Reading January 2020 Academic passage 1

READING PASSGE 1

You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 1 – 13, which are based on Reading Passage 1
below.

World Views on Building With Nature

There are 5 different views on Building with Nature. The 5 views differ in regard to their acceptance of human
intervention in natural systems, from the Hands-off view which rejects human intervention to the Functional view
which indulges in all possible forms of intervention. The Classical ecological view, the Developmental view and the
Co-evolutionary view fall in between. The Hands-off, Classical and Developmental views can be regarded as eco-
centric, whereas the Co-evolutionary and Functional views are anthropocentric.

Type 1: Hands-off View

People with a Hands-off view on nature value naturalness – the extent to which nature is free from human
interventions. In this view, human intervention is believed to always reduce the naturalness of an ecosystem. So,
the best way to conserve nature is not to interfere, but rather to rely on the natural restoration capacity of
ecosystems. Any form of maintenance or intervention, even those activities aimed at stimulating natural
processes, are in conflict with naturalness. Underlying this thinking is the belief that humans are not part of
nature, but that they have a moral responsibility to behave as partners on the basis of intrinsic equality.

Examples of the Hands-off approach are hard to find in practice. Generally speaking, nature conservation
organisations consider biodiversity and rare species more important than naturalness and they often resort to
interventions aimed at protecting species rather than allowing nature to take its course.

Type 2: Classical View

People with a Classical ecological view strive to conserve and restore existing natural areas in accordance with an
historical reference situation. Whether human intervention are incorporated or not, is not an issue. What matters
is to protect (and isolate) existing nature (maintaining biodiversity, protecting rare species and unique landscapes)
from further harm. Active human intervention is considered necessary since nature cannot defend itself against
the threats from society. In this view, humans should act as stewards of the environment, and naturalness is a
subordinate issue.

This view represents a reactive and defensive stance against economic activities that harm nature. Examples of
the Classical ecological approach are found in the work of non-governmental nature conservation organisations,
who may purchase and manage natural and cultural sites to protect them from destruction.

Type 3: Developmental View

In the Development view, both the protection of existing natural areas and the development of new natural sites
are the main objectives. Sustainability cannot be realised simply by keeping one’s hands off nature or by
protective interventions, but it also requires the development of new natural sites. Core issues are the desire to
enhance naturalness and wilderness, to give space to natural processes, to enhance the systems’ diversity rather
than only to conserve rare species. Whether it is by reducing maintenance, removing previous interventions e.g.
barrages across a river, or by creating favourable physical conditions for biota, all the interventions are aimed at
enhancing naturalness. The development of ecological networks, which help to enhance the natural resilience of
Reading January 2020 Academic passage 1

ecosystems, is encouraged. Basically, interventions are driven by the desire to provide more space for nature
rather than by the wish to realise utility for society. Humans are expected to act as partners for nature.

In this view, increasing the quantity and quality of nature requires ecological networks and opportunities for
natural processes in addition to protection and isolation. An example of the Development view is the Dutch
national ecological infrastructure – a connected network of nature areas with target types of nature specified per
geographical region in terms of both naturalness and species diversity.

Type 4: Co-evolutionary View

For people with a Co-evolutionary view, the primary objective is to maximize the social welfare derived from
nature, while maintaining ecological qualities. This welfare can be derived both through direct use (resource
extraction) or indirect use (regulatory mechanisms), as well as through non-use (social preferences attached to
nature’s existence). In nature areas, user functions which do not seriously damage the natural system are
allowed, such as recreation and sustainable forms of harvesting. Although naturalness is considered desirable, it is
not considered to exclude human activities, as humans are viewed as part of nature. A balanced interaction
between nature and society is advocated. Humans should act as the partners of nature, or at the least act as
stewards. Both society and nature are allowed to change and to inflict change upon each other, as long as neither
suffers serious damage, nor threats to their existence.

In the Co-evolutionary view, the separation of ecology and economy is neither favourable to nature nor to
society, since the two are interdependent. Opposition to this interdependence is seen as unrealistic. Examples of
the Co-evolutionary view are nature reserves in which recreation is allowed. Another recent example of the Co-
evolutionary view is the Dutch ‘Room for the River’ programme in which rivers receive more space so as to
accommodate high flood flows. Sacrificing land at suitable locations in this way is compensated by advantages
such as reduced flood risks and increased natural beauty which can be enjoyed by visitors. In this plan, a balanced
interaction between society and nature is advocated to generate mutual advantages.

Type 5: Functional view

People with a Functional view on nature, consider that nature’s value lies in the benefit that humans derive from
nature. In this view, people may act to control and build (or destroy) nature. The Functional view rests on a strong
belief in technological progress. Since naturalness is considered illusionary, humans may control and even
construct nature to meet societal needs with the help of ecologically-sound civil engineering. Although humans
can destroy nature through technology, people can also create favourable conditions for nature by means of
technology. Nature can be man-made and abiotic conditions do not pose restrictions since these can be adjusted
too.

In this view, as it has not yet been demonstrated unequivocally that critical thresholds have been encountered,
and society has survived so far, it is unclear whether such thresholds actually exist for humans. Examples of a
purely Functional view include companies which pollute the environment (e.g. river nearby) with the argument
that technology will be developed to clean up at a later date.

source: https://ocw.tudelft.nl/course-readings/1-4-1-world-views-bwn/?course_id=18513

Engineering: Building with Nature by TU Delft OpenCourseWare is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://ocw.tudelft.nl/courses/engineering-building-nature/.
Reading January 2020 Academic passage 1

Questions 1 – 8
Complete the table below.

Choose ONE WORD ONLY from the passage for each answer.

Write your answers in the spaces given beside each question, 1 -8.

BUILDING WITH NATURE

APPROACH DEFINITION EXAMPLE
• To not interfere with ecosystems • Hard to find
Hands off
to restore themselves. • conservation organisations tend to
• Humans not seen as part of nature intervene in natural processes
but 1 …………………..
• Conserve and restore to previous • NGO’s that purchase and manage
state natural sites to maintain eco
Classical
• Protect from further harm systems
• human 2. ………………… is necessary
• Protect present areas but also • 4. …………………….. national
develop new natural sites ecological infrastructure
Developmental • Interventions all aimed at
increasing 3. ………………………. and
wilds
• Humans partners for nature
• maximize the social welfare • Nature parks where
derived from nature, while 6. ………………… is permitted
maintaining ecological qualities • Dutch ‘Room for the River’
Co-evolutionary • does not exclude non-harmful programme
human activities
• humans seen as 5 …………… of
nature
• nature’s value lies in the benefit • Companies that 8 ………………… the
that humans derive from nature environment arguing that
• belief that 7 ………………… technology will be developed to
Functional progress is beneficial clean it at a later date
• people may control, build or
destroy nature to meet societal
needs.
Reading January 2020 Academic passage 1

Questions 9 – 13
Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 1?

Beside each question, 9 – 13, write

TRUE if the statement agrees with the information

FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

9. There are many examples of a hands off type of approach.

10. The issue of human intervention is important in all approaches.

11. The sustain the natural environment takes both development and protection.

12. Non-governmental organisations prefer the Classical view

13. The Dutch have set up environmental programs aimed at preserving ecosystems