Content uploaded by Stephen robert Kellert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen robert Kellert on Apr 09, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Building for Life:
Designing and Understanding
the Human-Nature Connection
Stephen R. Kellert
Interaction with nature is critically
im po rtant to hum an well-being and
developm ent, but sadly has become
compromised and diminished in mod
ern times. Through deliberate design,
this connection can be repa ired and
restored. Unfortunately, contemporary
society has become confused about the
ro le of the na tu ral en viro nm ent in
peo pl e’s physical and mental lives.
Many believe that the progress of civi
lizatio n depend s on subjugating and
converting, if not conquering, the natu
ral world. Indeed, many see this pro
gression as the essence of civilization.1
Why should they presume this to be
so? First, most people recognize that
the production of huge food surpluses
by a tiny fractio n of the population
permits others to obtain the ir basic
needs at a relatively low co st and to
ex ercise an extraordina ry degree of
mobility. Producing such surpluses has
until now relied on the wholesale con
version of natural habitats into vast
monocu ltu res used to grow a small
number o f crops or raise a few species
Kellert is a pro fessor o f so cia l ecolog y
a t the Yale U niversity Sc ho ol of For
es tr y an d En vironm ental Stud ies. This
ar ti cl e is excerpted an d ad apt ed from
h is b oo k B uild in g fo r L if e ( Isl and
Pr ess , 2005) .
of liv estoc k at m assive in d ustria l
scales. Second, mo dern society has
made a range of manufactured pro d
ucts available far beyond what even the
richest would have thought possible a
millennium ago. The variety o f goods
available at a typical mall today dwarfs
what the m ost priv ileg ed n obi lity
would have experienced in the past.
This contemporary level of consump
tion has depended until now on mas
sively extracting, fabricating from, and
then disposing of huge quantities of
natural resources. Third, most people
today anticipate relatively good health
and long lives, which they attrib ute
prim arily to the miracles of modern
medicine, whose “conquest of disease”
has largely relied on suppressing other
life forms through championing anti
septic conditions.
All these trends of subjugating and
eliminating wild nature have been sup
ported, at least until recently, by the
conventional design and development
of the human-built, principally urban
environment. It is sobering to realize
that only two centuries, ago, Great Brit
ain was the first nation to have a ma
jority of its population residing in an
urb an area, now arguably the most
common feature of modem life.2 Today
some two-thirds of the developed world
lives within the shadow of a metropoli
tan area. And the greatest migration in
human history is happening now, as
hundreds of millions of people migrate
from the countryside to the cities in
China, India, and elsewhere.
Urbanization historically has relied
on converting natural diversity into
largely homogenous landscapes of im-
; pervious surface, consuming enormous
amouritsjofr reso urces and materials,
andgeneratingjiuge quantities of waste
and pollutants. Consequently, the mod
ern urban environment now consumes
some 40 percent of energy resources,
30 percent of natural resources, and 25
percent of freshwater resources while
generating one-third of air and water
po llutan ts and 25 perce nt of solid
wastes.3 This prevailing paradigm of
urban development is neither necessary
nor sustainable and constitutes m ore a
design deficiency than an intrinsic and
inevitable flaw of mo dem life. Still,
these tendencies collectively have en
couraged many to believe that the ben
efits of contemporary society depend
on massively exploiting, if not conquer
ing, the n atural w orld . F or many,
pro gress and civilization have been
equated with humanity’s distance from
and subjugation of nature.
Nonetheless, most people continue
to intuit that the health and diversity
of the environme nt are rela ted fun
da m en ta lly to the ir ow n p hy sica l,
m en ta l, and eve n s piritu a l w e ll
8 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL SUMMER 200 6
be in g.4 Most sense tha t th e natural
world is far more connected to the qual
ity of the ir lives than is re vealed
through the narrow metrics of material
production and modem economics. In
poll after poll in the United States and
in other countries, the majority of re
sp on dents cite the environm e nt as
important.5 The stubborn belief persists
that the natural environment is prb-
foundly related to people’s physical,
psychological, and moral well-being,
an assumption that is reflected in many
of our preferences, cultural creations,
and constructions. Our connection to
nature figures into the materials we
choose, the decorations we employ, the
re cr ea tion al choices we make, the
places we live, and the stories we tell.
N at ur e co ntin ues to do m in ate the
forms, patterns, and language of every
day life, despite the impression that,
in a narrow technical sense, the natu
ral world often seems nejthet qecessary
nor germane to the functioning o f a
modem urban society.
Desp ite the evid ent connection s,
contemporary society still fails to rec
ognize and defend the importance of
healthy and diverse natural systems to
sustaining the quality of people’s lives,
especially in urban areas. Perhaps we
have taken for granted what has always
been readily available, like a fish fail
ing to recognize the virtues of its wa
ter realm. The presence of the natural
world has been an unquestioned con
stant for much of human history, gen
erally noticed only as an adversary or
appreciated only when no longer ac
cessib le. We have only recently en
countered nearly ubiquitous environ
mental damage and a feeling of alien
ation from nature produced by huge
human populations, consumption, ur
banization, resource depletion, waste
generation, pollution, and ch emical
contamination.6 Only during the past
fifty years has the scale o f our excesses
fundamentally altered the earth’s atmo
spheric chemistry, causing the wide
spread loss biological diversity and
even threatening the future of human
existence.
Thus, we confront two warring pre
mises in contemporary society regard
ing our relationship with the natural
world. On the one hand is the wide
spread belief that the successes of the
modem world depend on controlling
and converting nature. On th e other
hand rests the pe rsisten t impression
that human physical, mental, and even
spiritual well-being relies on exp eri
encing healthy and diverse natural sys
tems. I ascribe to and defend the latter
view, that nature—even in our modem
urban society—remains an indispens-
The prevailing
paradigm o f urban
development is neither
necessary nor
sustainable and
constitutes more a
design deficiency than
an intrinsic and
inevitable flaw o f
modem life.
able, irreplaceable basis for human ful
fillment. Degrading healthy connec
tions to the natural world impoverishes
our material moral capacity. Through
deliberate design, we may restore the
basis for a more compatible, and even
harmonious, relationship with nature.
The focus is thus on three major is
sues. First, em pirical ev idence from
diverse sources is marshaled to support
the contention that experiencing natu
ral process and diversity is critical to
human material and mental well-being.
Second, childhood is considered as the
time when experiencing nature is most
essential to human physical and men
tal maturation, even for a species ca
pable of lifelong learning. Unf ortu
nately, for both children and adults, an
impoverished natural environment has
become widely common, especially in
urban areas. Thus, I recommend con
sidering how a new paradigm of de
signed development can help reesta b
lish the beneficial experience o f nature
in the modem built environment.
Underlying much of the examination
of humans and nature is the concept o f
biophilia.7 Biophilia refers to humans’
inherent affinity for the natural world,
which is revealed in nine basic envi
ronmen tal values. De veloping these
nine values can foster physical capac
ity, material comfort, intellectual d e
velopment, emotional maturation, cre
ative ability, mo ral convic tio n, and
spiritual meaning. The inherent in cli
nation to attach value to nature, how
ever, is a “weak” gene tic ten de nc y
whose full and functional development
de pe nd s on sufficien t e xpe rie nce ,
learning, and cultural support.
The adaptive interaction of cu lture
and nature is vital at any point in a
person’s life. But, because this inte r
dependence is biologically based, it is
logical to assume that the most critical
period in this formative development
is likely c hi ldho od.8 Young p eop le
need to engage the natural world re
peatedly and in multiple ways to ma
ture effectively. Yet, for many children
as well as for. adults, modem society
has produced an increasingly compro
mised and degraded natural en viron
ment that offers far fewer opportuni
ties to experience satisfying contact
with nature as an integral part of ordi
nary life.9 The many symptoms of this
declining condition include extensive
air and water pollution, fragm ented
landscapes, widespread loss o f natural
habitats, destruction of biological di
versity, climate change, and resource
depletion. These trends have resulted
in threats not only to human physical
and m ateria l sec urit y b ut a ls o to
nature’s role as an essential medium
SUMMER 2006 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 9
«
for peop le’s emotional, intellectual,
and moral development.
These deficiencies of modern life
can be ameliorated through adopting
an innovative approach to the design
and development of the human built
env iron m ent. This new pa ra digm ,
called restorative environm ental de
sign, focuses on how we can avoid ex
cessively consuming energy, resources,
an d m ate rial; ge ner at in g m assive
amounts of waste and pollutants; and
separating and alienating people from
the natural world. As intimated earlier,
the current environmental crisis is con
sidered a design failure rather than, an
un av oidable aspect o f modern life.
Both the knowledge and the technol
ogy exist to better reconcile and even
harmonize the natural and human en
vironm ents. However, meeting this
enormous challenge will require two
conditions. First, we must minimize
and mitigate the adverse environmen
tal effects of modem construction and
development. Second, and ju st as im
portant, we must design the built envi
ronment to provide sufficient and sat
isfying con tact between people and
nature.
In recent years, alternative design
and development approaches—com
monly referred to as “sustainable” or
“green” design —have emerged that
focus on minimizing the adverse ef
fec ts of the built environment on na
ture and on human health. The label
“restorative environmental design” is
used here instead of “green design”
becau se the fo rmer underscores the
need to also reestablish positive con
nections between nature and human
ity in the built environment. The dam
age caused to natural systems and hu
man health by modem construction can
be minimized and mitigated through
many strategies, including pursuing
energy efficiency, using renewable en
ergy, reducing resource consumption,
reusing and recycling products and
materials, lessening waste and pollu
tion, employ ing nontoxic substances
and materials, protecting indoor envi
ronmental quality, and avoiding habi
tat destruction and loss of biodiversity.
This overall objective is calle d low
environmental impact design, a neces
sary, but by itself insufficient, basis for
true sustainable design and develop
ment. Although essential and challeng
ing, low environmental impact design
ignores the equally important need to
resto re ben ef icial co ntact be tw een
people and nature in the built environ
ment. Unfortunately, low environmen-
Modem society
has produced an
increasingly
compromised
and degraded
natural environment
that offers fa r fewer
opportunities to
experience satisfying
contact with nature as
an integral part o f
ordinary life.
tal impact design has become the pri
mary approach of sustainable design
and development today.
The additional objective of fo ste r
ing satisfying contact between people
and nature in the built environment is
called positive environmental impact,
or “biophilic” design. Biophilic design
includes two basic dimensions: organic
(or naturalistic) design and vernacular
(or place-based) design. Organic design
involves the use of shapes and forms
in buildings and landscapes that di
rectly, indirectly, or symbolically elicit
people’s inherent affinity for the natu
ral environment. This effect can be
ach ieved through the use of natu ral
lighting, ventilation, and materials; the
presence of water and vegetation; deco
ration and ornamentation that mim ics
natural forms and processes; and other
means. Ve rna cular design re fe rs to
buildings and landscapes that foster an
attachment to place by connecting cul
ture, history, and ecology within a geo
graphic context.
Thus, restorative environmental de
sign incorporates the com plementary
goals of minimizing harm and damage
to natural .systems and hum an health
as well as enriching the human body,
mind, and spirit by fostering positive
experiences of nature in the built envi
ron ment. Each of the m ajor design
emphases associated with restorative
environmental design—low env iro n
mental inipact design and the two as
pects of'biophilic design, organic and
vernacular design— is an outgrowth of
three theories that explain bow natural
systems affect human phy sical and
'mehtif v/feU-b&ng. Specifically (1) low
eriVironmentaPimpact design sustains
various ecosystem services on which
human existence re lies, (2) org anic
design fosters various benefits people
derive from their tendency to value
nature (biophilia), and (3) vernacular
design enables a satisfying connection
to the places where people live, also a
necessary condition of hum an w ell
being.
The various scientific, theoretic al,
and practical considerations discussed
above should be considered com pre
hensively by addressing the ethics of
sustainable development. The connec
tion between human and natural sys
tems—particularly this connectio n’s
importance during childhood years and
the challenge of restoring beneficial
connections between the natural and
human built environments through de
liberate design—is fundamentally an
issue of values and, ultimately, of eth
ics. We must confront such basic con
siderations as how we think we fit into
the natural world and how the relation
10 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL SUMMER 2006
ship between nature and humanity re
flects our basic conceptions of what is
good, right, fulfilling, and just.
Most “ut ilita rian ” ap proache s to
these ethical questions emphasize how
pr ot ec ting nature sustains peo ple’s
physical and material existence. Yet
many view this ethical point of view
as too narrow, advocating instead that
we protect and sustain the natural en
vironment for its intrinsic importance,
independent of its material benefit to
people. Positing that both o f these ethi
cal approaches are flawed and insuffi
cient, I instead advance a greatly ex
pa nd ed utilitarian ethic of sustain
ability that promotes the health and
integrity of natural systems not only
for their physical and,material rewards,
but also because they advance equally
important human emotional, intellec
tual, and spiritual needs. JTiis ethic of
sustainability embrace^-,a vastly ex
panded understanding orhtirrfan self-
interest that reaches far beyond the
cramped confines o f economic mate
rialism or the unrealistic idealism of
nature’s value independent of human
welfare. This broad utilitarian ethic
recognizes and affirms how the natu
ral world serves as an indispensable
basis for what it means to be not only
physically and materially secure, but
also emotionally and in tellectually
whole, endowed with a sense of love
and beauty, and reverent o f creation.
At times, the enormous environmen
tal challenges facing us today can eas
ily provoke great pessimism. Yet, my
overall outlook is fundamentally opti
mistic, confident in the human capac
ity to envision and create a world of a
compatible, and even harmonious, re
lationship with nature. De spite our
enormous capacity for consumption
and development, humans should not
be viewed as a kind of “weed” species
that inevitably impoverishes the natu
ral environment. Instead, people are
capable of existing in sustainable rela
tion to nature, even of enriching the
natural w orld^ productivity and health.
This choice reflects the extraordinary
free will of our species, a double-edged
sword that can result in life-affirming
creativity or self-destructive behavior.
Both theory and evidence to support
the view that human physical, mental,
and spiritual well-being remains de
pendent on the quality of our healthy
intera ction with the natura l env iron
ment. M odem society has clearly di
minished and compromised this possi
bility. Yet, the understanding and tech
nology needed to restore positive ties
between nature and humanity exist and
are ever expanding. The Pulitzer prize-
winning biologist Ren6 Dubos labeled
this potential that of “wooing of the
earth.” He suggested;
“Wooing of the earth suggests that
the relationship between hum ankind
and nature should be one of respect and
love rathe r than domination. Among
people the outcome of this wooing can
be rich, satisfying, and lastingly suc
cessful only if both partners are modi
fied by their association so as to be
com e better adapted to each other....
With our knowledge and a sense o f re
sponsibility for the welfare of human
kind and the earth, we can create new
en vironm ents that are ecolog ic ally
sound, aesthetically satisfy ing, eco
nomically rewarding, and favorable to
the con tinued growth of civilization.
But the wooing of the earth will have a
lastingly successful outcome only if we
create conditions in which both hum an
kind and the earth retain the essence
of their wildness. The symbiosis be
tween these two different but com ple
mentary expressions of wildness will
constantly engender unexpected values
and new hopes, in an endless process
of evolutionary creation.” 10
The objective of restorative environ
mental design depends on wooing the
earth in a deliberate, know ing, and
gentle fashion. Doing this will be im
mensely difficult given the current ex
tremes of human consumption, popu
lation, technology, urbanization, waste,
pollution, and environmental destruc
tion. Can people ever know enough to
fabricate effective solutions to complex
larg e- sc ale p ro blems? Perha p s w e
would do better to pursue a more mod
est, restricted, gradual process of re
solvin g the problem s of nature an d
humanity. Unfortunately, the enormity
and pace of the contemporary human
onslaught on natural systems dictate
otherwise, leaving us little choice but
to respond ambitiously. The uncer
tainty of the outcome represen ts the
particular morality play of our age.
Reference s
1. See L. While Jr., “The historical
roots of our ecological crisis,” Sc i
en ce 155 (March 10, 1967): 1203-
7; R. Nash, The Rig hts o f N atu re :
A H isto ry of En vi ro nm enta l E th
ics (Madison: University of Wis
consin Press, 1989); J. Passmore,
M an ’s R es pon si bi lity f o r Natu re:
Ec ol og ical Problem s and Western
Tra ditions (New York: Schribner’s,
1974); H. Watanabe, ‘Th e concep
tion of nature in Japanese culture,”
Science 183 (1973).
2. See United Nations Department of
Ec onomic and S o ci al A ff airs ,
Population Division, Con cise H is
to ry o f World Po pu la tio n (London:
Oxford-Blackwell, 1997).
3. See C. Kibert, “The promises and
limits of sustaina b ility ,” in C.
Kibert, ed., Resh aping the Built
Environment: E cology , Ethics, a nd
En vironm en t, 9-38 (Washington,
DC: Islan d Press, 1999);
Building Green, E n v i r o n m e n t a l
Bu ild ing N ew s (Brattleboro, VT;
http://www.buildinggreen.com).
4. S. Kellert, The Value o f Lif e: B io
lo gical D iv er si ty an d Hum an So
c ie t y (W ashington , DC; Isla nd
Press, 1996); S. Kellert, K in sh ip
to Ma st ery: Bioph ilia in Hum an
E v olu tio n a n d D e ve lo p m e n t
Co nt inu ed o n pa ge 23.
SUMMER 2006 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 11
5. J. M. Peha, “Bridging the Divide
Betwe en T ech nolog is ts and
Policy-Makers,” IE EE Spe ctr um ,
Vol. 38, No. 3, March 2001, pp 15-
17, http://www.ece .c m u .e du/
~p eh a/bridging_div id e.pdf; and
M. G. M organ and J. M. P eha,
“Analysis, G overnance, and the
Need for Better Institu tional Ar
rangements,” Sc ien ce a nd Tec hnol
o gy A dv ic e fo r C on gre ss; M. G.
Morgan and J. M. Peha (eds.), RFF
Press, Washington DC, 2003.
6. C. T. Hill, “An Expanded Analyti
cal Capability in the Congressional
Research Service; the General Ac
counting Office, or the Congres
sional Budget Office,” Scie nc e and
Te chnology A dv ic e fo r Congress,
See note 5.
7. J. Aheame and P. Blair, “Expanded
Use of the National Academies,”
Sc ience and Tec hnolog y Ad vi ce f a r
Co ngress, See note
8. M. G. Morgan and J. M. Peha,
“Where Do We Go From Here?”
Sc ience and Tec hnology Ad vice f o r
Co ngress, See note 5.
9. N. J. Vig, ‘The European Experi
ence,” S cie nce an d T ec h no log y
Adv ic e f o r Congr ess , S ee note 5.
10. R. H. Margolis and D. H. Guston,
“The Origins, Accom plishments,
and Demise of the Office of Tech
nology Assessment,” Sci en ce and
Te chnol ogy Adv ic e fo r Congress,
See note 5; U.S. Office of Tech
nology Assessment, Ballistic Mis
sile Defense Technologies, Sept.
1985, http://www.wws.princeton.
edu/ota/disk2/1985/8504_ n.html;
U.S. Office o f Technology Assess
ment, A nti-Satellite We apons,
Countermeasures, and Arms Con
trol, Sept. 1985, http://www.wws.
prin c eton. ed u /o ta/di sk 2 /1 9 85/
8502_n.html; U.S. Office o f Tech
nology Assessment, SDI: Technol
ogy, Survivability, and Software,
May 1988, http ://w w w .w ws .
prin c eton. ed u /o ta/di sk 2 /1 9 88/
8837_n.html
11. See B allis tic M issile D efen se
Technologies, note 10.
12. M. G. Morgan and J. M. Peha
(eds.), Science an d Te chn olo gy Ad
vice fo r Congress, See note 5.
13. M. G. Morgan and J. M. Peha, “A
Lean Distributed Organization to
Serve Congress?” S cie nce an d
Technology A dv ic e f or Congre ss,
See note 5.
14. U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Using Biometrics for Bor
der Security, GAO-03-174, Nov.
2002, http ://w ww.gao .g ov/
new.items/d03174.pdf.
15. R. W. Fri, M. G. Morgan, and W.
A. Stiles, An External Evaluation
of the GAO’s Assessment of Tech
nologies for Border Security, Oct
18, 2002, Scienc e an d Techn ology
Ad vice f o r Congress , See note 5.
16. U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Cybersecurity for Critical
Infrastructure Protection, GAO-
04 -321, May 2 00 4, h tt p://
www.gao.gov/new.items/
d0 43 21.pdf; U.S. G ov ernm ent
Accountability Office, Protecting
Structures and Improving Commu
nications during Wildland Fires,
GAO-05-380, April 2005, http://
www.gao.gov/new.items/
d05380.pdf.
Building
for Life
(FROM PAGE 11)
(Washington, DC; Islan d P ress,
1997).
5. Various studies indicate co nsider
able public supp ort fo r env iron
mental conservation and p ro te c
tion. See W. Kempton, J. Boster,
and J. Hartley, Environmenta l Val
ues in Am erican C ultur e (Wash
ington, DC: Island Press, 1996); R.
D un la p and R Scarce, “ The
polls—poll trends; Environmental
problems and protection,” P u b li c
Op inion Qu arte rly 55 (1991): 713-
34; R. M itche ll and R. C arson ,
U sing S ur ve ys to V alue P ubli c
Goods: The C ontingent Valuation
M et ho d (Washington, DC: RFF,
1989); R. Inglehart, “Public sup
port for environmental protection:
Objective problems and subjective
values in forty-three socie ties,”
PS: P ol itical Scie nc e an d Po lit ics
28 (1995): 57-72; E. Ladd and K.
Bowman, At tit ude s Towa rd th e En
vironm ent: Twenty-Five Years Af
te r Ea rth Day (Washington, DC:
AEI Press, 1993).
6. These tren ds have been docu
mented in various publication s.
See publications of the World Re
sources Institute, United Nations
Environmental Program me, and
Worldwatch Institute as well as
J. Speth, R ed S ky a t M or nin g:
Am eric a an d the C risis o f the Glo
bal E nvironmen t (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2004).
SUMM ER 2006 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL 23
Meetings,
Workshops &
Symposia
See http://www.rnrf.org for additional meetings
7. E.O. Wilson, Biop hilia: The Hu
man B ond w ith O th er S p eci es
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer
sity Press, 1984); S. Kellert and
E.O. Wilson, eds. The Bio phil ia
H yp o th es is (Washington, DC: Is
land Press, 1993); Kellert, Th e
Value o f Life, Kellert, K ins hip to
Mastery.
8. See S. Kellert, “Experiencing na
ture: A ff ectiv e, co gn itive, and
evaluativ e development in ch il
dren,” in P. Kahn Jr. and S. Kellert,
eds., C hildren a nd N atu re : P sy
ch olo gical, So cio cultur al and E vo
lu ti ona ry Inv es tig atio ns , 117-52
(C ambr id ge, MA: M IT P ress,
2002); P. Kahn Jr., T he H um an
Rela tionsh ip with Natu re: Dev el
op m en t an d Culture (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 1999).
9. See R. Pyle, “Eden in a vacant lot:
Special places, species, and kids
in the neighborhood of life,” in
Kahn and Kellert, eds. Ch ild re n
an d Nature, 305-28.
10. Dubos, Wooing o f the Earth, 68.
Society of Conservation Biology 20th
Annual Meeting. June 24-28, San Jose,
CA. Conservation Without Borders.
Contact: Website: http://
www.conbio.org/2006.
Society of Wood Science and
Technology Annual Conference. June
25, Newport Beach, CA. Website: http://
www.swst.org/annualmeeting.htm.
International Conference on Rivers
and Civilization. June 25-28, La
Crosse, WI. Multidisciplinary
Perspectives on Major River Basins.
Contact: James Wiener, (608) 785-6454.
Email: weiner.jame@uwlax.edu.
Website: http://www.rivers2006.org.
American Water Resources
Association Summer Specialty
Conference. June 26-28, Missoula, MT.
Adaptive Management of Water
Resources. Contact: AWRA, 4 West
Federal Street, P.O. Box 1626,
Middleburg, VA 20118-1626. (540) 687-
8390. Fax: (540) 687-8395. E-mail:
info@awra.org. Website: http://
www.awra.org/meetings/Montana2006.
Climate and Health Colloquium. July
16-22, Boulder, CO. Contact: V. Wynne,
Institute for the Study of Society &
Environment, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, P.O. Box 300,
Boulder, CO 80307. (303) 497-8117.
Fax: (303) 497-8125. E-mail:
vwynne@ucar.edu. Website: http://
www.isse.ucar.edu.
Universities Council on Water
Resources Annual Conference. July
18-20, Santa Fe, NM. Increasing
Freshwater Supplies. Contact: UCOWR,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale,
IL 62901-4637. (618) 453-6020. Fax:
(618) 453-7346. Website: https://
www.worldwideregistration.com/ucowr/
registration.php4.
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Internatiortaf/Conference. July 22-26,
keystone, C©.-;Contact: SWCS, 945 SW
Ankeny Rd., Ankeny, IA 50023. (515)
289-2311. Fax: (515) 289-1227. Website:
http://www.swcs.org/en/
swcs_international_conferences.
International Society for
Arboriculture’s 82nd Annual
Conference and TYade Show. July 31-
August 2, Minneapolis, MN. Contact:
ISA, 1400 West Anthony Drive,
Champaign, IL 61821. (217) 355-9411.
Website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/
conference/default.aspx.
Coastal Zone Canada Conference.
August 12-18, Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest
Territories, Canada. Arctic Change and
Coastal Communities. Contact: Steve
Newton, (204) 984-5561. E-mail:
newtons@dfo-mpo.qc.ca.
24 RENEWABLE RESOURCES JOURNAL SUMMER 200 6
