7 ms·

I can appreciate that the term "disturbed" has a negative implied bias, but I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should

I can appreciate that the term "disturbed" has a negative implied bias, but I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption. The terminology later used is "loss of resources" but by definition a resource is "something that is available for use or that can be used". https://www.wordnik.com/words/resource https://www.wordnik.com/words/resource

Retric 3y ago
Many resources go away when you extract them. A forest has wood, an empty field that used to be a forest doesn’t. Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.
- danboarder 3y ago
  Interestingly, terms used by developers and builders tend to have a positive bias, for example when roads and buildings are also referred to as resources and "improvements to the land". I am fascinated by how different contexts and mental lenses or framing can bias the perspective on a thing like a road or building or other "disturbance".
  - boringg 3y ago
    Maybe human disturbance would help you frame it better?
    - starbase 3y ago
      Or if you view humans as part of nature: human contribution
    - danboarder 3y ago
      In the article a point is made that not all "disturbance" is of human origin, referencing natural storms and floods as examples. To consider another perspective, if one's preferred aesthetic is grassland plains, than the natural emergence of trees might be considered a disturbance. In common lexicon, the term disturbed is also used in reference to a 'disturbed person', as in a mentally disturbed person -- generally also a negative or undesirable status, so in that context I would agree these negative or positive predispositions tend to be psychological phenomenon driven by conscious or unconscious perspectives.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- nine_k 3y ago
  That's a fun example. Both forests and fields are known for being.highly renewable resources. With a right cutting and seeding policy, a forest can keep giving wood for ventures, and likely indefinitely. A field can keep bringing yields for a very long tome, too, given correct fallowing and rotation of crops. Mineral resources, such as ore deposits, are very unlike that.
  - KineticLensman 3y ago
    Primary unfarmed biodiverse forests are not easy to recreate.
vineyardmike 3y ago
> I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption What do you mean? In this context "disturbed" means "not as it was found". Harvesting trees and mining rocks is self-evidently a disturbance over the natural environment as it was found by people. > Trees were cut... Rocks were gathered or quarried... Small mining operations were started. Plants and animals were harvested... In a few situations, stream channels were dammed and water diversion structures were installed. I don't think the dictionary lookup of "resource" is helpful here. I think the idea of a "Natural Resource" in the context of a park is pretty specific - especially considering the remaining context (eg. the deforestation, mining) and juxtaposing it with "cultural resource". The "natural resources" of the national park is the trees, rocks, dirt, land etc that compose the park - the very thing being protected. The natural habitats for plants and animals that may not thrive in developed human environments. The park is conservation land and the "original" or "undisturbed" land (and everything on it) is the resource. I think the whole framing that the authors (who are the NPS presumably) need to justify the "assumptions" is a super odd position, considering the language used in the article is pretty commonplace contextually.

Retric 3y ago

Many resources go away when you extract them. A forest has wood, an empty field that used to be a forest doesn’t. Disturbed land can still be valuable, but it’s much faster to turn a forest into a field than the reverse.

danboarder 3y ago
Interestingly, terms used by developers and builders tend to have a positive bias, for example when roads and buildings are also referred to as resources and "improvements to the land". I am fascinated by how different contexts and mental lenses or framing can bias the perspective on a thing like a road or building or other "disturbance".
- boringg 3y ago
  Maybe human disturbance would help you frame it better?
  - starbase 3y ago
    Or if you view humans as part of nature: human contribution
  - danboarder 3y ago
    In the article a point is made that not all "disturbance" is of human origin, referencing natural storms and floods as examples. To consider another perspective, if one's preferred aesthetic is grassland plains, than the natural emergence of trees might be considered a disturbance. In common lexicon, the term disturbed is also used in reference to a 'disturbed person', as in a mentally disturbed person -- generally also a negative or undesirable status, so in that context I would agree these negative or positive predispositions tend to be psychological phenomenon driven by conscious or unconscious perspectives.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
nine_k 3y ago
That's a fun example. Both forests and fields are known for being.highly renewable resources. With a right cutting and seeding policy, a forest can keep giving wood for ventures, and likely indefinitely. A field can keep bringing yields for a very long tome, too, given correct fallowing and rotation of crops. Mineral resources, such as ore deposits, are very unlike that.
- KineticLensman 3y ago
  Primary unfarmed biodiverse forests are not easy to recreate.

vineyardmike 3y ago

> I wish the author would provide the foundational basis upon which the reader should believe or accept this assumption What do you mean? In this context "disturbed" means "not as it was found". Harvesting trees and mining rocks is self-evidently a disturbance over the natural environment as it was found by people. > Trees were cut... Rocks were gathered or quarried... Small mining operations were started. Plants and animals were harvested... In a few situations, stream channels were dammed and water diversion structures were installed. I don't think the dictionary lookup of "resource" is helpful here. I think the idea of a "Natural Resource" in the context of a park is pretty specific - especially considering the remaining context (eg. the deforestation, mining) and juxtaposing it with "cultural resource". The "natural resources" of the national park is the trees, rocks, dirt, land etc that compose the park - the very thing being protected. The natural habitats for plants and animals that may not thrive in developed human environments. The park is conservation land and the "original" or "undisturbed" land (and everything on it) is the resource. I think the whole framing that the authors (who are the NPS presumably) need to justify the "assumptions" is a super odd position, considering the language used in the article is pretty commonplace contextually.