Brian Czech

Economic Associations among Causes of Species Endangerment in the United States Associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate

Associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States reflect the integration of economic sectors, supporting the theory and evidence that economic growth proceeds at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate.

How Much Is Enough? The Recurrent Problem of Setting Measurable Objectives in Conservation

Abstract International agreements, environmental laws, resource management agencies, and environmental nongovernmental organizations all establish objectives that define what they hope to accomplish. Unfortunately, quantitative objectives in conservation are typically set without consistency and scientific rigor. As a result, conservationists are failing to provide credible answers to the question “How much is enough?” This is a serious problem because objectives profoundly shape where and how limited conservation resources are spent, and help to create a shared vision for the future. In this article we develop guidelines to help steer conservation biologists and practitioners through the process of objective setting. We provide three case studies to highlight the practical challenges of objective setting in different social, political, and legal contexts. We also identify crucial gaps in our science, including limited knowledge of species distributions and of large-scale, long-term ecosystem dynamics, that must be filled if we hope to do better than setting conservation objectives through intuition and best guesses.

Prospects for Reconciling the Conflict between Economic Growth and Biodiversity Conservation with Technological Progress

The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is understood in portions of academia and sometimes acknowledged in political circles. Nevertheless, there is not a unified response. In political and policy circles, the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) is posited to solve the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection. In academia, however, the EKC has been deemed fallacious in macroeconomic scenarios and largely irrelevant to biodiversity. A more compelling response to the conflict is that it may be resolved with technological progress. Herein I review the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation in the absence of technological progress, explore the prospects for technological progress to reconcile that conflict, and provide linguistic suggestions for describing the relationships among economic growth, technological progress, and biodiversity conservation. The conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation is based on the first two laws of thermodynamics and principles of ecology such as trophic levels and competitive exclusion. In this biophysical context, the human economy grows at the competitive exclusion of nonhuman species in the aggregate. Reconciling the conflict via technological progress has not occurred and is infeasible because of the tight linkage between technological progress and economic growth at current levels of technology. Surplus production in existing economic sectors is required for conducting the research and development necessary for bringing new technologies to market. Technological regimes also reflect macroeconomic goals, and if the goal is economic growth, reconciliatory technologies are less likely to be developed. As the economy grows, the loss of biodiversity may be partly mitigated with end-use innovation that increases technical efficiency, but this type of technological progress requires policies that are unlikely if the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation (and other aspects of environmental protection) is not acknowledged.

In My Opinion: The steady state economy—what it is, entails, and connotes

In its technical review on economic growth,The Wildlife Society (TWS) described a “fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation” (Trauger et al. 2003:2). This conflict exists because, as the economy grows, natural capital (such as timber, soil, and water) is reallocated from wildlife to the human economy (Figure 1). Many believe technological progress may reconcile this conflict, but technological progress expands the breadth of the human niche and, in the service of economic growth, exacerbates the conflict (Czech 2003). Generally speaking, it is not possible to reconcile values subject to a fundamental conflict, although compromise sometimes is portrayed as reconciliation. Plenty of wildlife conservation has been compromised for the sake of economic growth, sometimes under the banner of “smart growth,” and the compromising continues. Therefore,TWS is considering taking a position on economic growth (Table 1). The position on economic growth was proposed by TWS’s Working Group for the Steady State Economy on September 6, 2003 at the TWS annual conference in Burlington,Vermont. It is similar to a position adopted by the United States Society for Ecological Economics on August 3, 2003 but is more specific to wildlife conservation. The technical concepts are well established and largely incontrovertible, as evidenced by the TWS technical review on economic growth. However, some of the clauses in the position may be politically controversial. Perhaps the biggest controversy will stem from clause 5 in the “Therefore” list (Table 1.B), which states,“A steady state economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal in the United States and other large, wealthy economies.” Several questions and concerns already have arisen about what this statement means and what it might imply or connote. The most prominent questions are:

Climate Change Adaptation for the US National Wildlife Refuge System

Since its establishment in 1903, the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) has grown to 635 units and 37 Wetland Management Districts in the United States and its territories. These units provide the seasonal habitats necessary for migratory waterfowl and other species to complete their annual life cycles. Habitat conversion and fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, and competition for water have stressed refuges for decades, but the interaction of climate change with these stressors presents the most recent, pervasive, and complex conservation challenge to the NWRS. Geographic isolation and small unit size compound the challenges of climate change, but a combined emphasis on species that refuges were established to conserve and on maintaining biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health provides the NWRS with substantial latitude to respond. Individual symptoms of climate change can be addressed at the refuge level, but the strategic response requires system-wide planning. A dynamic vision of the NWRS in a changing climate, an explicit national strategic plan to implement that vision, and an assessment of representation, redundancy, size, and total number of units in relation to conservation targets are the first steps toward adaptation. This adaptation must begin immediately and be built on more closely integrated research and management. Rigorous projections of possible futures are required to facilitate adaptation to change. Furthermore, the effective conservation footprint of the NWRS must be increased through land acquisition, creative partnerships, and educational programs in order for the NWRS to meet its legal mandate to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the system and the species and ecosystems that it supports.

Human Population Increase, Economic Growth, and Fish Conservation Collision course or savvy stewardship?

Abstract Globally, fishes and fisheries are in severe decline, driven in large part by economic and human population growth. Despite progress in environmental philosophies, legislation, and protection, conflicts between economic/human population growth and fish conservation remain and are intensifying at continental and global scales. The growth of the human enterprise ad infinitum is impossible because of dependence on finite resources; hence policies should leave a margin of error when dealing with the biophysical environment. We suggest a re-definition of Earth stewardship to serve as a conceptual bridge between ecology and economics, recognizing the hubris behind most economic models, which assume that the biosphere is a subset of the economy or else an externality, when in fact Homo sapiens is a species operating within the biosphere. Additional indicators that focus on a different suite of values (e.g., social justice, corporate responsibility, and ethics) would underscore the complexity of economic...

Research Notes Public Opinion on Endangered Species Conservation and Policy

The propriety and viability of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are functions of its social context, including public opinion. We conducted a nationwide survey on attitudes toward species conservation and other related concepts and institutions. Species conservation is valued by respondents as much as property rights or eco nomic growth. Ecosystem health and democracy are valued more, and the availability of resources for posterity is valued most of all. The public strongly supports (1) ESA and the implementation of ESA on private lands, and (2) the compensation of landowners for losses incurred by the implementation of ESA. Vastly different implications are associated with these conclusions. Collectively, our survey results imply that educators concerned with species conservation should focus on the links among economic growth, natural resources extraction, habitat loss, and species endangerment.

Elk behavior in response to human disturbance at Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument

Abstract The edge of the Mount St. Helens volcanic blast zone attracts high summer densities of Roosevelt elk ( Cervus elaphus roosevelti ). Forest Service Road 2560 (a previously existing logging road) was opened to the public in the Clearwater drainage of the blast zone in 1987, and elk use was monitored. During that year, elk avoided a 500 m corridor centered on the road, as well as several sections in the study area where the influence of the road was prominent. This avoidance was probably a learned behavioral response to public use of Forest Service Road 2560 but might also reflect a higher frequency of flight reactions to traffic. Maximum herd size also decreased in 1987 as a response to frequent passive harassment by humans on Forest Service Road 2560 (such as getting out of cars), as large herds were more likely to be seen and were more vulnerable to initiation of a flight reaction. Logging also produced by-products of human activity that constituted passive harassment even when humans were temporarily absent (e.g. foreign noises and materials). Elk tolerance of timber operations was correlated positively with proximity to hiding cover. A high level of habituation by elk to disturbance in the Clearwater blast zone will probably be preceded by the hiding cover stage of plant succession.

The Foundation of a New Conservation Movement: Professional Society Positions on Economic Growth

T American Fisheries Society, American Society of Mammalogists, and Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) are contemplating position statements on the conflict between economic growth and conservation of fish, mammals, and biodiversity, respectively. Similar considerations are bubbling up in the Ecological Society of America, Society for Range Management, and International Society for Ecological Economics. Positions have already been taken by The Wildlife Society, SCB’s North America Section, and the US Society for Ecological Economics, complemented by numerous position statements and endorsements from nonprofessional conservation organizations and individuals. The proponents of this movement have overcome some high hurdles, and the finish line beckons.What prize awaits, not only for the proponents but also for the conservation community at large? The prize is a foundation of solidarity upon which to build a new, grounded, more socially relevant conservation movement. This new conservation movement won’t dance to the seductive political tune, cantillated from right and left, that “there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection.” This new movement goes beyond the oxymoronic “smart growth” to a smarter approach of development without growth. This movement won’t allow itself to be miscast as a “socialist” agenda. Rather, this movement is about clarifying—for the public, the firm, and the policymaker—the trade-offs society faces between increasing production and consumption of goods and services and protecting the environment. Clarification will lead to political accountability, policy reform, and a more responsible consumer ethic. Like all good things, this new conservation movement won’t come easy. Taking a position can be a daunting task; fears abound, and sometimes the struggle doesn’t seem worth it. The objectives of this article are to uproot unwarranted political fears and provide an overview of how positions on economic growth may be used. This article does not address technical matters. Those have been addressed elsewhere and adequately enough, for example, to empower an organization as cautious as The Wildlife Society to identify a “fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation” (Wildlife Society 2003). “Skeptical environmentalists”and others who would yet argue that there is no conflict should address their objections to the burgeoning literature on that conflict.

The relationship of political party affiliation to wildlife conservation attitudes.

Species conservation via the Endangered Species Act is highly politicized, yet few data have been gathered to illustrate the relationship of political party affiliation to species conservation perspectives. We conducted a nationwide public opinion survey and found that Democrats value species conservation more highly than do Republicans, and that Democrats are also more strongly supportive of the Endangered Species Act. Republicans place higher value on property rights than do Democrats, but members of both parties value economic growth as highly as wildlife conservation. The results imply that the Democratic propensity to value species conservation reflects a biocentric perspective that does not bode well for practical conservation efforts. Species conservation will depend upon the success of academicians and progressive political leaders in educating students and members of all parties about the fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation.