Land Use Concepts
Humans value land for what it can provide: food, shelter, resources and intrinsic beauty. There are also various classifications of land that are made for a variety of scientific and political purposes. However, human use of land for any purpose can create problems that may be addressed and possibly prevented by regulations. We will look at how human land use affects the environment and examine land use concepts and classification.
Humans value land for what it can provide: food, shelter, resources and intrinsic beauty. There are also various classifications of land that are made for a variety of scientific and political purposes. However, human use of land for any purpose can create problems that may be addressed and possibly prevented by regulations. We will look at how human land use affects the environment and examine land use concepts and classification.
The Tragedy of the Commons
In his essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin (1968) looked at what happens when humans do not limit their actions by including the land as part of their ethic. In every society throughout history, at least some land was viewed as a common resource: Anyone could use certain spaces for foraging, growing crops, felling trees, hunting or mining. But as populations increased, common lands tended to become degraded--overgrazed, overharvested and deforested. Because people often act from self-interest for short-term gain, Hardin observed that when many individuals share a common resource without agreement on or regulation of its use, it is likely to become overused and depleted very quickly. The tragedy of the commons suggests that individuals will use shared resources in their own self-interest rather than in keeping with the common good, thereby depleting the resources.
The tragedy of the commons develops in the following way: Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work satisfactorily for centuries, because tribal wars, poaching and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning (i.e., the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality). At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks: "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has both negative and positive components. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. However, as the effects of overgrazing are shared by all of the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
The sum of the utilities leads the rational herdsman to conclude that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd, and then another, and so forth. However, this same conclusion is reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing the commons. Therein lies the tragedy: each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd, without limit, in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.
Hardin went on to apply the situation to modern commons. The public must deal with the overgrazing of public lands, the overuse of public forests and parks and the depletion of fish populations in the ocean. Individuals and companies are restricted from using a river as a common dumping ground for sewage and from fouling the air with pollution. Hardin also strongly recommended restraining population growth.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is applicable to the environmental problem of global warming. The atmosphere is certainly a commons into which many countries are dumping excess carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we know that the generation of greenhouse gases will have damaging effects upon the entire globe, we continue to burn fossil fuels. As a country, the immediate benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels is seen as a positive component. All countries, however, will share the negative long-term effects.
Some economists maintain that converting common resources to private ownership can prevent tragedy of the commons. After all, a landowner is much less likely to overgraze his own land than he would common land. However, not all common resources can be privately owned (the air we breathe, open ocean water). Governmental regulation is another approach. For example, a local government could prevent overuse of a common pasture by passing an ordinance that permits only a certain number of sheep to graze there.
In his essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin (1968) looked at what happens when humans do not limit their actions by including the land as part of their ethic. In every society throughout history, at least some land was viewed as a common resource: Anyone could use certain spaces for foraging, growing crops, felling trees, hunting or mining. But as populations increased, common lands tended to become degraded--overgrazed, overharvested and deforested. Because people often act from self-interest for short-term gain, Hardin observed that when many individuals share a common resource without agreement on or regulation of its use, it is likely to become overused and depleted very quickly. The tragedy of the commons suggests that individuals will use shared resources in their own self-interest rather than in keeping with the common good, thereby depleting the resources.
The tragedy of the commons develops in the following way: Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work satisfactorily for centuries, because tribal wars, poaching and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning (i.e., the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality). At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks: "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has both negative and positive components. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. However, as the effects of overgrazing are shared by all of the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
The sum of the utilities leads the rational herdsman to conclude that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd, and then another, and so forth. However, this same conclusion is reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing the commons. Therein lies the tragedy: each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd, without limit, in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all.
Hardin went on to apply the situation to modern commons. The public must deal with the overgrazing of public lands, the overuse of public forests and parks and the depletion of fish populations in the ocean. Individuals and companies are restricted from using a river as a common dumping ground for sewage and from fouling the air with pollution. Hardin also strongly recommended restraining population growth.
The "Tragedy of the Commons" is applicable to the environmental problem of global warming. The atmosphere is certainly a commons into which many countries are dumping excess carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we know that the generation of greenhouse gases will have damaging effects upon the entire globe, we continue to burn fossil fuels. As a country, the immediate benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels is seen as a positive component. All countries, however, will share the negative long-term effects.
Some economists maintain that converting common resources to private ownership can prevent tragedy of the commons. After all, a landowner is much less likely to overgraze his own land than he would common land. However, not all common resources can be privately owned (the air we breathe, open ocean water). Governmental regulation is another approach. For example, a local government could prevent overuse of a common pasture by passing an ordinance that permits only a certain number of sheep to graze there.
Sustainability
Sustainability refers to humans living on Earth and their use of resources without depletion of the resources for future generations. The five key environmental indicators that can guide humans to sustainability include biological diversity, food production, average global surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations, human population and resource depletion. Many people maintain that achieving sustainability is the single most important goal for the human species. It is also one of the most challenging tasks we face.
We have seen that people living in developed nations consume a far greater share of the world's resources than do people in developing countries. It is easy to imagine a very small human population living on Earth without degrading its environment because there simply would not be enough people to do significant damage. Today, however, Earth's population is 7.6 billion people and growing.
There are numerous examples of human beings overexploiting forests, fisheries and other resources. When humans initially settle an area, they typically increase in number in the hospitable environment. They cut down trees to build homes and other structures. Eventually they overuse soil and water resources and possibly fish and wildlife. Without trees to hold the soil in place, erosion can occur, and the loss of soil causes food production to decrease. The classic example of this type of overexploitation occurred on the Great Plains in the midwestern United States in the 1930s. Vast amount of prairie land was subject to subsequent droughts and strong winds. During this time, known as the Dust Bowl, dust storms across the entire Midwest carried away large quantities of soil.
Ultimately, consumption in the United States and in the world is related to the size of human population. While people in some countries use more resources than those in other countries, the population has been growing since 1600. And resource use has grown since then as well. many environmental scientists ask how we will be able to continue to produce sufficient food, build needed infrastructure, and process pollution and waste. Our current attempts to sustain the human population have already modified many environmental systems.
Can we continue our current level of resource consumption without jeopardizing the well-being of future generations? Most environmental scientists believe that there are limits to the supply of clean air and water, nutritious foods, and other life-sustaining resources our environment can provide. They also believe there is a point at which Earth will no longer be able to maintain a stable climate. we must meet several requirements in order to live sustainably:
Sustainability refers to humans living on Earth and their use of resources without depletion of the resources for future generations. The five key environmental indicators that can guide humans to sustainability include biological diversity, food production, average global surface temperatures and CO2 concentrations, human population and resource depletion. Many people maintain that achieving sustainability is the single most important goal for the human species. It is also one of the most challenging tasks we face.
We have seen that people living in developed nations consume a far greater share of the world's resources than do people in developing countries. It is easy to imagine a very small human population living on Earth without degrading its environment because there simply would not be enough people to do significant damage. Today, however, Earth's population is 7.6 billion people and growing.
There are numerous examples of human beings overexploiting forests, fisheries and other resources. When humans initially settle an area, they typically increase in number in the hospitable environment. They cut down trees to build homes and other structures. Eventually they overuse soil and water resources and possibly fish and wildlife. Without trees to hold the soil in place, erosion can occur, and the loss of soil causes food production to decrease. The classic example of this type of overexploitation occurred on the Great Plains in the midwestern United States in the 1930s. Vast amount of prairie land was subject to subsequent droughts and strong winds. During this time, known as the Dust Bowl, dust storms across the entire Midwest carried away large quantities of soil.
Ultimately, consumption in the United States and in the world is related to the size of human population. While people in some countries use more resources than those in other countries, the population has been growing since 1600. And resource use has grown since then as well. many environmental scientists ask how we will be able to continue to produce sufficient food, build needed infrastructure, and process pollution and waste. Our current attempts to sustain the human population have already modified many environmental systems.
Can we continue our current level of resource consumption without jeopardizing the well-being of future generations? Most environmental scientists believe that there are limits to the supply of clean air and water, nutritious foods, and other life-sustaining resources our environment can provide. They also believe there is a point at which Earth will no longer be able to maintain a stable climate. we must meet several requirements in order to live sustainably:
- Environmental systems must not be damaged beyond their ability to recover
- Renewable resources must not be depleted faster than they can regenerate
- Nonrenewable resources must be used sparingly
Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is development that balances current human well-being and economic advancement with resource management for the benefit of future generations. This is not as easy as it sounds. The issues involved in evaluating sustainability are complex, in part because sustainability depends not only on the number of people using a resource but also on how that resource is used.
Living sustainably means acting in a way such that activities that are crucial to human society can continue. It includes practices such as conserving and finding alternatives to nonrenewable resources as well as protecting the capacity of the environment to continue to supply renewable resources.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
The Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and environmental protection. Today, progress is being made in many places, but, overall, action to meet the Goals is not yet advancing at the speed or scale required. 2020 needs to usher in a decade of ambitious action to deliver the Goals by 2030.
Sustainable development is development that balances current human well-being and economic advancement with resource management for the benefit of future generations. This is not as easy as it sounds. The issues involved in evaluating sustainability are complex, in part because sustainability depends not only on the number of people using a resource but also on how that resource is used.
Living sustainably means acting in a way such that activities that are crucial to human society can continue. It includes practices such as conserving and finding alternatives to nonrenewable resources as well as protecting the capacity of the environment to continue to supply renewable resources.
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
The Sustainable Development Goals are a call for action by all countries – poor, rich and middle-income – to promote prosperity while protecting the planet. They recognize that ending poverty must go hand-in-hand with strategies that build economic growth and address a range of social needs including education, health, social protection, and job opportunities, while tackling climate change and environmental protection. Today, progress is being made in many places, but, overall, action to meet the Goals is not yet advancing at the speed or scale required. 2020 needs to usher in a decade of ambitious action to deliver the Goals by 2030.
Maximum Sustainable Yield
Sustainable yield is the amount of a renewable resource than can be taken without reducing the available supply. When we want to obtain the maximum amount of a biological resources, we need to know how much of a given plant or animal can be harvested without harming the resource as a whole.
Imagine a situation in which deer hunting in a public forest is unregulated, with each hunter free to harvest as many deer as possible. as a result of unlimited hunting, the deer population could be depleted to the point of endangerment. This, in turn, would disrupt the functioning of the forest ecosystem. On the other hand, if hunting were prohibited entirely, in the absence of natural predators, the deer herd might grow so large that there would not be enough food in the forests and fields to support the herd. In extreme cases, such as that of the reindeer (caribou) of St. Paul Island in Alaska, the population could grow unchecked until it crashed due to starvation.
Sustainable yield is the amount of a renewable resource than can be taken without reducing the available supply. When we want to obtain the maximum amount of a biological resources, we need to know how much of a given plant or animal can be harvested without harming the resource as a whole.
Imagine a situation in which deer hunting in a public forest is unregulated, with each hunter free to harvest as many deer as possible. as a result of unlimited hunting, the deer population could be depleted to the point of endangerment. This, in turn, would disrupt the functioning of the forest ecosystem. On the other hand, if hunting were prohibited entirely, in the absence of natural predators, the deer herd might grow so large that there would not be enough food in the forests and fields to support the herd. In extreme cases, such as that of the reindeer (caribou) of St. Paul Island in Alaska, the population could grow unchecked until it crashed due to starvation.
Some intermediate amount of hunting will leave enough adult deer to reproduce at a rate that will maintain the population, but not leave so many that there is too much competition for food. This intermediate harvest is called the maximum sustainable yield. Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) of a renewable resource is the maximum amount that can be harvested without compromising the future availability of that resource. In other words, it is the maximum harvest that will be adequately replaced by population growth.
Forest trees, like animal populations, have a maximum sustainable yield. Loggers may remove a particular percentage of trees at a site in order to allow a certain amount of light to penetrate the forest floor and reach younger trees. If they cut too many trees, however, an excess of sunlight will penetrate and dry the forest soil. This drying may create conditions inhospitable to tree germination and growth, thus inhibiting adequate regeneration of the forest. In theory, harvesting the maximum sustainable yield should permit an indefinite use without depletion of the resource. In reality, though, there are two problems with using MSY in environmental policy management.
First, it is very difficult to calculate MSY with certainty because in a natural ecosystem, it is difficult to obtain necessary information such as birth rates, death rates and the carrying capacity of the system. Once an MSY calculation is made, we cannot know if a yield is truly sustainable until years later when we can evaluate the effect of the harvest on reproduction. By that time, if the harvest rate has been too great, it is too late to prevent harm to the population.
In addition to the calculation difficulties, a sizeable group of environmental scientists argue that MSY is not an adequate guide to use for environmental protection. They believe that unmeasured externalities (costs/benefits not included in the price of the good or service) and harm to ecosystems can occur when using MSY as a harvest guideline, and that the best way to protect the environment is to harvest considerable less than the MSY.
Forest trees, like animal populations, have a maximum sustainable yield. Loggers may remove a particular percentage of trees at a site in order to allow a certain amount of light to penetrate the forest floor and reach younger trees. If they cut too many trees, however, an excess of sunlight will penetrate and dry the forest soil. This drying may create conditions inhospitable to tree germination and growth, thus inhibiting adequate regeneration of the forest. In theory, harvesting the maximum sustainable yield should permit an indefinite use without depletion of the resource. In reality, though, there are two problems with using MSY in environmental policy management.
First, it is very difficult to calculate MSY with certainty because in a natural ecosystem, it is difficult to obtain necessary information such as birth rates, death rates and the carrying capacity of the system. Once an MSY calculation is made, we cannot know if a yield is truly sustainable until years later when we can evaluate the effect of the harvest on reproduction. By that time, if the harvest rate has been too great, it is too late to prevent harm to the population.
In addition to the calculation difficulties, a sizeable group of environmental scientists argue that MSY is not an adequate guide to use for environmental protection. They believe that unmeasured externalities (costs/benefits not included in the price of the good or service) and harm to ecosystems can occur when using MSY as a harvest guideline, and that the best way to protect the environment is to harvest considerable less than the MSY.
Follow the link below to read more about the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.