What do you think?
Rate this book
Win-Win Ecology: How the Earth's Species Can Survive in the Midst of Human Enterprise
As humanity presses down inexorably on the natural world, people debate the extent to which we can save the Earth's millions of different species without sacrificing human economic welfare. But is this argument wise? Must the human and natural worlds be adversaries?
In this book, ecologist Michael Rosenzweig finds that ecological science actually rejects such polarization. Instead it suggests that, to be successful, conservation must discover how we can blend a rich natural world into the world of economic activity. This revolutionary, common ground between development and conservation is called reconciliation creating and maintaining species-friendly habitats in the very places where people live, work, or play.
The book offers many inspiring examples of the good results already achieved. The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has a cooperative agreement with the Department of Defense, with more than 200 conservation projects taking place on more than 170 bases in 41 states. In places such as Elgin Air Force Base, the human uses-testing munitions, profitable timbering and recreation--continue, but populations of several threatened species on the base, such as the long-leaf pine and the red-cockaded woodpecker, have been greatly improved. The Safe Harbor strategy of the Fish & Wildlife Service encourages private landowners to improve their property for endangered species, thus overcoming the unintended negative aspects of the Endangered Species Act. And Golden Gate Park, which began as a system of sand dunes, has become, through human effort, a world of ponds and shrubs, waterfowl and trees.
Rosenzweig shows that reconciliation ecology is the missing tool of conservation, the practical, scientifically based approach that, when added to the rest, will solve the problem of preserving Earth's species.
In this book, ecologist Michael Rosenzweig finds that ecological science actually rejects such polarization. Instead it suggests that, to be successful, conservation must discover how we can blend a rich natural world into the world of economic activity. This revolutionary, common ground between development and conservation is called reconciliation creating and maintaining species-friendly habitats in the very places where people live, work, or play.
The book offers many inspiring examples of the good results already achieved. The Nature Conservancy, for instance, has a cooperative agreement with the Department of Defense, with more than 200 conservation projects taking place on more than 170 bases in 41 states. In places such as Elgin Air Force Base, the human uses-testing munitions, profitable timbering and recreation--continue, but populations of several threatened species on the base, such as the long-leaf pine and the red-cockaded woodpecker, have been greatly improved. The Safe Harbor strategy of the Fish & Wildlife Service encourages private landowners to improve their property for endangered species, thus overcoming the unintended negative aspects of the Endangered Species Act. And Golden Gate Park, which began as a system of sand dunes, has become, through human effort, a world of ponds and shrubs, waterfowl and trees.
Rosenzweig shows that reconciliation ecology is the missing tool of conservation, the practical, scientifically based approach that, when added to the rest, will solve the problem of preserving Earth's species.
224 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
2 people are currently reading
135 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
November 6, 2017
Jeez! I am still wondering who's the intended audience of that book...
There is no doubt that the core idea of a need for reconciliation ecology is important. Because urban ecology is part of my work, I am more than receptive to the idea: I implement it in some of the programs I work on.
It's possible that I just don't like the author's prose or style. But for me the book was a painful boring convoluted and self-gratifying monologue on a very important topic - An unstructured collection of important ecological facts mixed with very naive, personal (and therefore misleading) opinions.
Just read the wiki page about reconciliation ecology: the concept there is clearly presented and enough details are provided.
A note (and my opinion): While reading that book, and when browsing on the topics, I have 'read' more than often people jumping to the conclusion that Reconciliation ecology is a replacement for Reservation and Restoration ecologies. No! It is only one tools to help address the global biodiversity crisis we're in the midst of. We better understand that or like any other "R" ecology model embraced regardless of the other Rs, we'll do more harm than good.
There is no doubt that the core idea of a need for reconciliation ecology is important. Because urban ecology is part of my work, I am more than receptive to the idea: I implement it in some of the programs I work on.
It's possible that I just don't like the author's prose or style. But for me the book was a painful boring convoluted and self-gratifying monologue on a very important topic - An unstructured collection of important ecological facts mixed with very naive, personal (and therefore misleading) opinions.
Just read the wiki page about reconciliation ecology: the concept there is clearly presented and enough details are provided.
A note (and my opinion): While reading that book, and when browsing on the topics, I have 'read' more than often people jumping to the conclusion that Reconciliation ecology is a replacement for Reservation and Restoration ecologies. No! It is only one tools to help address the global biodiversity crisis we're in the midst of. We better understand that or like any other "R" ecology model embraced regardless of the other Rs, we'll do more harm than good.
August 13, 2017
I've now waited far too long to review this, and it's faded in my memory already. I found the author's overly gung-ho language a distraction, and it took me a while to get past it so I could take his message seriously. There were several examples of "reconciliation ecology" that I had not heard before, so I appreciated that aspect. He takes a long diversion into the mathematical modeling of relationships between space and biodiversity -- he eventually ties it back into the issues of human-wildlife coexistence, but it still felt out of place and drove me away for a while. There are a lot of good ideas and case studies in here, but I was still left somewhat unconvinced as to the overall feasibility of reconciliation ecology as a universally applicable approach as he pushes it.
December 15, 2018
The idea of reconciliation ecology is worth reading about and Rosenzweig provides several examples from across the world that I think are perhaps the best part of this book. I'm not a great fan of the writing style in some portions but overall a good introduction to a new way of thinking about conservation.
February 19, 2020
Nice little ecology book with lots of interesting anecdotes. A bit weird that the author doesn't support government intervention for environmental protection. It was also super weird how many crazy fonts were sprinkled in.
August 12, 2019
Lots of references to God and the Bible. Nice anecdotes and overall theme, though
October 21, 2014
Win-win Ecology is a sales pitch for Rosenzweig's pet Big Idea, “Reconciliation Ecology.” The problem is, I don't really feel like Rosenzweig ever even had the idea. The book reads like Rosenzweig was stuck in an airport with John Vandermeer and Ivette Perfecto and they gave him the layman's version of Nature's Matrix, he thought it was just so profound and stuff, and now he's telling his Aunt all about it. It is exaggeratedly folksy at times, and way, way oversells his assertion that reconciliation ecology techniques will pay for themselves, “a huge win-win.” There are a couple tepid examples of reconciliation in practice, found examples that Rosenzweig describes as “happy accidents” but which are usually explained by government legislation and tourist economics – things Rosenzweig seems to have little use for. Much of the book is occupied with his philosophical predilections – he dislikes government conceptually, believes “small is beautiful,” and really thinks that we should be better stewards of God's creation.
Who knows what the intended or average audience Rosenzweig had in mind for this book was, but it's hard to imagine anyone not coming away disappointed. The idea sometimes feels aimed at ecologists. But for them, it retreads broad theoretical ground and goes into exactly no detail on the novel aspects of his contribution. At other times, I thought Rosenzweig was shooting for policymakers, since the scale of national and regional regulations can achieve exactly what reconciliation ecology prescribes: small accommodations applied on large scales. Most of the time, though, it's clear Rosenzweig is speaking to “the folks back home,” and intends his solutions to apply to amateur backyard enthusiasts. These people will find little of use here either, however. Rosenzweig doesn't even do them the courtesy of recommending books of more practical advice, like Tallamy's Bringing Nature Home.
The best material in the book is where he lays out the species-area relationship and island biogeography. He frames the present mass extinction in a simple and intuitive relationship I'd never heard anyone use before, and it seems quite obvious in retrospect. We have reduced habitat on the planet to 5% of its original state, and since we know that species richness scales with size in a predictable relationship, we know that the number of species will eventually equilibrate to about 5% of what it is now. This is an elegant explanation and it is well done. Unfortunately, Rosenzweig surrounds this explanation with a lot of unnecessary platitudes and trite rhetoric about the value of nature and the spiritual duty we have to safeguard the Creation. There are books out there that make that case to the unconvinced. Win-win Ecology is supposed to be doing something else, but it never remembers to do it.
If you think you might want to read this, read Nature's Matrix instead. Vandermeer and Perfecto lay out the ecology of the idea in greater detail, and they bring in an impressive understanding of the social and economic forces that actually influence how people use their land. It's no coincidence that Rosenzweig references them several times in his book.
Who knows what the intended or average audience Rosenzweig had in mind for this book was, but it's hard to imagine anyone not coming away disappointed. The idea sometimes feels aimed at ecologists. But for them, it retreads broad theoretical ground and goes into exactly no detail on the novel aspects of his contribution. At other times, I thought Rosenzweig was shooting for policymakers, since the scale of national and regional regulations can achieve exactly what reconciliation ecology prescribes: small accommodations applied on large scales. Most of the time, though, it's clear Rosenzweig is speaking to “the folks back home,” and intends his solutions to apply to amateur backyard enthusiasts. These people will find little of use here either, however. Rosenzweig doesn't even do them the courtesy of recommending books of more practical advice, like Tallamy's Bringing Nature Home.
The best material in the book is where he lays out the species-area relationship and island biogeography. He frames the present mass extinction in a simple and intuitive relationship I'd never heard anyone use before, and it seems quite obvious in retrospect. We have reduced habitat on the planet to 5% of its original state, and since we know that species richness scales with size in a predictable relationship, we know that the number of species will eventually equilibrate to about 5% of what it is now. This is an elegant explanation and it is well done. Unfortunately, Rosenzweig surrounds this explanation with a lot of unnecessary platitudes and trite rhetoric about the value of nature and the spiritual duty we have to safeguard the Creation. There are books out there that make that case to the unconvinced. Win-win Ecology is supposed to be doing something else, but it never remembers to do it.
If you think you might want to read this, read Nature's Matrix instead. Vandermeer and Perfecto lay out the ecology of the idea in greater detail, and they bring in an impressive understanding of the social and economic forces that actually influence how people use their land. It's no coincidence that Rosenzweig references them several times in his book.
August 6, 2014
So,on the topic of the general catastrophic extinction event the earth is currently undergoing, Michael Rosenzweig has some thoughts. Those thoughts vary in their quality.
When you get to the middle-back of this book, there are some great chapters on species diversity. Apparently creating conservation preserves really can't significantly put a firm backstop in extinction, because species diversity depends on movement of populations. A lot of the diversity in any given spot isn't created by populations that thrive in that habitat - it's created by a mesh of specie populations that thrive in that habitat and others that thrive nearby and then continually send members to expand into what for them is pretty marginal territory. Cut off the nearby source, and the marginally habituated species in the conserved area will peter out. That might result in even the thriving species doing worse and worse.
So here's the fluffy part. Rosenzweig wants us, all of us, to maximize the diversity on the private, developed land - the 95% of land that isn't set aside in nature preserves. We need to find ways of incorporating greater biodiversity into our human lifestyle. He calls this reconciliation ecology. You will become familiar with this term due to the seventy or eighty times he uses it per chapter.
In general it sounds good. His examples about clubs planting flowers and growing choral around underwater restaurants will make you believe that this approach is so irredeemably scattershot and unlikely that the Earth is truly doomed.
Still, for those not inclined to despair, the strength of the idea doesn't really rise or fall on the quality of his examples.
When you get to the middle-back of this book, there are some great chapters on species diversity. Apparently creating conservation preserves really can't significantly put a firm backstop in extinction, because species diversity depends on movement of populations. A lot of the diversity in any given spot isn't created by populations that thrive in that habitat - it's created by a mesh of specie populations that thrive in that habitat and others that thrive nearby and then continually send members to expand into what for them is pretty marginal territory. Cut off the nearby source, and the marginally habituated species in the conserved area will peter out. That might result in even the thriving species doing worse and worse.
So here's the fluffy part. Rosenzweig wants us, all of us, to maximize the diversity on the private, developed land - the 95% of land that isn't set aside in nature preserves. We need to find ways of incorporating greater biodiversity into our human lifestyle. He calls this reconciliation ecology. You will become familiar with this term due to the seventy or eighty times he uses it per chapter.
In general it sounds good. His examples about clubs planting flowers and growing choral around underwater restaurants will make you believe that this approach is so irredeemably scattershot and unlikely that the Earth is truly doomed.
Still, for those not inclined to despair, the strength of the idea doesn't really rise or fall on the quality of his examples.
June 26, 2009
I am probably a bit critical of this book because we read it for a graduate seminar (and we tended to kinda tear it apart). Rosenzweig builds a convincing argument that the land we have set aside to preserve native species is simply not enough to prevent massive loss of diversity. Therefore, we need to structure our human-altered habitats to accommodate the survival and reproduction of other species (what he calls reconciliation ecology). Good idea, important idea, but overall the guidelines to make it happen are lacking. Even in the "meatier" chapters, Rosenzweig relies on species-specific examples, such as nest boxes for bluebirds, livestock ponds suitable for a southwestern frog, even skyscrapers for peregrine falcons. Unfortunately, a species-by-species approach is probably not realistic at the large scale required. Also, Rosenzweig religious beliefs seep through, often quoting scripture to justify an environmental ethic. While I admire his attempts to communicate with other demographics, I can't help but find it off-putting in a text based on scientific arguments. There is merit to this book and reconciliation ecology, but mostly as background justification rather than a management plan.
November 20, 2009
I am probably a bit critical of this book because we read it for a graduate seminar (and we tended to kinda tear it apart). Rosenzweig builds a convincing argument that the land we have set aside to preserve native species is simply not enough to prevent massive loss of diversity. Therefore, we need to structure our human-altered habitats to accommodate the survival and reproduction of other species (what he calls reconciliation ecology). Good idea, important idea, but overall the guidelines to make it happen are lacking. Even in the "meatier" chapters, Rosenzweig relies on species-specific examples, such as nest boxes for bluebirds, livestock ponds suitable for a southwestern frog, even skyscrapers for peregrine falcons. Unfortunately, a species-by-species approach is probably not realistic at the large scale required. Also, Rosenzweig religious beliefs seep through, often quoting scripture to justify an environmental ethic. While I admire his attempts to communicate with other demographics, I can't help but find it off-putting in a text based on scientific arguments. There is merit to this book and reconciliation ecology, but mostly as background justification rather than a management plan.
February 23, 2014
Interesting take on how conservation must evolve to fit the changing world. Reserving land and ecosystems is not enough (will never be big enough...not enough left); restoring is crazy expensive and we won't ever be able to do it perfectly and it doesn't take into account change that would have happened; "reconciliation" is necessary. What I did like about the book: this concept fits into sustainable thinking & permaculture. What I did not like about the book: too much conceptualizing and too little direction on how to move forward. If reconciliation conservation is needed, well all right then. Let's spend some time getting there...
November 13, 2007
Maybe I shouldn't read ecology books for lay people, as I was really frustrated by the conversational, almost sing-song-y style of the author. I like the general ideas he has, but just found that he didn't really build on them enough, or think about how problems and solutions change with scale. Most of the good solutions he presents are unique and/or focused on single species.
He also injects God a lot into the discussion, which was unnecessary. I suppose maybe some people need that in order to build a moral argument for doing something about environmental destruction and degradation.
He also injects God a lot into the discussion, which was unnecessary. I suppose maybe some people need that in order to build a moral argument for doing something about environmental destruction and degradation.
March 4, 2011
I actually read ALL of it. First assigned book in college that I did. I like how he still includes religion in it and how we are belived to be the dominant species but how that doesn't have to mean we destroy everything. It's the first book from my "Extinction, Evolution and Human Enterprise" class that I've agreed with almost whole-heartedly. Suprisingly, so did the rest of the class. I thought people would hate it since I actually agreed. We've got about 13 people that come to class (it's honors. there is a max of 15 spots) and I think probably 11-12 said they really liked it.
November 25, 2009
I liked the approach and the examples that were used for diiferent components. The author stressed that these were examples of reconciliation ecology. I don't see the importance of placing the term there because I see them as examples of sustainable development. That said I thought he did a very good job of showing how people and nature can exist for the benefit of both, but also stressed the importance of traditional restoration and preservation.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews