56
GERALD L. YOUNG
level-of-integration, functionalism, and so on. All must be of consideration in the planning process because that process is the realization of the
integration of the concepts of human ecology. Planning is the process of
creating communities and environments for human beings (cf. Kligman,
1945; Dewey, 1966). It is applied human ecology.
5. Conservation as applied human ecology
For the purposes of this paper, I am assuming a standard definition of
conservation as “the wise use of natural resources” so that I may
include resource management under the general rubric of conservation
as applied human ecology.
This is a bit of a departure from tradition. Conservation has generally
been defined in economic terms in this country: a resource is not a
resource until it pays commercially to develop it-the “gospel of
efficiency” as described by Hays (1959), the emphasis on “expected
physical scarcity” (Raup, 1964). This does not mean that ecology has
not been a major consideration in resource management or in conservation. The two have been intertwined since both their origins toward the
end of the last century. Such early involvement, however, did not change
the basic emphasis: it is only recently that conservation has begun to be
de.ned in ecological terms, that comments have begun to appear in print
on the aptness of an ecological approach to conservation (cf. Raup, 1964;
Darling, 1964, 1967; Allen, 1967; Jordan, 1968). And it is only very
recently that textbooks and readers have begun to follow the same
trend, note the recent offerings of Dasmann (1968), Cox (1969) and
Owen (1971). The only surprise is that such a trend should have been so
slow in coming, especially with such established classics as Marsh’s
(1864) and Leopold’s (1933, 1949) to provide precedent and impetus.
Darling (1964) defhed conservation as “quite definitely the applied
science of ecology, ecology in action”, and again (1967) “conservation
has been applied ecology or ecology in action”, though he qualified his
second claim by describing the ecologist as “nervous in the company of
the devotee of conservation”. Still, “our greatest ecologists are in the
front ranks of the Conservation Movement”. If this is acceptable, it is a
short step (if any at all) to a definition of conservation as applied human
ecology: trying to conserve and maintain environments to keep man in
touch with nature and to use wisely those environmental resources on
which his sustenance and well-being depend.
Others beside Darling have promoted an ecological definition of
conservation. Allen (1967) presents a very simple one in homeostatic
terms: “to maintain some sort of a balance in nature in the face of the
increasing numbers of men who have desires as well as needs is the
business of conservation”. Jordan (1 968) also defines ecological conserva-
GERALD L. YOUNG
level-of-integration, functionalism, and so on. All must be of consideration in the planning process because that process is the realization of the
integration of the concepts of human ecology. Planning is the process of
creating communities and environments for human beings (cf. Kligman,
1945; Dewey, 1966). It is applied human ecology.
5. Conservation as applied human ecology
For the purposes of this paper, I am assuming a standard definition of
conservation as “the wise use of natural resources” so that I may
include resource management under the general rubric of conservation
as applied human ecology.
This is a bit of a departure from tradition. Conservation has generally
been defined in economic terms in this country: a resource is not a
resource until it pays commercially to develop it-the “gospel of
efficiency” as described by Hays (1959), the emphasis on “expected
physical scarcity” (Raup, 1964). This does not mean that ecology has
not been a major consideration in resource management or in conservation. The two have been intertwined since both their origins toward the
end of the last century. Such early involvement, however, did not change
the basic emphasis: it is only recently that conservation has begun to be
de.ned in ecological terms, that comments have begun to appear in print
on the aptness of an ecological approach to conservation (cf. Raup, 1964;
Darling, 1964, 1967; Allen, 1967; Jordan, 1968). And it is only very
recently that textbooks and readers have begun to follow the same
trend, note the recent offerings of Dasmann (1968), Cox (1969) and
Owen (1971). The only surprise is that such a trend should have been so
slow in coming, especially with such established classics as Marsh’s
(1864) and Leopold’s (1933, 1949) to provide precedent and impetus.
Darling (1964) defhed conservation as “quite definitely the applied
science of ecology, ecology in action”, and again (1967) “conservation
has been applied ecology or ecology in action”, though he qualified his
second claim by describing the ecologist as “nervous in the company of
the devotee of conservation”. Still, “our greatest ecologists are in the
front ranks of the Conservation Movement”. If this is acceptable, it is a
short step (if any at all) to a definition of conservation as applied human
ecology: trying to conserve and maintain environments to keep man in
touch with nature and to use wisely those environmental resources on
which his sustenance and well-being depend.
Others beside Darling have promoted an ecological definition of
conservation. Allen (1967) presents a very simple one in homeostatic
terms: “to maintain some sort of a balance in nature in the face of the
increasing numbers of men who have desires as well as needs is the
business of conservation”. Jordan (1 968) also defines ecological conserva-