How do we implement the Principle of Ecological Integrity (Westra, 1994)? Does the latter only require the setting up of ghettos of protected Natural Areas as if the world were to become some kind of zoo in which what is left of Nature is to be set behind bars while mankind, as its custodian, is left outside looking in? In the affirmative, is there anything left to be done outside the cages besides enforcing the no-trespassing signs? More than half the population of the world lives in cities and the trend in urbanization is increasing. Can and should this trend be reversed? Is ecological integrity relevant at all to an urbanized world? In order to make ecological integrity relevant to such a world, one must consider an integrity continuum from pristine nature if such a thing still exists all the way to an urbanized environment i.e. from Nature to Culture. In other words, ecological integrity cannot simply be a property of Nature (as interpreted by humans) but must be a property of the relationship between nature and culture as well; it must necessarily have a human dimension. For example, an architect may speak of the integrity of building material and even of the integrity of a building (Wright, 1954). I may speak of a man or a woman's integrity, of the integrity of a culture. There must be some relation among these concepts. How does ecological integrity relate to the ecosystem approach and ecosystem health as frameworks for the formulation of environmental policy? Both the ecosystem and the ecosystem health approaches have recognized a prominent human dimension to valuation. How does ecological integrity relate to Sustainable Development which is resolutely anthropocentric and seems to dominate the environmental narrative in this last decade of the twentieth century? Is Neoclassical Environmental Economics, another environmental narrative built around the concept of willingness to pay, useful at all for the design of protected areas and for Ecological Integrity in general?
展开▼
