With today’s ubiquitous discussion about environmental issues, people are in the significant and enormous movement that has ever happened. Facing more and more serious environment issues, such as global warming, scarcity of resources, ecological imbalance, people pay more and more attention on the terms like “climate change”, “sustainability” and “green”. In this atmosphere, a great debate has arisen among land use and development. One claims that nowadays more and more rural lands are over consumed and the urban size expands enormously with continuous suburbanization; this uncontrolled and scattered growth may result in “loss of prime farmlands, deforestation, reduced diversity of native species, increased runoff of storm water, excessive …show more content…
The debate about whether the land should be developed or not are under two moral consideration: anthropocentrism and ecocentric or biocentric. People holding anthropocentrism thought the instrumental values of undeveloped land only insofar as they are used by human. Destruction of forests can provide the space for construction of more houses and availability of recreational opportunities. They support suburban development because developed lands can fulfill people’s needs and supply desired housing area. However, rural lands have great instrumental values and these value are strongly relative to the well-being of human society. Even from anthropocentric perspective, such instrumental values in undeveloped lands fulfill human basic needs, such as, clean air, water supply, food supply. Suburban development would cause the loss of instrumental values of rural land, leads to decrease farm land areas, water supply and air pollution. According to Tam-Scott, there are amount of examples of land development threatens or has consumed the agricultural base, increasing population rapidly and decreasing ability to feed that population (632). Not only farm lands were blindly consumed, the water resources are also polluted even exhausted. Rural land development “brings the potential to pollute water supply but also possibilities that depleted the whole water supply because of paving” (Tam-Scott 45). For example, based on Tam-Scott claims, when large areas of land are paved over by wide streets and parking lots, “water can no longer penetrate the soil and enter the water table, which when combined with the fact that the people on the land draw water out of the water table for human use, presents an obviously unsustainable situation” (45). Consequently, it is obvious to think that the undeveloped land that have amount of instrumental values contribute directly to fulfill the most basic human needs of food and
Our system today is inherently opposed to developing a relationship with the land because it depends on evidence in terms of monetary worth. “One basic weakness in a conservationist system based wholly on economic motives is that most members of the land community have no economic value” (246). How much is a wildflower or a songbird worth? Therefore, this infinitely complex ecological system, which depends upon an unforeseeable amount of community-shaping mechanisms, tends to become increasingly diseased. “It tends to ignore, and thus eventually to eliminate, many elements in the land community that lack commercial values, but that are (as we know) essential to its healthy functioning” (252).
With urban population growth, both ecological and industrial consequences directly affect those in poverty and the urban poor. Slums usually develop in the worst types of terrain, and lead to flooding, landslides, and fires that destroy thousands of people’s homes. Yet population growth and the amounts of waste created by urban civilizations are also pushed on the hidden faces and locations of those on the outskirts of the cities. “If natural hazards are magnified by urban poverty, new and entirely artificial hazards are created by poverty’s interactions with toxic industries, anarchic traffic, and collapsing infrastructures” (Davis 128).
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
This altruistic respect for the environment does not mean that Nature has to be left alone to its own devices; the environment can be used sustainably but needs to be respected as an equal that has its own power to impact people. Citing history, Leopold alludes to the gradual degradation of the American Southwest from pioneers and others overgrazing the land with livestock. The land suffered and went through multiple successions to produce increasingly meagre grasses and arid environment to hardly sustain anybody today (). He views Nature as an overworked servant to a demanding populace master constantly yelling for more service. When humans extend their ethics into environmental interactions with a land ethic, it means people are conscientious Nature’s rights and welcome the all-encompassing being as a community
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
Again, this section will give a working definition of the “urban question’. To fully compare the political economy and ecological perspectives a description of the “urban question” allows the reader to better understand the divergent schools of thought. For Social Science scholars, from a variety of disciplines, the “urban question” asks how space and the urban or city are related (The City Reader, 2009). The perspective that guides the ecological and the social spatial-dialect schools of thought asks the “urban question” in separate distinct terminology. Respected scholars from the ecological mode of thinking, like Burgess, Wirth and others view society and space from the rationale that geographical scope determines society (The City Reader, 2009). The “urban question” that results from the ecological paradigm sees the relationship between the city (space) as influencing the behaviors of individuals or society in the city. On the other hand...
Urbanization has to deal with the construction of new modernized construction and the use of technology, in total it means advancing from the local to make modernized place and an industrial site. Also it includes the construction of infrastructural buildings, infrastructural buildings are buildings that are constructed for the betterment of the country for the people it includes hospital, schools, bridges, water supplies and different other buildings. Most of the land were covered by the trees, and they only few people living there, in order to develop a modernized place, or an urbanized place, construction needs to be made. In the determination of making an urbanized place where factories and all could be done, practice such as deforestation is done. Lands that were filled with tees are then cutting in order to satisfy the project of urbanization. The urbanized places are still developing which increases the rate of
Indeed, many global cities face compelling urban planning issues like urban sprawl, population, low density development, overuse of non-renewable natural recourses, social inequities and environmental degradation. These issues affect the cities themselves, the adjacent regions and often even globally. The resulting ecological footprint upsets the balance in adjacent rural and natural areas. Unplanned or organic development leads to urban sprawl, traffic problems, pollution and slums (as evident in the case of Mumbai city). Such unplanned development causes solid waste management and water supply to fall inadequate. Urban sprawl gives rise to low density development and car dependent communities, consequently leading to increased urban flooding, low energy efficiency, longer travel time and destruction of croplands, forests and open spaces for development.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
First of all, overpopulation drastically affects the land. Possibly the most prominent example of the depreciating health and amount of land is the need for developments. Due to the exploding population in the United States, about 1.2 million acres of land every year is being converted to subdivisions, malls, workplaces, roads, parking lots, resorts, and many other developments (“Overpopulation,” Internet). That is a substantial amount of land being overturned to satisfy human desires. To put it in better perspective, between 1982 and 1997, the land mass lost to development is equal to the size of Maine and New Hampshire combined, which is approximately 25 million acres (“Overpopulation,” Internet). While soil is being ruptured for human preference, the number of cities has remarkably modified. In 1975, Mexico City, Tokyo, and New York City were the only cities considered as megacities (“Special,” Internet). In today’s world, that number is considerably small. Now, there are 21 megacities in the world. A megacity is when the population of that city becomes greater than 10 million people (“Special,” Internet). Therefore, the 21 megacities that are currently in the world holds more than 21...
...population distribution designed to reduce the rate of rural-urban migration appears to have had limited success in many developing countries. Policies must be directed at altering the rural economy in order to slow the rate of urban sprawl. Broad land use planning and changing of planning standards and governmental procedures would go a long way to reduce many of the problems that face urban populations in the developing areas, especially Africa. Urbanization can cause a lot of problems for a city or even a country. It can cause cities to become overpopulated which are known as mega-cites, and cause problems with living arrangements and finding a job. Urbanization can also cause health problems. Urbanization is supposed to be good for developing countries on the rise but with this rapid growth in Africa, these problems can become a major concern in the future.
With the development of urbanization, an increasing number of social problems have emerged. These problems will decelerate the urban development, however, there are many ways in which sustainable development can reduce the impact of these urbanization problems. “Sustainable development seeks to improve the quality of human life without undermining the quality of our natural environment” (Adams, W.M. 1999). Actually, sustainable development can partly solve the urbanization problems, for it can reduce the impact of the problems such as traffic jam, housing shortage and severe pollution, but it is difficult to completely solve these problems in a short time.
These motives are behind the current world’s 50% urbanization rate. Among all countries, Canada heads the urbanization process with 80% of its total area (Snell par.7). The ever-increasing urbanization rate is characterized by human-related destructive activities, which lead to creation of urban centers by destroying inherent biodiversity. The rate is increasing each passing day. However, one thing to note is that destructive activities embody the causes of urban biodiversity wicked problem. The easy way of identification provides land conversion, climate change, consumerism, land fragmentation, and invasive species as the main causes of the wicked problem of urban biodiversity. These causes constitute every aspect of urban life. For instance, there is no way that people living in urban areas can do without proper infrastructures (such as houses, roads, and communication lines). All kinds of infrastructure need space, and, in creating it, there is clearance of all natural vegetation and conversion of land to other uses. The result is annihilation of nature and predisposition of climatic changes. The only easy approach to identify an appropriate solution to the wicked problem of urban biodiversity is to decrease the rate of urbanization by
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.
On the one hand, participatory approach to land use planning can provide openings for the decentralized administration of land management and enhance legal protection of local land rights through contributing to formal recognition of existing land tenure systems. According to Chigbu et al, (2015) four functions of land use planning that directly links to tenure security. (1) Its capacity to identify or determine land areas, parcels and uses and users. (2) Its propensity to enable documentation of land areas, parcels, rights, restrictions and responsibilities. (3) The opportunities it provides for stakeholder involvement, compensation of claims and community participation. (4) Its impact on land value, land markets and credit opportunities. On the other hand, land use planning, promoting sustainable natural resource use and environmental management are generally part of the mandate of local governments. And these prerogatives often tend to be weakly developed, both legally and with respect to capacity building and methodology (Hilhorst 2010). Unclear property rights and tenure insecurity are the major constraints to the potential of successful land use planning. According to UN-Habitat (2008, p. 17), poor land use planning associated with insecurity of tenure and incompletely specified land rights leads to problems of air and water-borne pollution from agricultural and industrial land use. Though there is a