The Nature of Natural: Defining
natural character for the New Zealand context
Froude, V,A., Rennie, H,G &
Bornman, J,F. (2010) The nature of natural: Defining natural character for the
New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal
of Ecology,34(3),332-341
Since the 1970's, New Zealand has had
policies to protect its remaining natural character of its coastal, riparian
and other fresh water environments. Although there has been a long-standing statutory
policy in place for protecting natural character, there has been no
authoritative definition of what natural really is. As a result, there have been
no methods developed to measure natural character and its changes. Having a
definition of natural character is also important for a plethora of purposes
such as: using as part of conservation criteria and providing guidance for
inventories and resource management. This forum paper aimed to find that much
needed definition relevant to our unique New Zealand context. This was achieved
through a literature review of natural character and related concepts from a
spread of disciplines such as conservation biology, landscape planning and
philosophy.
 |
| What most would consider to be an untouched natural landscape of podocarp forest http://www.nzpcn.org.nz/c/content/L-Matheson-01a.jpg |
A set of criteria were set up to find up the most suitable
definition. These were:
·
Definition
will apply to a wide scale of environments from untouched to modified
·
Human
structures and activities should be included
·
New
Zealand's unique naturalness will be considered
·
Covers
all ecosystem types
·
Can
be easily measured for monitoring purposes
·
Allows
for the use of reference markers to which change can be measured
A total of nine suitable definitions from all natural
definition contenders were narrowed down by the judges based on their match to
the set criteria. A selection of highlights follows...................
Interpretation One: Natural character is naturalness that
is a part of nature
This contender sees natural as being completely void of
human interference. Natural character is derived from physical or biological
elements, patterns or processes of nature that are indigenous to that specific
environment.
Interpretation Two: Naturalness includes humans and their
activities
The 'new ecology' approach. This interpretation sees
humans as part of the complex and changeable biophysical systems. This concept
stems from many indigenous cultures that see humans and nature as being
intertwined.
Interpretation Three: Naturalness as a contrast to
'artifactuality'
This one is quite simple. The level of naturalness
depends on how far removed it is from human-made objects established for
specific functions.
Interpretation Four: Naturalness as historical
independence from human ecosystems
Areas where there has been none-very little human
modification would be considered natural. This contender therefore excludes
restored areas as natural, so not the best contender.
Interpretation Five: Naturalness is where ecosystem processes
occur without human intervention
This interpretation is another failed contender. Its
definition disregards past influences and focuses on present and future human
intervention.
Interpretation Six: Naturalness that includes ecologically
harmonious human influence or interactions
This interpretation is the peacemaker between human and
environmental naturalness. A possible winner as it includes ecological
restoration as natural, but would need to be careful around how much human
impact was OK.
 |
| Results of restoration at Mimimoto Lagoon http://ecan.govt.nz/advice/biodiversity/restoration-trail/pages/mimimoto-lagoon.aspx |
Interpretation Seven: Naturalness only includes humans if
they are in a closed system
This interpretation would only work if New Zealander's
were totally dependent on that ecosystem and would maybe have worked pre-European
arrival (although in saying that, Maori were in a relatively closed-ecosystem
and look at the damage that followed).
Interpretation Eight: Naturalness as a possession of
features and properties found in an ideal ecosystem
A good idea, but what is ideal? Another forum would need
to be carried out to define that too.
Interpretation Nine: Naturalness as a similarity of
biotic structure, composition and physical/ecological process compared with
historical benchmarks
This interpretation uses these criteria as representation
of good ecological character. Areas that are most natural will have retained
their biotic structure, composition and physical/ecological processes to levels
that were similar to a determined pre-human benchmark. A bright contender for
the final interpretation, although it fails to distinguish between naturalness
of preserved verse restored ecosystems.
After a hard decision-making process, many
interpretations had to be let down. It was interpretations 8 and 9 that met all
the natural criteria, but didn't meet the human element criteria. This was best
addressed by interpretation 3.
The winning definition:
The natural character
of a site at any scale is the degree to which it is part of nature
(particularly indigenous nature), free from effects of human activities and artefacts,
exhibits the environmental factors chosen for reference conditions and exhibits
ecological and physical process comparable with reference conditions.
A footnote to go with this choice is that human perceptions
of natural character of a site will be a product of its biophysical attributes
and will depend on personal / cultural context.
Discussion group
reception:
There was a general
consensus that the judging panel for selecting a definition for natural did
well. Although the definition was complex it was recognised that the
description had to fit a complex environment. The selection process was very
thorough and covered all aspects of natural from all contexts. The group felt
this was crucial for the definition as
it covers a very broad scope of disciplines; being able to define one
definition that suits fits to all of those disciplines will create a controls
for policy making. There were concerns around the inclusion of human perception
of natural in the definition. Some felt that including this as a side note may
allow lawyers to ease their way out of environmental breaches in court. Others suggested
that this wouldn’t be a problem because it wasn’t quantifiable but still needed
to be considered, especially for cases such as parks and reserves.
The hot topic in the room was in relation to interpretations
that classified humans as being natural.
We can justify our actions by saying they are natural but without having
morals we could drive the natural resources we rely on to extinction. Some
agreed with Lovelock (2000) and see us as being part of nature. We are
just another species, but we are the only species that are aware of our effects
on the environment and have morals. Therefore, we are natural BUT what we do to the environment is
often not natural, or is detrimental to natural.
The group was interested to
see if the definition had been used in recent years to help with quantifying
natural. Although the definition has been used to back up some current literature on defining natural, It has yet to be used in a more practical sense.
Q. Should human
perception be removed from the definition?
Q. Are humans
natural? Or are we a component of nature?
References:
Froude, V,A., Rennie, H,G & Bornman, J,F. (2010) The
nature of natural: Defining natural character for the New Zealand context. New Zealand Journal of Ecology,34(3),332-341
Lovelock, J. (2000) Gaia-
a new look at life on earth, 4th edition, Oxford University
press, 148
In response to the question: should human perception be removed from the definition?
ReplyDeleteThis is a tricky one but personally I think there is probably nothing to be gained by removing it. My justification for this is that human perception will always be involved in any decisions that are made by humans, regardless of if it being included in the definition or not. You can try and reduce bias by having specific, clearly defined guidelines, which is what has been done in this paper.
A good example of a highly valued so called 'natural ecosystem' is the tussock grasslands in the MacKenzie Basin (the part below the alpine zone). These grasslands are indigenous and are largely perceived as a natural area worthy of protection (from irrigation schemes and dairying etc.) but most New Zealander's don't realise that it's natural state (below alpine zone) was actually beech forest, prior to burning by Maori in pre-European times. Under the author's criteria these ecosystem's would not be considered worthy of protection, I wonder how many other communities fit into this 'grey area'?
Are humans natural or are we a component of nature?
We are most certainly natural and a part of nature, we have evolved alongside and interacting with the natural world.
However you could also argue that we are circumventing some aspects of the natural world such as natural selection etc. by discovery of medicine and so on. We are over-exploiting the natural world in such away that it may seem that we are in control and separate from it but at the end of the day, we are very much apart of it and we will be brought back down to it's carrying capacity one way or another, Hopefully this well happen by our own choices before we are forced.
I agree with Monique. Although humans are natural, our actions are decidedly unnatural. Therefore it would be folly to include us in the definition of naturalness. Inclusion of humans would merely open up legislation to exploitation (leading to the advancement of human interests at the expense of nature). Hence I was pleased at the inclusion of the "free from effects of human activities and artefacts" specification.
ReplyDeleteWhile it has been shown who that an individual’s level of concern for the environment is related to the sense of connectedness the individual feels with nature (Vining 2000). I believe that connectedness with nature should be supported in non-legislative ways (its sort of a separate issue).
Vining, J., Merrick, M.S. & Price, E.A. (2008) The distinction between humans and nature: human perceptions of connectedness to nature and elements of the natural and unnatural. Research in Human Ecology, 15, 11p.