It was a moment of reflection for the York Simcoe Nature Club as members considered how urban sprawl has caused the loss of green spaces, increased pollution, and strained natural resources, challenging conservation authorities, governments, and themselves to balance housing density while protecting the environment for future generations.
David Hawke, a long-time OrilliaMatters columnist and former stewardship program manager for the Couchiching Conservancy Land Trust, addressed the ethical dilemma of consuming green space at a rapid pace at a recent forum in East Gwillimbury.
“Our natural environment is under siege, especially in southern Ontario,” said Hawke, emphasizing the urgency of the situation. “It seems like every time we turn around, there’s another subdivision going in. What happened to the wilderness? What happened to our natural world? It’s getting paved over.”
According to Statistics Canada, in 2021, nearly three in four Canadians, or about 73.7 per cent, lived in one of Canada's large urban centres with a population of 100,000 or more.
Rapid population growth in cities increases the need for infrastructure, transportation, and services, including frontline emergency services. These services, which include police, fire, and medical response teams, are crucial for the safety and well-being of urban residents. Further urban spread raises environmental concerns such as car-dependent cultures and encroachment on farmlands, wetlands, and wildlife.
“Southern Ontario is the same size, but we have so many people now that our wilderness, if you can call it that, is remnants, bits and pieces left,” said Hawke. “We have little parks and green spaces, sure, but it’s a changed world in southern Ontario particularly.”
He said we must look at the environment with our social and economic needs, while also considering our relationship with animal and plant life. A freshwater creek, for example, can be seen in different ways.
Developers could see the utilitarian value of a creek constructing a water-powered generator, residents can see the value of catching fish for direct economic benefits, and wildlife animals, such as a deer or fawn, can see it as a source of fresh drinking water, while plants need it to grow.
The different aspects create an ethical dilemma on how to proceed with development versus how to preserve it, and it's crucial to consider all these perspectives, making everyone feel included and valued in the decision-making process.
“Environmental ethics revolve around making human communities and ecosystems better, while at the same protecting those resources for current and future use,” said Hawke. “That is a challenge. I can’t blame politicians with a broad brush stroke because you need a team, with teams of teams of experts hearing about what is going on out there and how to deal with it.”
Certain areas require strict regulations for developers to meet and come at a cost for construction. Ontario’s Endangered Species Act protects endangered or threatened species. Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark, for example, are threatened birds. Developers in certain areas must pay a penalty if they want to pave on land where an endangered species of risk resides. Those funds will be transferred to a conservation authority to enhance habitat elsewhere for that species.
“If they are wiping out 100 acres, they have to pay for 150 acres somewhere else to be enhanced,” said Hawke. “This annual payment plan covers the cost of a new site to make it more attractive to the Bobolink and Meadowlark.”
However, questions can be raised about whether taking money to move a species elsewhere is ethical, as conservation authorities are non-profit organizations. Hawke said organizations must find a compromise and consensus if they allow development to proceed.
