Response Essay: The Language Of Conservation

After reading the report on The Language of Conservation I learned that the language used when discussing the conservation of the environment is important! There was many suggestions on Do’s and Don’ts in this report that sparked my interest. For instance, I thought it was interesting how the focus groups translated water quality into supply. The preservation of water was associated with the supply and quality of water. This was interesting to me because I would think that the supply of water was different from the quality of water. Water quality being a trait of the type of water supplied. In any case, this report sparked more interests than just the thoughts of water quality and supply. More thoughts on the report’s findings and information

Another interesting perspective the voters shared was the loss of working farms and ranches as a major problem. Whereas, the loss of open space, natural areas, or scenic vistas is less important than the loss of farms and ranches. I wonder if this includes existing or new opportunities for farms and ranches. Either way, the loss of open space, natural areas, or scenic vistas are not preferred over farms and ranches which will take up lots of space. This may be because, as indicated, “open space” is not one of the better terms to use in the vocabulary of conservation (Fairbank, Metz, & Weigel, 2004)`. The detachment of a voter and open space may be because the relationship between empty lands not near a voter may not be as beneficial or of use to them. In addition, being more specific is always best when trying to connect something to something else. For instance, the creation of a park day sound less appealing than the creation of a neighborhood park or dog park. In this case, I agree with the report that new parks suffer from the abstract (Fairbank, Metz, & Weigel, 2004). There is a reasonable understanding that relating and positioning parks to children improves the concept of creating a park. Moreover, I was surprised to see that there is a necessity to differentiate yourself as a conservationist versus an environmentalists. I would have never guessed that focus groups have skepticism