Day 2 Summary and Questions

Notes: June 2nd, 2009
Molly Jones and Andi Davis
When looking at different attitudes about the environment, there are four key questions:
1. What is Nature? (What does nature mean/represent to a given group?)
-biblical/colonial POV: Nature as dominion/property
-tame/possess/dominate nature
Problems with "Possession POV": Use and/or abuse approach. The way in which something is
treated/ valued changes if it is possessed versus if it is seen as having intrinsic, individual value. (e.g. slaves, women, children)
- Nature as a resource (utilitarian view)
-nature as recreation (anti-work)
- Nature as spiritual/enlightening
- Nature as intrinsic value (i.e. value not based on utilities provided)
2. How do humans fit into nature? ( Are humans a part of nature or not a part of nature?)
If 'wilderness' is defined by the absence of humans, than to keep something 'wild' it needs to be kept human-free. (1970's-Sierra Club-Nature w/o humans is pristine, to remain so must remain untouched.
If wilderness or nature is defined as an ecosystem, humans are intrinsically a part of it. Leopold: the thing to do is think about how we interact/function in that ecosystem--how do we live (farm, function, recreate etc) least harmfully? i.e. how do we use nature in a way that preserves/conserves the ecosystem. Can we have a symbiotic relationship?
3. How should human use nature? (the way an individual answers questions 1 and 2 will determine how this question is answered_
e.g.: If nature is dominion, we use it
If nature is property, it is subject to an individuals whims.
If nature has spiritual value, we conserve/protect it
If nature w/o humans is pristine, than we should keep humans out of it
And (Leopold's point) if nature and humans are part of the same community, than nature should be used in a way that benefits/preserves both. Symbiotic relationship.
4. Who should decide/make the rules?
-government (local, county, state, national --even international (e.g. banning of CFC's)
- Local community
- Private property owners
-question of whether experts or local citizens should be main force behind decisions
-e.g. Moab tailing ponds.

Bill Travis: New Geographies of the American West: Diagnosing the drivers and outcomes of regional land use changes.
Why we need & want O.S.?
- Driving forces:
- Population growth, immigration, wealth, and attitudes
- enabling forces:
- Population growth, private property, and transportation
- shaping forces:
- Public lands, tax, and policy
- Regional pattern outcomes;
- Metro zones, exurbs, resorts, gentrified rural areas
Growth in the American West:
- Even in economic downturn the West is the biggest growth in country
- West is more "boom" than "bust"
- Even with issues concerning water, immigration, energy, etc…
- Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Weld County had recent top national growth rates (growth rates have slowed some with foreclosures)
- Great Plains are losing population
Predictable factors for population growth:
- National increase (high fertility)
- Domestic migration
- Attractive place to live/ job growth (e.g. kidney Dialysis Company)
- International immigration (documented and undocumented)
Projections for Population Growth (30 years; 2000-2030):
- 2030 = U.S. population increase by 29%
- 2030 = 50% of growth will happen in American West
- Top 3 growing states; Nevada (114%), Arizona (109%), Utah (56%)
- Colorado growth rate is 35%
Pattern Outcomes:
- "Sprawl" - when land use grows faster than the population (e.g. '98-'00 Colorado Population grew 49% but urban/suburban land use grew 65%)
- More/larger houses per capita
- Enlarged commercial and infrastructure land uses (malls, sewers)
- Inefficient regional land use (increased retail space results in wilderness and agricultural encroachment)
- exurbanization and longer commutes
-More development and people in the wildland interface
- Further reach for resources like water and recreation into wildlands and into public lands
These forces play out in a few Identifiable Landscapes:
-Metro Zones
-decreased density as a proximity to city decreases (Older suburbs: 4+ houses/acre, new suburbs: 2-4/ acre, Exurbs: 1/5 acres)
- Open space has increased in modern development (last 20 yrs)--predominately in suburbs.
-BUT, these Open Spaces do not serve any major ecological purpose (too fragmented/impacted)
-"megapolitian":
-interconnected sprawling zones (often commercial/business) e.g. Front Range (so S. Denver, to WY border)
- often occur along HWY systems (1-70 and/or 1-25 corridors)
- These types of developments raise the question: Does development really pay? Increased people to pay for commodities/services, leads to increased demand of those very services/commodities. Paradox.
- Inefficient land use/"Growth Machine"
-e.g. "mall race" on 1-25 corridor. Not need driven, but desire for income.
-Exurbs: agricultural land divided for low density residential areas/
Driving forces: Increased mobility, 2nd homes, retirement (Baby boomers), appeal of location (federal land foundry)
Issues: Needs own infrastructure (development of roads, public health and safety institutions (etc))
Encroaches on land prone to natural hazards (e.g fire)
- Example: sierra Nevada Foothills, CA
Can we Change the outcomes? The problem with planning:
- Much more growth coming: long-term "boom"
-Planning is a weak force: Lack of ability to properly predict, public and political ambivalence, policy and ordinance mitigation, plans not followed, measure 37 (in Oregon)
- Institutions stuck in "out-dated" scales: Land-use planning not a scale-needed for given area (metro vs. exurbs vs. rural, local vs. regional)
- "Planning" does not equal "growth Management"--
Boulder Solution:
Use of OS as buffer between communities, agreement between Boulder, Longmont, Louisville, to not annex and develop lands along city borders.
Planning for the New West:
-Developing Planning codes for the New West:
-new guidelines specific to Western development/the emerging developments.
-Encode new goals and specific rubrics for these development patterns (e.g. affordability and access)
Code "Green infrastructure" (OS, trails, streams, corridors, view sheds, community separations etc).
Some additional things to take into account/Closing Notes:
-OS use must be tailed to local ethos (e.g. Sacramento (using Davis model) having most wildlife/land preservation. For Boulder, habitat and recreation are main goals. Seattle--OS is used to minimize environmental degradation and risk/extend of natural hazards (landslides).
-Growth in Boulder is a two-edged sword:
Influx of "Boulder minded" people results in further strain and/or degradation on environment and OS--but also results in awareness of affects of increased population and infrastructure on environmental spaces, which (in turn) results in the creation of more Open Spaces.


Questions

Test Questions:
1. Please list 3 different ways people can view nature (i.e. its use/Question 1)
A: biblical/colonial POV: Nature as dominion/property; Nature as a resource (utilitarian view); nature as recreation (anti-work); Nature as spiritual/enlightening; Nature as intrinsic value (i.e. value not based on utilities provided)
2. What are the four questions given to understand different attitudes re: the environment?
3. T/F Leopold promotes the idea that humans and nature are part of a community/ecosystem.
4. Name one of the groups and/or stakeholders involved in the decision making process regarding land use.
1. Local Government
2. Local community
3. GMOs
4. Private Property Owners
5. What is the predicted population growth by 2030 for the West:
a)57%
b)24 %
c) 49%
d) 85%
6. What is a 'megapolitan zone', please give an example.
7. T/F residential density increases the further you get from a city.
8. Why is planning, according to Travis, inherently weak?
9. Recent land disputes in Telluride CO are an example of the government doing what? (condemnation of land in order to obtain it)
10. What is one of the suggestions Travis makes to traditional planning and development (i.e. what should the "new West" do differently re: development planning?