Biodiversity Loss

Biodiversity loss is a growing issue worldwide (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019).

With our rampant resource extraction, the problem worsens. Loss of habitat, habitat

degradation, and pollution are all factors that decrease biodiversity in an area (Fahrig

1997). Expansion of cities and monoculture agriculture has decreased the available habitat

for animals, plants, insects, and fungi. Most animals are unable to adapt with the changing

conditions of their environment as they happen rapidly to supply our rates of consumption

(Wiegand, Revilla, and Moloney 2005). At present, our rates of consumption are

unsustainable and inequitable. Destruction or degradation of habitat means loss of critical

ecosystem services that help to regulate things like temperature and weather events (Adla,

Dejan, Neira, and Dragana 2022). This is of particular concern from an environmental

justice perspective, as lower-income communities rely most on the ecosystem services,

such as flood control or temperature regulation, that are provided by local biodiversity

(Gourevitch, et.al. 2021). Extracting lumber from a forest to make way for farmland may be

economically beneficial in the short term, but in the long term, the loss of the forest could

mean hotter, dryer conditions that would not be advantageous for farming. Continuing to

farm on that land would mean higher water and operating costs, which would not be

beneficial to the farmer or the consumer. Unsustainable practices inevitably lead to

depletion (Atisa and Shah 2022). If we are to drive our society towards a more sustainable

path, radical environmental investment will need to occur to lead to creative solutions to

our national biodiversity loss problem.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is the current legislation that protects

biodiversity in the United States. As it stands, the ESA takes a species-first approach to conservation, utilizing the listing process (Schwartz 2008). To be listed, a species must be

deemed threatened or endangered, meaning that its populations are in danger of going

extinct if interventions are not taken. When a species makes the list, several protections go

into place to promote conservation. Currently, the blanket rule extends protections for

endangered and threatened species’ critical habitat, or the area in which the species

requires for survival (Tynan 2024). The ESA can fall short of its goal of biodiversity

protection for a few reasons. Firstly, the listing process is long and expensive, with average

species listings costing upwards of 100 thousand dollars and taking years for listing to

become official (Gordon 2018). Furthermore, many conservation projects covered under

the ESA are underfunded, leading to delays in implementation and therefore protection

(Hadlock and Kaup 2023). The ESA’s philosophy is one of preservation, opting for critical

habitat designations that are strict to prevent habitat degradation (Gordon 2018).

Implementation focuses on limiting development within the critical habitat, including

energy development. For this reason, the ESA is historically unpopular with the logging and

oil and gas industries.

Critics of the ESA point to the act’s lack of flexibility in implementation of

protections as costing the economy potential revenue (Petach 2024). However,

conservation NGO’s and groups, proponents of the Act, point to this exact lack of flexibility

as being critical to protecting endangered species in a world that wants to extract from the

environment (Davis, et.al. 2024). Though opinions differ, the ESA does fall short of its goals

of protecting biodiversity and therefore requires an amendment that highlights the need for

a more holistic approach. This article will describe a National Biodiversity Strategy Amendment

to the ESA that would more directly address the nationwide loss of biodiversity.

National biodiversity Strategy

As previously stated, the ESA takes a single-species approach to conservation

(Schwartz 2008). This involves the listing of one particular species that is under threat in

order to extend protections to its environment. The purpose of this approach is to be able

to address species that are critical to the survival of the habitat, identify why they are

struggling, and work to fix the threats to their survival. The idea here is that the protections

for one species will benefit the environment as a whole. However, this approach divides the

environment up piecemeal. The designation of critical habitat creates parcels of land that

are meant to be safe havens for the species and areas of conservation (Delach, Nunes,

Borowicz, and Weber 2024). The need to divide the environment up this way is due to the

makeup of ownership of land. Designating federally owned and operated land as critical

habitat is much easier to implement than critical habitat that involves privately owned land

(Delach, Nunes, Borowicz, and Weber 2024). This creates the need for wildlife corridors to

connect critical habitat areas for movement of the species.

Both the critical habitat and wildlife corridors are seen by some as an

encroachment on personal property rights. Likely, they feel this way because even with

incentives such as conservation easements, the value of the land can depreciate if used

for purely conservation purposes (Delach, Nunes, Borowicz, and Weber 2024). This can

cause economic hardships on people whose land is designated as critical habitat, creating

inequity while not addressing the environmental problems. This single-species method of

conservation does not adequately address the challenges facing conservation today

(Sandberg, Shultz, Guomundsóttir, and Skúlason 2025). Instead, there is a need for a

comprehensive and cohesive biodiversity strategy that not only seeks to address the

shortcomings of the ESA but also fill in the gap with a holistic approach to conservation.

The solution I propose is to create a National Biodiversity Strategy under the ESA

that would allow for a plan to conserve biodiversity on a national scale. Expansion of cities

has led to habitat loss. To mitigate this habitat loss, we can work to make our cities as

biodiverse as possible. As discussed, the ESA’s single-species approach does not

adequately address biodiversity loss as a problem. Rather than focusing on the single

species, instead the National Biodiversity Strategy would shift the focus to whole

environments, evaluating overall biodiversity and addressing key factors associated with

loss from a holistic perspective on a national scale (Sandberg, Shultz, Guomundsóttir, and

Skúlason 2025).

This approach would include a radical revaluing of land. Currently, landowners

worry about loss of value if land is used for conservation purposes rather than traditional

agriculture (Delach, Nunes, Borowicz, and Weber 2024). Government subsidierNot only

could land be used for conservation purposes, but with careful planning and planting, land

could be multi-use, incorporating the surrounding environment into the farm. Companion

planting reduces the need for pesticides, and planting of native flowers helps pollinators to

flourish (Park, et. al. 2024). Furthermore, land values could be recalculated to include the

ecosystem services provided by the land, such as carbon sequestration (Primmer andFurman 2024).

Valuing the land based on its intrinsic value to humanity allows us to ask

questions of what should be done, rather than what we want to do. Environmental health is

important to help maintain public health as well. Degraded and polluted environments are

indiscriminate in their harm, and environmental ethics tells us we should take actions to try

to reduce harm (Park et.al. 2024).

Another harm reduction action within the National Biodiversity Strategy would be

the pollinator strategy and expansion of critical habitat zones to include our cities. There is

a national pollinator shortage due to the decline of biodiversity of the plants that they

pollinate (Kumar, Shukla, and Kallkhura 2024). By categorizing cities as critical biodiversity

zones, the National Biodiversity Strategy would enforce that cities create landscaping with

more native plants and flowers, we can address this biodiversity loss twofold. Currently,

new developments such as Baseline Community in Colorado have incorporated pollinator

friendly landscaping into their development strategy, highlighting the possibilities of

incorporating pollinators and nature into our development plans (Baseline n.d.). This would

also be an investment in green infrastructure. Living roofs and community gardens are

other examples of green infrastructure that should be invested in as part of the national

biodiversity strategy.

Additionally, this strategy will involve a community-based approach, including

community outreach and education to involve people in creating more biodiversity in their

neighborhood. Engagement with members of the community creates further willingness to

support such projects with monetary and voting support. Community gardens, planters,

and raised beds where people are growing herbs and vegetables to be shared by all createa more inclusive environment.

With the growing issue of food apartheid and lack of

equitable access to food in the United States, this part of the National Biodiversity Strategy

is especially needed (de Souza 2023). Incorporating people into the strategy connects our

populations with the environments around us. Creating the ability for people to have more

food within reach will help with national hunger problems as well as shift from a capitalistic

ethos to that of a gift economy wherein we consume less and require fewer resources to be

extracted. Industry and science experts will be essential to implementation of the program

as well as monitoring of continued success. Air and water quality monitoring, and species

monitoring will be crucial for measuring the success of the strategy. Environmental impact

assessments, sustainability reports, and population reporting data will help track the

implementation of the projects.

However, the role of citizen science is not to be overlooked (Pocock et. al. 2024). By

utilizing community organizing and events, citizens can help volunteer to contribute to the

monitoring and implementation in their neighborhoods. A community-based strategy cuts

costs in the long-run by involving citizens in monitoring practices. The ESA currently utilizes

citizen science to aid with data collection, and this would be an extension of that practice

(Gallagher, et. al. 2024). Sustainable practices need to start small, but by utilizing federal

reach and funding, this strategy could have far-reaching impacts. Re-envisioning our cities

to be community gardens rather than isolated, individualized plots of land would allow for

increased community equity in access to food, green spaces, and space for biodiversity.

References:

Adla, Kahrić, Kulijer Dejan, Dedić, and Šnjegota Dragana. 2022. “Chapter 9 – Degradation of

ecosystems and loss of ecosystem services.” One Health: Integrated Approach to 21st

Century Challenges to Health, 2022, pages 281-327.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128227947000083

Atisa, George and Parita Shah. 2022. “Handbook and Human Planetary Health: Putting a

Stop to Ecosystem Decline, Unsustainable Practices and Associated Human Suffering.”

Handbook of Human and Planetary Health. Climate Change Management. Publisher,

Springer, Cham. Published September 7, 2022.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-09879-6_9#citeas

Baseline. n.d. “Sustainable Synergy.” Accessed March 1, 2025.

https://baselinecolorado.com/sustainability/

Davis, Olivia N., Brenda Molano-Flores, Ya-Wei Li, Maximillian L. Allen, Mark A. Davis,

Joseph J. Parkos III, Susan McIntyre, Alexander J. Di Giovanni, Thomas C. McElrath, Andrew

Carter, and Megan Evansen. 2024. “A new metric for conducting 5-year review to evaluate

recovery progress under the Endangered Species Act.” Conservation Science and Practice,

Volume 6, Issue 8, August 2024.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.13158

Delach, Aimee, Laura A. Nunes, Alex Borowicz, and Theodore C. Weber. 2024 “Designated

critical habitats for U.S. impreriled species are not protected from climate and land-usechange.” Geography and Sustainability, Volume 5, Issue 3, September 2024, pages 482-

490. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683924000439

De Suza, Rebecca. 2023. “Women in the Margins: A Culture-Centered Interrogation of

Hunger and “Food Apartheid” in the United States.” Health Communication, Volume 39,

Issue 9, 2024, pages 1855-1865.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10410236.2023.2245206

Fahrig, Leonore. 1997. “Relative Effects of Habitat Loss and Fragmentation on Population

Extinction.” The Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 61, No. 3, (July 1997), Pages 603-

610. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3802168

Gourevitch, Jesse D., Aura M. Alonso-Rodríguez, Natalia Aristizábal, Luz A. de Wit, Eva

Kinnebrew, Caitlin E. Littlefield, Maya Moore, Charles C. Nicholson, Aaron J. Schwartz, &

Taylor H. Ricketts. 2021. “Projected losses of ecosystem services in the US

disproportionately affect non-white and lower-income populations.” Nature

Communications, Volume 12, Article no. 3511 (2021).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23905-3

Gallagher, Rachael, Erin Roger, Jasmin Packer, Cameron Slatyer, Jodi Rowley, Will Cornwell,

Emilie Ens, Sarah Legge, Colin Simpfendorfer, Ruby Stephens, and Thomas Mesaglio. 2024.

“Incorporating citizen science into ICUN Red List assessments.” Conservation Biology,

Early View, First Published August 27, 2024.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14329Hadlock, Jordan and Brent Z. Kaup. 2023. “Locking-in white-nose syndrome? The limits of

the endangered species act & non-charismatic megafauna.” Environmental Sociology,

Volume 10, Issue 1, 2024, pages 135-145.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23251042.2023.2261684

Gordon, Robert. 2018. “’Whatever the Cost’ of the Endangered Species Act, It’s Huge.”

Competitive Enterprise Institute. Published August 20, 2018.

https://cei.org/studies/whatever-the-cost-of-the-endangered-species-act-its-

huge/#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20the%20U.S.%20Fish,iii%5D%20These%20are%20just%

20the

Kumar, Ashok, Aman Shukla, and Shashank Kallkhura. 2024. “Biodiversity loss and its

economic costs: a global perspective.” Research Journal of Recent Sciences, Volume 13,

Issue 1, pages 31-37, January 2024. https://www.isca.me/rjrs/archive/v13/i1/4.ISCA-RJRS-

2023-004.pdf

Park, Young-gyun, Souvic Sarker, Jong Hwi Baek, Laeun Jang, Minhyeok Kwon, and Un Taek

Lim. 2024. “Buckwheat as a companion plant in soybean fields: Implications for

management of major pests.” Agricultural and Forest Entomology, Volume 26, Issue 4,

November 2024, pages 546-554.

https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/afe.12645

Petach, L. 2024. “The timber wars: the endangered species act, the northwest forest plan,

and the political economy of timber management in the Pacific northwest.” Public Choice,Volume 198, pages 209-226, 2024. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-023-

01123-3#citeas

Primmer, Eeva, and Eeva Furman. 2024. “How have measuring, mapping and valuation

enhanced governance of ecosystem services.” Ecosystem Services, Volume 67, June

2024,article no. 101612.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041624000184

Pocock, Michael J.O., Tim Adriaens, René, Eschen, Franz Essl, Philip E. Humle, Jonathan M.

Jeschke, Helen E. Roy, Heliana Teixeira, and Maarten de Groot. 2024. “Citizen science is a

vital partnership for invasive alien species management and research.” iScience, Volume

27, Issue 1, article no. 108623, Published January 19, 2024.

https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(23)02700-1

Sánchez-Bayo, Fransisco and Kris A.G. Wyckhuys. 2019. “Worldwide decline of the

entomofauna: A review of its drivers.” Biological Conservation, Volume 232, April 2019,

Pages 8-27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636

Sandberg, Ole Martin, Anthony Schultz, Ragnhildur Guomundsdóttir, and Skúli Skúlason.

2025. “’Species’ Is Not the (Only) Unit of Biodiversity: A Process-Philosophical Perspective

on Conservation Concepts.” Marine Ecology, Volume 46, Issue 1. Published January 6,

2025. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/maec.12857

Schwart, Mark W. 2008. “The Performance of the Endangered Species Act.” Annual Review

of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, Volume 39, 2008, pages 279-299.Tynan, Amanda. 2024. “The Silence of Extinction: What the Kaua’I ‘Ō’Ō’s Final Song Can

Teach Us About Critical Habitat Designations Under the Endangered Species Act.” Vermont

Law Review, 2024, Volume 49, Issue 1, page 118.

https://openurl.ebsco.com/EPDB%3Agcd%3A13%3A34747853/detailv2?sid=ebsco%3Apli

nk%3Ascholar&id=ebsco%3Agcd%3A183078344&crl=c&link_origin=scholar.google.com

Wiegand, Thorsten, Eloy Revilla, and Kirk A. Moloney. 2005. “Effects of Habitat Loss and

Fragmentation on Population Dynamics.” Conservation Biology, Volume 19, Issue 1,

February 2005, pages 108-121.

https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.152