Weeks in Hell, for students and nature:

As students at Duke, we are often blissfully unaware of the consequences our behavior has on the environment. Our food appears before us with no explanation as to its origin, our water source seems infinite, and our trash is collected and removed without our ever even seeing so much as a garbage truck. We may not see the farms that grow our food, or the fertilizers or pesticides used every day that run off into streams. We may not give any thought to the reservoirs that provide us with our water, nor may we feel the effects of water shortage in the midst of draught. We almost certainly do not see the mountains of garbage that we generate or the ways in which it chokes the environment. Most of us do not even truly experience natural ecosystems in our surroundings, since so many of the student body rarely leave the pedicured lawns that make up the Duke community and gardens.

This is not to say that Duke students are ignorant of environmental issues, but a lack of exposure often prevents these issues from being forced on our minds. It is only when we choose to live outside that we can see our impact on nature. Through tenting in Krzyzewskiville, we congregate outside for long enough and in great enough numbers for the effects we have on the land to become visible. Though it does not reflect the most damaging forms of human-environmental interaction, it does help illustrate the consequences daily life and human expansion on our natural surroundings. Human habitation, it turns out, has impacts on local environments greater than one might expect.

A profound, though not always obvious, sign of environmental degradation is a decline in the biodiversity, or number of species present, in a given area. Recent studies have established a definite correlation between human population densities and the local extinctions. One such study conducted by Ken Thompson of the University of Sheffield and Allan Jones of the University of Plymouth (1999) shows this correlation by analyzing local extinctions of plants characterized as “relatively uncommon but not actually rare.” These plants would not be protected or closely monitored (though monitored without the immediate intent of conservation efforts) by government agencies, but would show noticeable changes in population on a local scale. Using Great Britain’s extensive records of catalogued plants dating from the late 19^th Century, Thompson and Jones found that the decline in plant species in most counties within Britain closely correlated to the population density. According to the study’s findings, the more rural the region, the higher the likelihood that scarce plant specimens did not suffer a great decline. On the other hand, densely populated and urbanized regions suffered the greatest decline in those species. Long-term human habitation and land use, these studies reveal, are extremely detrimental to species unable to adapt to human-imposed conditions (Jones & Thompson 1999).

The trend of species reduction in heavily populated areas is concerning enough, but the threat to the biodiversity of the planet as a whole is heightened by the fact that a large percentage of the earth’s population live in areas particularly sensitive to species extinctions. A recent study conducted by Richard Cincotta, Jennifer Wisnewski and Robert Engelman (2000) established this correlation in areas where a large number of threatened or endangered species reside. Termed “biodiversity hotspots,” these areas are high in declining species and contain less than 30% of the original vegetation. These regions constitute about 12% of the earth’s land area and are home to over a billion people worldwide. The human populations of the “hotspots” are denser than the world’s average population density, and are growing faster than the world population as a whole. In these regions especially, human habitation is and will continue to cause species declines and extinctions if growth and human expansion continues on its present trend (Cincotta, Engelman & Wisnewski 2000).

Here at Duke we do not face threats to biodiversity to the extent that other parts of the world do, but the fact remains that everything we do, down to the last tent we set up in K‑ville, influences the environment in some way. Just look at what used to be the grassy Krzyzewskiville plaza the next time you walk to Wilson; the remaining open ground has turned into a mud slick simply from our walking on the grass every day. That grass will be re-sewn once all of our tents are packed up and moved away, but the rest of the world doesn’t have the luxury of an attentive grounds staff to fix the messes that we make of nature.

References

Cincotta, L. R. P., Engelman, R. & Wisnewski, J. (2000). Human population in the biodiversity hotspots [Electronic version]. Nature, 404, 990 - 992. Retrieved January 24, 2003 from http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v404/n6781/full/404990a0_fs.html.

Jones, A. & Thompson, K. (1999). Human Population Density and the Prediction of Local Plant Extinction in Britain [Electronic version]. Conservation Biology, 13, 185. Retrieved January 24, 2003 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97353.x.