In developing the National Wildlife Refuge System’s strategic direction for the next decade, the Service and the public it serves must understand where America has been and where it is going — demographically, socially, and economically. Much has changed since 1999 when the Refuge System last examined its future at this scale.
A growing number of the people in American and global societies see less of a direct link between the natural world and their food, water, and quality of life, but this does not make conservation less relevant today than it was in President Roosevelt’s era or at other times in history when people rallied to save nature. This disconnection demands innovative and dynamic ways to increase society’s conservation literacy, to connect people to nature and to communicate why the collective conservation mission is more relevant today than ever before.
The United States population has increased more than 14 percent since 1998. As U.S. residents become increasingly concentrated in cities and mega-cities, urban sprawl is fragmenting more habitat. By 2050, the U.S. population is projected to grow to 392 million.
The United States is more racially and ethnically diverse. Groups that have historically been considered minorities are projected to be the majority by 2042. Hispanics are the fastest growing group, expected to make up a third of the population by 2050. One of eight Americans is African American.
The nation is also aging. By 2030 nearly one in five residents will be 65 or older. By 2050 Americans 65 and older will exceed 80 million. But the “baby boomer” generation, the first of who turned 65 in 2011, is different than those who turned that same age generations ago. They are determined to stay active, to try new adventures and to make a difference for society.
Demographic shifts are intersecting with other major trends. Among the most profound is accelerating climate change, fueled by rapid world population growth. These changes are evidenced by rising sea levels, loss of coastal wetlands, more incidents of flooding and droughts, and the growth of non-native species that crowd out native organisms in ecosystems once thought outside their range.
Social changes have also been profound. The pervasive spread of portable, wireless communication devices and a culture of nonstop social networking have changed the social fabric. The American people are less connected with America’s great outdoors. While environmental threats still resonate on some level — witness public outcry over the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — many citizens feel that conservation threats are a distant concern. The Refuge System’s challenge is to make wildlife refuges relevant to citizens’ lives.
Being relevant to America demands the delivery of lasting benefits to all of America’s citizens while at the same time ensuring representation of all of her citizens appropriately as The Service works within the broader global context. The Service needs to stand ready to meet opportunities with appropriate and immediate action, renewed focus, flexibility, and creative initiatives that are responsive to change. The Service must be prepared to learn new strategies, exchange models and insights, and effectively manage the Refuge System for a rapidly changing America.
Comment below and/or move on to Chapter 2 - Conserving the Future
8 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
To reach the growing population of disconnected citizens the NWRS needs to come up with some radical ideas. Push forward with ideas that seem ridiculous at first but can potentially get more people interested.
I am not sure how it would work but what about creating refuges closer to large populated areas? Bring the refuges to the people. Even if these are not “prime” areas they could grow into them. And if they are close to large groups of widely diverse people they could increase interest in the system as a whole. I fear a lot of people think of the refuges as remote, inaccessible areas and really have no concept of what they are or even the idea of visiting them.
These new city-refuges could be converted parks and preserves and in collaboration with city, county, and state systems already in place. This could offset some funding issues and/or provide better access to funding to areas that are lacking it. (I really don’t know anything about how that part works.)
Refuges don’t necessarily have to protect huge areas of land or exceptionally important areas either. (Of course, they need to have some value but current parks/preserves, at least in northern Illinois, have beautiful forests, prairies, rivers, and streams all teaming with wildlife.)
Increasing the promotion of all types of recreation at the refuges to school children would be a plus too. It doesn’t have to be just fishing and hunting. Hiking, camping, photography, birding, etc. could be discussed in classrooms across the nation.
The refuges need to protect wildlife and ecosystems but they also need to be usable and thus relevant to people. Without the personal connection and accessibility, the disconnect will continue to spiral out of control.
In the 3rd paragraph is the sentence, “By 2050, the U.S. population is projected to grow to 392 million.” Recommend you add to the end of the sentence, such as “…392 million an increase from ___ million today/in 1998.” Give the 392 million figure some perspective. Is that an increase of 50 million, 100 million,etc. from today?
In the 6th paragraph is the sentence, “… and the growth of non-native species that crowd out native organisms in ecosystems on thought outside their range.” What do you mean by “once thought outside their range”? I don’t believe for the most part invasive species are moving on their own accord great distances. Invasive species are moving great distance and outside their normal range because humans are directly or indirectly moving them to new areas outside their normal range.
This section concludes the introductory “overture” with a broad and relevant sweep of trends. I would suggest here and there a slight rewording:
In the “disconnection” paragraph, I would conclude the first sentence after “quality of life,” unless you want to be more specific about the people most affected. In that case you might want to add: “especially those who live in cities and suburbs, where nature and human livelihood often get lost among the buildings, highways, and manicured green spaces.” (I don’t know if it is worth discussing whether conservation is more or less relevant than before, as the extended sentence indicates.)
In the “also aging” paragraph, I note briefly here that I don’t find this aspect in the body of the paper. (I will address this in another section.)
In the “climate change” paragraph, I agree with Greg that “once thought outside their range” requires a bit of processing to understand (if I DO understand it). In addition, I would more generally think more broadly about “exotic” species and refrain from the “crowding out” expression at this point, since these matters are discussed in detail later in the paper. For introductory purposes here, I would suggest something along the lines of “and the impact of non-native [or exotic] species which have raised new challenges in conservation and habitat management.”
Finally, Eddie’s questions/suggestions are important ones – both in terms of an increasingly urban population, but also an increasingly diverse one.
“The American people are less connected with America’s great outdoors.” Less connected than what or when? What is this comment based on? Do we know why? How do we “correct” it if we don’t have a clear answer to those questions? Could it be that we just connect differently? Almost certainly. That comment, may in fact be completely based in valid data. If so, we should probably provide some support for the comment. Let’s make sure we’re recognizing that how and how much we interact with nature will always change. We’re not changing from one thing to another. There is not a beginning and end. Change is continuous. Let’s make sure we’re addressing an ongoing process rather than reacting to particular event.
Americans need to grasp this simple fact: Wilderness is how we breathe. Without it we suffocate. We protect it or we die.
I suggest the above sentences as an official message to be widely publicized.
Overall I like this section – I offer the following recommendations for changing the last paragraph, which I believe is or could be a dominant statement for the document, overall:
Being relevant to a Changing America demands leadership and the knowledge and skills to assure the effective delivery of meaningful and lasting benefits to all of America’s citizens while ensuring effective representation of all of her citizens within the broader global context. The Service and NWRS leadership needs to take action to prepare for new opportunities, renewed focus, flexibility, and creative initiatives that are responsive to changes in the US and the Global community. Service and NWRS employees must be prepared to learn and implement new conservation strategies, communicate effectively across a broad range of social, economic and political interests and work with others to exchange plans, analytical models and insights, and effectively engage in the design, development and management of the national conservation estate including the National Wildlife Refuge System for a changing and healthier America.
Suggest adding “extreme fire” to this sentence:
These changes are evidenced by rising sea levels, loss of coastal wetlands, more incidents of extreme fire, flooding and droughts, and the growth of non-native species that crowd out native organisms in ecosystems once thought outside their range.
Second to last paragraph related to social changes:
The era of constant communication has affected refuge management too. The irony is that the modern manager and many refuge staff members spend an inordinate amount of time at our computers vs. in the field, and like many other Americans are less connected to the outdoors.