Olden The Human Dimensions Of Biotic Homogenization

The Human Dimensions of Biotic Homogenization JULIAN D. OLDEN,∗ MICHAEL E. DOUGLAS,† AND MARLIS R. DOUGLAS† ∗

Center for Limnology, 680 Park Street North, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A., email [email protected] †Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, U.S.A.

Considerable reshuffling of biotas has occurred in recent decades, largely through the gradual replacement of once spatially distinct, native communities with locally expanding and cosmopolitan, non-native ones, in a process coined biotic homogenization (McKinney & Lockwood 1999; Rahel 2000; Olden & Poff 2003; Rooney et al. 2004). Implications of biotic homogenization surfaced recently within the context of discussions about the ecological and evolutionary consequences for animal life (Olden et al. 2004); the manner in which social aspects of human life may also be affected, however, is an issue that has yet to be contemplated. Here, we argue that the social repercussions resonating in the wake of biotic homogenization must not be ignored and consider the idea that the increasingly global uniformity in biological life may be linked to the loss of traditional values and quality of life and have considerable consequences for conservation-oriented advocacy and ecotourism. We draw strong parallels and linkages between biotic homogenization and a more-acknowledged process of cultural homogenization from the social sciences and discuss how this relationship offers a useful analogy for conveying to the public and policy makers the social implications of biotic homogenization. From a purely ethical perspective, one could argue that biotic homogenization will degrade the quality of human life by imbuing biological communities with an aesthetically unappealing uniformity. Biological diversity, and its endemic features, contribute to a person’s attachment to a particular place, become part of a person’s identity, and therefore support an individual’s psychological wellbeing and a community’s identity and image of itself (Horwitz et al. 2001). This so-called sense of place, which links issues of individual and community identity, or who we are, to issues of place, or where we are, is directly threatened by biotic homogenization as endemic elements of the landscape that typify geographic regions and cultures

are slowly replaced by ubiquitous elements ( yet this same attachment compels the introduction of exotic animals and plants to make places “more like home,” thus contributing to biotic homogenization). Since the musings of Dewey (1925), a long tradition of research has revealed that our experiences regarding where we currently live, have resided in the past, or have visited color the way we view and communicate about the environment and embrace conservation-oriented practices. Experiences in a highly homogenized environment will undoubtedly reinforce a different lens though which we view the natural world. This in turn may challenge the sense-of-place construct as a foundation in environmental awareness and compromise its emerging role in policy making and landscape planning (Hillier 1999; Cantrill & Senecah 2001). We must also recognize the economic repercussions of biotic homogenization. Tourism is now the world’s largest industry, generating nearly 200 million jobs, or some 10% of global jobs (WTO 2003). The International Ecotourism Society (TIES 2000) estimates that nature-related tourism (Stronza 2001) accounts for approximately one-fifth of total international travel. Although we recognize the potential problems associated with ecotourism (e.g., Kiss 2004), we also argue that its sustainable benefits hinge on the fact that people will gladly travel long distances to visit areas of great natural beauty and diversity ( Whelan 1991). Thus one might expect biotic homogenization to compromise this industry because the public will have less incentive to visit areas similar to those in closer proximity. To paraphrase James Kunstler from his book entitled The Geography of Nowhere (1993), if every place is the same, why go anywhere? Indeed, greater biological homogeneity will influence not only how we view the world but also our motivation to experience it. MacCannel (1976) evaluated the “ethnography of modern society” and concluded that tourists searched for genuine and personal experiences through travel so as to counter

Paper submitted February 3, 2005; revised manuscript accepted April 28, 2005.

2036 Conservation Biology 2036–2038  C 2005 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00288.x

Olden et al.

the superficiality and alienation that reverberate through modern society. Therefore, one might expect a greater need for genuine experiences to increase in response to accelerating biotic and cultural homogenization (Crosby 1994) that intensifies feelings of superficiality and alienation in society. The United States is a case study for this cultural deterioration in that regional suburbanization is rapidly transforming rural America and threatening the uniqueness of small towns whose diversity is a national resource (Salamon 2003). Yet, American society also enjoys the convenience of big-box retailers a short distance from home just as die-hard anglers appreciate ubiquitous rainbow trout in their local streams. These conveniences, however, are only local and short term. For example, the presence of Wal-Mart stores (5245 locations worldwide) is not the economic boon to local economies that many would predict or want; rather, it has been linked to elevated family poverty rates across the United States (Goetz & Swaminathan 2004). This phenomenon offers conservation biologists a useful compass for our dialog, in that public outcries over the rapid spread of big-box retailers at the expense of regionally endemic, mom-and-pop businesses (Vias 2004) are similar to concerns expressed by scientists about homogenization of regional faunas. By exploring parallels and linkages between cultural homogenization and biotic homogenization, conservation biologists can attract the attention of politicians and the public, groups that are sensitive to economic indicators and the erosion of “family values.” In this vein, one could argue that homogenization of the culinary landscape has contributed to greater demands for genetically modified (and thus more prolific) crops. This in turn has greatly diminished the number of indigenous crop varieties and shifted farming toward monocultures while increasing reliance on large agribusinesses rather than small farms (Avise 2003). In this example, linkages and perhaps even positive feedbacks between cultural homogenization and biotic homogenization are evident. Amusingly, Robert Blair (2004) provides a visualization of this linkage by pointing out that “ . . . it is not a serendipitous circumstance that House Sparrows can be found begging for French fries outside McDonald’s restaurants anywhere in the world.” Sparked by loss of biotic novelty and promotion of regularity, conservation biologists must recognize the urgency of educating policy makers and the public about the homogenization process. Some might suggest that species diversity and the implications of its loss are slowly becoming familiar to the lay public, but we argue that the complexities of these issues are changing with a rapidity that outstrips public awareness. For example, human activities have led to decreased global species diversity, an aspect that indeed most can relate to. But at regional and local scales, establishment of exotics often outweighs loss of native species such that species diversity is actually

Biotic Homogenization

2037

elevated (Sax & Gaines 2003). To the uninitiated, such patterns are seemingly counterintuitive and could well undermine efforts to battle invasive species and sustain true biological diversity. For these reasons, conservation biologists must stress to the popular media the various components of biodiversity, including those complex and global socioeconomic hardships posed by its homogenization (Putz 1998). Attitudes will surely differ concerning the social and economic implications of biotic homogenization, just as they do over many conservation issues. One fact is clear, however: Biotic homogenization elicits serious concern among conservationists as a major threat to regional individuality. Interestingly, urban centers are focal areas of biotic homogenization (e.g., Blair 2004), yet they are inhabited by those who place the highest value on species conservation (Kellert 1996). Ecological awareness in urban planning and the active conservation of open spaces, therefore, may provide the best opportunity for slowing homogenization. Arguments for use of a broader “ecological” approach to urban planning have existed for some time (Geddes 1915) but have become amplified recently. The American Planning Association has developed a variety of programs in recent years to support smart-growth initiatives (www.planning.org), and the emerging field of reconciliation ecology (sensu Rosenzweig 2003) details how best to modify and diversify anthropogenic habitats to harbor a wider variety of native species while still benefiting humans. An example is the traditional American lawn—well-kept, cropped, malleable, and free of dandelions and other insidious intruders. It has been reshaped over past decades (Bormann et al. 2001), in part because of national campaigns such as the Backyard Wildlife Habitat campaign sponsored by the U.S. National Wildlife Federation (www.nwf.org). Michael Huston (1994) states the case for biological heterogeneity eloquently: “Diversity would not be interesting if the level of diversity were the same everywhere.” We argue that it would be wise for conservation biologists to place biotic homogenization within a socioeconomic context and explore the concomitant loss of individuals’ and communities’ sense of place and quality of life. By so doing we gain the ear of policy makers and the lay public with regard to the considerable biological and social consequences of the approaching “Homogecene” and help ensure that the value of biodiversity will remain reflected in the fabric of our society.

Acknowledgments We thank L. Poff and D. Sax for discussions and J. Putz, J. Vander Zanden, C. Solomon, B. Roth, M. Diebel, P. Johnson, and the Vander Zanden laboratory for engaging conversation on the manuscript. Our thoughts are synopsized

Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005

2038

Biotic Homogenization

from a presentation by J.D.O. in the Invasive Species symposium at the second biennial meeting of the International Biogeography Society. J.D.O. was supported by The Nature Conservancy’s David H. Smith Post-doctoral Conservation Research Fellowship Program. Literature Cited Avise, J. C. 2003. The best and the worst of times for evolutionary biology. BioScience 53:247–255. Blair, R. B. 2004. The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple levels of biological organization. Ecology and Society 9, available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss5/art2/ (accessed June 2005). Bormann, F. H., D. Balmori, and G. T. Geballe. 2001. Redesigning the American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. 2nd edition. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Cantrill, J. G., and S. L. Senecah. 2001. Using the “sense of self-in-place” construct in the context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environmental Science and Policy 4:185–203. Crosby, A. W. 1994. The homogenization of the planetary biome. Pages 25–36 in C. K. Chapple, editor. Ecological prospects: scientific, religious, and aesthetic perspectives. State University of New York Press, Albany. Dewey, J. 1925. Experience and nature. Dover, New York. Geddes, P. 1915. Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town planning movement and to the study of cities. Williams and Norgate, London. Goetz, S. J., and H. Swaminathan. 2004. Wal-Mart and county-wide poverty. Staff paper 371. Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Available from http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/publications.htm (accessed June 2005). Hillier, J. 1999. Habitat’s habitus: nature as sense of place in landuse planning decision-making. Urban Policy and Research 17:191–204. Horwitz, P., M. Lindsay, and M. O’Connor. 2001. Biodiversity, endemism, sense of place, and public health: inter-relationships for Australian inland aquatic systems. Ecosystem Health 7:253–265. Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005

Olden et al.

Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Kiss, A. 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:232–237. Kunstler, J. H. 1993. The geography of nowhere. Simon and Schuster, New York. MacCannel, D. 1976. The tourist. 2nd edition. Schocken Press, New York. McKinney, M. L., and J. L. Lockwood. 1999. Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:450–453. Olden, J. D., and N. L. Poff. 2003. Toward a mechanistic understanding and prediction of biotic homogenization. The American Naturalist 162:442–460. Olden, J. D., N. L. Poff, M. R. Douglas, M. E. Douglas, and K. D. Fausch. 2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homogenization. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:18–24. Putz, F. E. 1998. Halt the homogeocene: a frightening future filled with too few species. The Palmetto 18:7–10. Rahel, F. J. 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States. Science 288:854–856. Rooney, T. P., S. M. Wiegmann, D. A. Rogers, and D. M. Waller. 2004. Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest understory communities. Conservation Biology 18:787–798. Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Win-win ecology: how Earth’s species can survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press, New York. Salamon, S. 2003. From hometown to nontown: rural community effects of suburbanization. Rural Sociology 68:1–24. Sax, D. F., and S. D. Gaines. 2003. Species diversity: from global decreases to local increases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:561–566. Stronza, A. 2001. Anthropology of tourism: forging new ground for ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:261–283. TIES (The International Ecotourism Society). 2000. Ecotourism statistical fact sheet. TIES, North Bennington, Vermont. Available from http://www.ecotourism.org (accessed June 2005). Vias, A. C. 2004. Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores: paths of retail restructuring in rural America. Journal of Rural Studies 20:303–318. WTO ( World Tourism Organization). 2003. Tourism highlights 2003. WTO Press, Madrid. Available from http://www.world-tourism.org (accessed June 2005). Whelan, T., editor. 1991. Nature tourism: managing for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.