see that it is accurately translated in appropriate recommendations and policies (Rohlf, 181). One of the related problems is that as information about an issue or condition is collected, there is often an increase in the complexity and difficulty of resolving the problem. These factors require more attention be paid to contextualization of the question, issues, information, and process; for this reason some approaches and structures may be inadequately designed to effectively deal with ecological problems and dilemmas.
On the social level, rarely do the projected consequences of projects, programs, and/or policies reach the public or those in decision-making positions. Information about the impact of policies and projects on the local and regional ecosystems needs to be made accessible, not only to policymakers, but also to laypeople whose lives and areas will be affected. It is not simply a failure to integrate the public into the decision-making process; rather it is a failure to know how to effectively integrate the public (and their potential positive input) in ways which will enhance the ecological effectiveness of policies and programs. More people need to be involved in the product and the outcome of policy making which could be addressed by and result in better decision making throughout the process. Political actors need to work towards representational inclusion of all relevant stakeholders (including the silent members of the animal and plant kingdoms) and provide increased information about and articulation of major policy issues which need to be resolved. This would allow everyone to know what is going on and what is at stake.
There is a need for a coalition of actors to be formed and intentionally strategize on how to bring positive changes to regional ecosystems. This will not occur in the abstract, but like all public policy will only happen in real situations. People must come together to organize, plan, and develop an approach to living within urbanized ecosystems which model an integral natural and social life (Aberley, 1993, 17). This could be constructed as a collaboration of public, private, and nonprofit organizations who empower scientists, scholars, and planners to do work on regional projects and implement programs which bring positive change (Friedmann, 344). It could be developed as a research and study center within an urban location which experiments with and models alternative patterns of sustainable living, poses questions regarding the regional ecosystem for follow-up study, and develops a research agenda which would point those living in that area in the direction of direct action. This would not be simply a place for abstract or theoretical considerations, though that level of reasoning has an important place in the modeling process, but it would be designed as an environment for experimenting with what to do and how to do it.
It has been suggested that Christian communities of faith can have an important place in this approach to bioregionalism and public policy for (Oelschlaeger, 184-f). People of faith believe themselves to have a moral obligation to intervene in the conditions of this world and bring positive change. But often times, the problems seems to large or complex that Christians find it difficult to know how to adequately respond. Part of the underlying problem is that the Church has not formed or articulated an ecological theology which outlines an ethical perspective for intervention. Christian scholars and theologians need to develop a clearly stated view of the earth and human responsibility for its care so that congregants can be adequately informed on how to live in ways which nurture and support Creation.
This ecological theology can be worked out in practical and applied ways by local congregations. Churches can demonstrate the meaning of biblical land-use and "creation trusteeship" by the type of buildings they build, programs they sponsor, and lifestyles they live. The witness of the church to the surrounding community regarding the importance of earth stewardship and sustainability could be demonstrated by incorporating environmentally appropriate technologies in their buildings and developing programs about local environmental conditions. Church members could take an active role in advocating for local environmental issues and become involved in forming and implementing environmental policies. Denominations could support a regional coalition of churches to address issues of environment justice and ecological equity.
Christian colleges and universities also have an important role to play in fostering a bioregional perspective. Members of these academic communities can work together with other institutions who are located in the same watershed area and use geographical connectedness as a means to address mutual environmental concerns and issues. Christian colleges can provide for local churches important scientific and policy information regarding specific regional issues. At the same time, Religious Studies and Theology Departments within these institutions can develop position papers on earth stewardship and sustainability from a biblical perspective. Colleges can provide churches, politicians, and businesses with understanding and knowledge regarding scientific conditions and social consequences of various policies and actions. These institutions also have the ability to study, design, experiment, and model alternative patterns of human-nature relationships, habitats, and systems. Imagine the impact a college could have on a community if it were to begin the process of modeling sustainability and stewardship on its own campus. The science department could oversee the development of appropriate technologies, engineering could design, build, and monitor the physical structures. Residence halls which used solar energy as a power source, water-use conservation, and composting. The dining hall facilities served food grown from greenhouses on campus and established links with area farmers for organically raised fruits and vegetables. Parking lots were restricted and people were encouraged to walk, ride bicycles, or use mass transit. The educational experience of students would be something which integrated theoretical knowledge with hands-on experience of working in soil. The possibilities of interdisciplinary learning and research would be unlimited. Finally, academic institutions could develop regional centers for research and study of integrative ecological living to help empower local groups and organizations to become more actively involved the form and function of public policy in their community, metropolitan area, and region.
The rapid growth of human population groups combined with widespread urban sprawl requires that we act intentionally and swiftly in changing our patterns of life and modeling integral natural and social living which respects and restores the diversity of our earth's biosphere. We cannot change what has already been destroyed, but we can provide protection for and conservation of the remaining resources provided by Creation. We have an inherent responsibility to use our knowledge about the earth and use our creative abilities to adapt to the earth's ever changing conditions in ways which provide for environmental sustainability and ecological stewardship. Christians and organizations in which they participate can offer a definable, practical hope for the future, especially to those living in the most degraded locations, reflecting the restorative, reconciling activity of God's Kingdom.
Bibliography
Aberley, Doug, ed. (1994). Futures by Design: The Practice of Ecological Planning. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
(1993). Boundaries of Home: Mapping for Local Empowerment. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Beatley, Timothy (1994). Ethical Land Use: Principles of Policy and Planning. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Brewer, Gary, and Peter deLeon (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.
Bullard, T. 1990. Dumping Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Engwicht, David (1993). Reclaiming Our Cities & Towns: Better Living with Less Traffic. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Fitchen, Janet (1991). Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity, and Survival in Rural America. Boulder: Westview Press.
Gilbert, Alan, and Josef Gugler (1984). Cities, Poverty, and Development: Urbanization in the Third World. London: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg, Mike (1995). The Poetics of Cities: Designing Neighborhoods that Work. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Grumbine, R. Edward, ed. (1994). Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Hough, Michael (1995). Cities and Natural Process. London: Routledge.
Jensen, Deborah (1994). "Conservation Through Coordination: California's Experiment in Bioregional Councils" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Katz, David (1986). "Metropolitan Food Systems and the Sustainable City" in Sim Van der Ryn and Peter Calthorpe, A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns: Sustainable Communities. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Keil, Roger, Gerda Wekerle, and David Bell, eds. (1996). Local Places in the Age of the Global City. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Keiter, Robert (1994). "Taking Account of the Ecosystem on the Public Domain: Law and Ecology in the Greater Yellowstone Region" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Krumholz, Norman, and Pierre Clavel (1994). Reinventing Cities: Equity Planners Tell Their Stories. Philadelphia: Temple Press.
Luccarelli, Mark (1995). Lewis Mumford and the Ecological Region: The Politics of Planning. New York: Guilford Press.
Loucks, Orie (1994). "Sustainability in Urban Ecosystems: Beyond an Object of Study" in Rutherford Platt, Rowan Rowntree, and Pamela Muick, eds. The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
Ludwig, Donald, Ray Hilborn, and Carl Walters (1994). "Uncertainty, Resource Exploitation, and Conservation: Lessons from History" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
MacKenzie, Susan (1994). "Great Lakes Intergovernmental Cooperation: A Framework for Endangered Species Conservation" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Mollison, Bill (1994). "Permaculture" in Doug Aberley, ed. Futures by Design: The Practice of Ecological Planning. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Parenteau, Rene (1996). "Managing Sustainable Growth in Third World Cities" in Roger Keil, Gerda Wekerle, and David Bell, eds., Local Places in the Age of the Global City. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Platt, Rutherford, Rowan Rowntree, and Pamela Muick, eds. (1994). The Ecological City: Preserving and Restoring Urban Biodiversity. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.
Oelschlaeger, Max (1994). Caring for Creation: An Ecumenical Approach to the Environmental Crisis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Rajan, Vithal, ed. (1993). Rebuilding Communities: Experiences and Experiments in Europe. Bodmin, Cornwall: Hartnolls Ltd.
Rohlf, Daniel (1994). "Six Biological Reasons Why the Endangered Species Act Doesn't Work-and What to do About It" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Soule, Michael (1994a). "What is Conservation Biology" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
(1994b). "Conservation Biology in Context: An Interview with Michael Soule" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Soule, Michael, and Daniel Simberloff (1994). "What do Genetics and Ecology Tell Us About the Design of Nature Reserves?" in R. Edward Grumbine, Environmental Policy and Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Spirin, Anne (1984). the Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. New York: Basic Books.
Szaro, Robert, and David Johnston (1996). Biodiversity in Managed Landscapes: Theory and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tietenberg, Tom (1996). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York: HarperCollins.
Van der Ryn, Sim, and Peter Calthorpe, eds. (1986). A New Design Synthesis for Cities, Suburbs, and Towns: Sustainable Communities. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Van der Ryn, Sim, and Stuart Cowan (1996). Ecological Design. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
World Resources Institute/UNEP/UNDP (1992). World Resources 1992-1993.
New York: Oxford University Press
|
|