There are two different views of environmental protection, they are preservation and conservation. Preservation is where the environment is protected at all costs and no development is allowed. The attempt is to keep the environment in its uncontaminated state. Conservation on the other hand is when development is guarded carefully and the environment is carefully utilized while protecting it. This is more anthropocentric view where the environment is there to be used for the betterment of humans.
This brings a number of different groups into conflict as some environmentalist believe that the environment has an intrinsic value and is should be barred from all types of development. Some people challenge this though and state that the environment although needs to be protected, exists to provide for human development. There is where responsible development comes into the picture( conservation). This anthropocentric view puts a value on the environment. A major environmentalist once said that ‘in a world where money talks the environment needs a value to give it a voice’. This challenges the view that the environment is priceless and cannot be given a monetary value. Another aspect is that the environment is only protected by the government due to pressure from the public. Although scientists can successfully lobby to get the government to set aside lands to bar development it is the public perception that has the most power. This brings to mind an article I read by Patricia Zaradic from the Red Rock Institute. She stated that environmentalists would prefer to leave parks to themselves and protect them from the wear and tear of the public which would affect the ecosystem there. She however states that the popularity of public parks is essential if we are to maintain adequate funding for environmentally based initiatives. As by going to the parks and experiencing the environment (responsibly), people feel a stronger vested interest in it. This concept leans to a more conservation type model.
However ecosystems are very complicated and connected. Some may argue, and I agree, that certain areas are too important to biodiversity and the wider ecosystems to be corrupted by any sort of development, however responsible it may be. A perfect example of this is mangroves. Mangrove wetlands are very unstable and any sort of the development would be difficult unless they fully remove the mangrove trees and fill the land. The mangrove and swamp wet lands are an integral part of the marine ecosystem. They provide a nursery for small and baby fishes and allow them to grow without the threat of being hunted by bigger fish. This allows the fish stock to be kept at a sustainable level. Also mangroves help prevent sedimentation. The increase in sedimentation can kill the coral reefs which would also harm the fish stocks in the reefs. This is why some argue that mangroves need to be preserved from development.
A possible answer to the issue may be the zoning of sensitive ecosystems. This is where places are segmented into different zones with some places being preserved and others are conserved. Some of the more sensitive areas, such as mangroves, are preserved and other areas which may be able to recover easier are utilized in a sustainable manner, such as forests. A perfect example of this is in some of the major national parks in Canada. In the national parks places are barred off as wildlife sanctuaries straight through to parts that are open for tourism development. The idea is that some areas are more vulnerable and thus need to be protected and other areas can assimilate the impacts.
