Some Solutions

As it was discussed in my previous post, what we perceive nature to be is subjective, dependent on the environment we grew up in. However, no matter where we are raised, our perception of nature is always separate from where we live.

So what are some possible solutions to this and can visiting National Parks help us bridge the divide between nature and civilization allowing us to live more environmentally sustainable lifestyles?

Haluza-Delay, while revealing that visitors had a greater tendency to feel the distinction between nature and civilization in the wilderness, also suggested that this problem can be mitigated with an effective interpretation program. Interpretation programs have already been found to effective in promoting environmental education and fostering pro-environmental behavior. What else needs to be implemented within these programs is to clearly point out the interconnectedness among humans, nature, and the local environment. They need to facilitate the transfer of learning to the home and help visitors become aware of nature, so that they can identify it within their own neighborhood. By teaching individuals to look at the small wonders instead of just the spectacular pristine scenes of nature at National Parks, we increase the possibility for visitors to feel the same emotions they felt at National Parks when they are at home and see nature. This will facilitate pro-environmental behaviors at home as well, break down the nature-civilization divide, and promote environmental conservation in society.

Not only that but Halpenny and Brooks in my previous posts revealed that pro-environmental behaviors have been fostered at home through the place-attachment formulated toward these parks. So, National Parks can aid in mending this division.

William Cronon also mentions solutions along these lines. He states that we need to understand that we are part of the natural world, that we are tied to the ecological systems that sustain us. He even suggests that while National Parks have the potential to propagate our belief of nature separated from civilization, we ought to continue to have them. Because, by recognizing and honoring the undisturbed natural lands, we can be reminded that our interests don't always align with nature's interests. National Parks show us what nature's interests are and from there, we can establish a balance between the two and develop a sustainable community within nature.

Another interesting concept that I think could bridge our separation from nature is to incorporate it into our society. By that, I mean that we could incorporate nature into our calculation of our societal well-being, similarly to Bhutan and its Gross National Happiness.

Now, what in the world is a "Gross National Happiness"?

It's similar to Gross Domestic Product, which measures our nation's well-being and happiness by measuring the amount of money we make as a country. GDP has been used to measure our happiness insofar as, we, as a society, tend to equate money with happiness. But we all know that money does NOT equate to happiness. Research after research shows that to not be the case. Thus, Gross National Happiness (GNH) includes other factors to determine a nation's well-being and their citizens overall happiness. Factors included in their GNH are: Economic self-reliance, a pristine environment, the preservation and promotion of national culture, and good governance in the form of a democracy.

Here a brief yet engaging history of GNH courtesy of the SimpleShow.

By incorporating environmental conservation into the calculation of their nation's well being, Bhutan has been able to economically develop all the while increasing the amount of forest cover within their country. Usually, economic development degrades the environment through measures such as road building, but not for Bhutan. They have been able to find a good balance between the 4 pillars of GNH to increase the well-being of their country and to live interconnected to their natural ecosystem.

This may sound like something crazy only a small rural country, such as Bhutan, could ever pull off. And it may not seem like a probable solution, given our current economic and political situation. Yet, there's no need to be a pessimist. Many developed nations such as the UK, France, and Germany are using Bhutan's model of measuring well-being to redefine their model. Britain and Canada have already made progress by developing and using a new model to calculate their nation's well-being including mental illness, environmental quality, crime rates, and civility.

Although the United States has yet to invest in a new model, there is a growing movement toward that direction. Vermont hosted the 1st US Gross National Happiness Conference in June 2010 to address the need for the US to include other happiness indicators besides income to measure the nation's well-being. And in 2011, the city of Seattle initiated this new model in their calculation of their citizens well-being. Thus, there is hope that one day, hopefully sooner than later, we will as a whole nation use this new method to measure our nation's health.

Ergo, if we change what defines our society, our GDP, to include nature and incorporate it into the measurement of our nation's well-being, then the nature-civilization dichotomy will no longer exist as the very definition of our civilization will include nature. And National Parks will encourage this shift as they provide us with positive experiences and allows us value nature more highly. In doing so, it allows us to understand the importance of nature's well-being in our overall well-being and happiness that we are more likely to include it in our well-being index when we do begin to shift to a more accurate one. So, we ought to value these National Parks and we ought to continue to support them by visiting them because they promote environmental sustainability not only within the parks, but in our daily lives as well.