For many years I (and others) have been calling on the various authorities, decision makers, site managers and nature conservationists to develop systems to limit visitors according to the carrying capacity of each reserve. Now the thing is done

Anyone who reads environmental articles in recent weeks will see that all the writers are united in the opinion that "the virus is good for the environment". Pollutant emissions in general and greenhouse gases in particular in the entire world have decreased by dozens of percent, birds and mammals have taken advantage of the quiet streets (which used to be forests) and roamed them as if they were their home again. The water in the canals of Venice is clean and fish swim in it, here we have goats wandering near the shore and deer grazing peacefully.
Elsewhere I wrote that despite the sorrow for people's lives, the virus has positive effects. A decrease in emissions, a decrease in economic activity will moderate the madness of globalization. Fear of eating wild animals will moderate the damage to the variety of species and the environment. In other words: The corona epidemic is good for the natural environment.
Due to the understanding of the positive changes, the authors call for the utilization of the data accumulated during the epidemic to implement environmental behavior. It is necessary to investigate the positive changes and their implementation further down the road even after the virus is no longer a danger.
It is not just about a decrease in pollutant emissions. If until today there were those who thought that it was possible to live in a world without a natural environment, then as soon as the closure was opened and people "broke" out, it became clear to even the skeptics how strong we are to nature, how strong the human need to see and feel a green field, a blue sea and even a yellowing desert. This need and becoming also made skeptics understand how much the human being is a part of nature.
One of the positive changes to the natural environment that is already emerging, which seems likely to remain for a long time, is "social distancing", the need to maintain a distance between people to prevent infection and spread of the virus. Social distance means the spacing of the density that until today has been one of the most prominent signs of the behavior of human society. Social distancing means that when going out into the open spaces, those going out will have to maintain a "healthy margin". The desired result will be less crowding on the beaches, fewer people in the forests, fewer visitors to the nature reserves, less trampling on the desert paths and the northern streams, less noise and less disturbance in the spaces that still remain natural, and that's a good thing.
For many years I (and others) have been calling on the various authorities, decision makers, site managers and conservationists to develop systems to limit visitors according to carrying capacity. Systems that will test the carrying capacity of reserves, forests, beaches and any place or site that receives visitors. There is no doubt that the fewer the visitors, the less the damage will be, but there is also no doubt about the social human need to go out into nature. Therefore, once carrying capacity has been determined, the application will always be a compromise between the desire and need to visit and the damage caused to the site, which will allow a visit while causing minimal damage. The compromise will dictate the management of the number of visitors to the site.
Despite the vital need to manage sites according to carrying capacity, and despite repeated requests and demands to limit the entry of travelers to the reserves and to limit the number of people on the beaches or the number of people walking on the trails, nothing has been done, and the only limitation on the number of visitors and those staying is the capacity of the parking lots.
In many cases, website management is measured by the number of cash register rings. In other words, until today there was almost no consideration of the carrying capacity of sites and the only determining measure was money.
Now the situation is changing, as the number of visitors will be limited in accordance with the size of the controlled area, no longer the capacity of the parking lots but the possibility for a person to visit the site while maintaining "social distance", no more overcrowding on the beaches, no more trampling on paths in the desert, no more dense and noisy crowds in the forests and nature reserves , the "social distancing" will replace the carrying capacity, the need and the guideline for "social distancing" that will be implemented, will replace the need for carrying capacity surveys, and therefore – Thanks to the virus.
7 תגובות
I am also a nature lover, but in order to create environmental awareness for people, people need to be allowed to come and see the reserves. If you separate the public and the reserves by reducing the amount of people, the long-term result of the public's indifference will be in our hands. Our salary went out at our loss.
The people who visit the reserve are not so burdensome if the trash is collected and the people stay on the path. The state should encourage a transition to renewable energies, electric vehicles and reducing light pollution. Planning ecological corridors and building them for comfortable trains and at the same time allowing free access to nature so that people will enjoy it and want to preserve it
It's a shame that you were a bit hasty in drawing conclusions. The article that was broadcast on TV about the nauseating pollution of Nahal Alexander and others from the blood and feather waste of falcons flowing through the PA's territories, would have made you vomit in front of the screen at home.
An infection that will take a long time to deal with. It will take much longer to deal with the opaque bureaucracy in charge of the issue and basically do nothing except release baseless statements.
another matter,,,
Limiting the number of students in the class - it's unbelievable how effective and good it is for everyone, the child waits at the door in the morning just to go to school... We the parents should strike for this!
Hail and it was possible to realize the motto you posted above.
Undoubtedly, Corona time showed exactly what it is like when the hand of man and not only nature lives its life.
However, within our people we live, and unfortunately human nature will very quickly return to destroying the nature of the environment, unless there is someone who will take care of maintaining the motto...
The corona has been good for nature.
I propose to continue limiting the number of visitors to the nature reserves.
This will avoid human congestion and it will be more pleasant to travel
Unfortunately you are delusional. The situation will return to normal faster than you think. I highly recommend watching Michael Moore's new movie on YouTube. The only solution to the situation is to switch to 'safe' nuclear energy as much as possible. Specifically for Israel, a very dense country, a combination of limiting the birth rate/population and/or increasing the living space is needed... all of the above should not exceed the difference between the lips of the beautiful of the soul (don't take it personally)
In the heat of writing, I omitted the "motto"
That is why it is added here, it is appropriate that: instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.