NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT 2] Habitat Fragmentation Causing Perturbation

A place to spoil daily issues for those who haven't had them yet, snigger at typos, and discuss ideas for new ones.
User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

[DRAFT 2] Habitat Fragmentation Causing Perturbation

Postby SherpDaWerp » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:27 pm

Based off urban habitat fragmentation. The premise is that even though @@CAPITAL@@ has loads of parks and @@NAME@@ is eco-friendly, the fact that these green spaces are fragmented can still contribute to severe damage to the natural environment. I've tried to make the options a genuinely difficult decision, because the validity of high eco-friendliness means the nation is likely to just go with the "good for the environment" option, so I've made 2 options that could fulfil these criteria so they have to actually make a decision.

I might also do one based on rural/remote habitat fragmentation, i.e. the amazon jungle, if this works out nicely.

Description
A recent environmental study showed that habitat fragmentation, the process of splitting large areas of habitat into smaller pieces, can be severely detrimental to the native wildlife. @@NAME@@'s increasingly urbanised was named as a specific example of this effect, prompting concern among the typically eco-friendly @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@.
Validity
High eco-friendliness, high urbanisation

Option 1
"Even though @@NAME@@ has many urban green-spaces and wildlife habitats, their isolation can be detrimental," states the author of the study, Dr @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Losing the Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ in just one of @@NAME@@'s parks can easily go unnoticed. Before long, you've lost the Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ from 20 or 30 parks, and it's endangered! Wildlife corridors and animal crossings need to be established to prevent this issue from devastating @@ANIMAL@@ populations."
Validity
All
Outcome
@@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ drivers can't see the sky for the @@ANIMAL@@ bridges

Option 2
"That doesn't go far enough!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of @@NAME@@'s most outspoken environmentalists. "What if we were to condense all of our population? Our cities have expanded too much. We need to condense our population and move @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ into our major cities. Now, I'm sure that there will be somewhat reduced quality of life with such cramped living conditions, but it will be worth it to see the @@ANIMALS@@ thrive."
Validity
All
Outcome
@@A@@ @@DEMONYM@@ mansion is 20 square metres of space to yourself

Option 3a
"Both of those solutions seem a bit extreme," begins the Mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. "Our Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ population is doing fine, and this habitat-fragmentation thingo is just causing unnecessary panic. Real estate in @@NAME@@ is at a premium already without having to condense our population or add more green space! Just leave things how they are, and if worse comes to worst, I'm sure we can keep those Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ alive in zoos."
Validity
Has Zoos
Outcome
buying real estate near a living @@ANIMAL@@ leaves @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ with red faces

Option 3b
"Both of those solutions seem a bit extreme," begins the Mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. "Our Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ population is doing fine, and this habitat-fragmentation thingo is just causing unnecessary panic. Real estate in @@NAME@@ is at a premium already without having to condense our population or add more green space! Just leave things how they are, and if worse comes to worst, I'm sure we can keep those Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ alive somehow."
Validity
No Zoos
Outcome
buying real estate near a living @@ANIMAL@@ leaves @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ with red faces

whoops, forgot to save a copy when making draft 2... oh well.
Last edited by SherpDaWerp on Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:15 am, edited 2 times in total.
I have the No Sex policy. For clarification: recreational sex is allowed, just not reproductive sex.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:That is to say, the point has not only been missed, but you've used your crossbow to shoot yourself in the ass.

User avatar
Trotterdam
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7762
Founded: Jan 12, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Trotterdam » Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:50 pm

Huh, you have a weird definition of "tomorrow".

SherpDaWerp wrote:"Green spaces across @@NAME@@ need to be linked up to prevent this issue from devastating these wildlife populations."
How? Do you just remove the roads causing the fragmentation, even though that would severely impact your population's mobility? Do you install some sort of animal crossings to make it easier for them to cross those roads?

In fact, make it clearer from the opening that roads and the suburbs clinging to them, not cities, are the problem.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17226
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Australian rePublic » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:11 am

Wait, how long has the city bren there? You sound like it's been there for a decade or so
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions. This nation does not reflect my views, as I am trying to unlock banners
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian. Date of Birth: 1 October 1995
Why stylised as "rePublic"
16 Published Issues and 1 WA resolution
Please sign my petition to help me achieve justice (real life)
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:53 am


To be fair I did start the draft 'tomorrow', but didn't get it finished because school exams took priority...

Trotterdam wrote:
SherpDaWerp wrote:"Green spaces across @@NAME@@ need to be linked up to prevent this issue from devastating these wildlife populations."
How? Do you just remove the roads causing the fragmentation, even though that would severely impact your population's mobility? Do you install some sort of animal crossings to make it easier for them to cross those roads?

In fact, make it clearer from the opening that roads and the suburbs clinging to them, not cities, are the problem.
Australian rePublic wrote:Wait, how long has the city bren there? You sound like it's been there for a decade or so

Hmm. I could address both of those by adjusting the core premise to be more along the lines of increased expansion of cities as the population grows (taking irl Australia as somewhat of an example), then saying the transport corridors are fragmenting @@ANIMAL@@ populations.

EDIT: That version is now up. As for assumptions about @@ANIMAL@@, I've kinda assumed it's land-based. It doesn't seem too bad imo, but it's something that should probably be addressed.
Last edited by SherpDaWerp on Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
I have the No Sex policy. For clarification: recreational sex is allowed, just not reproductive sex.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:That is to say, the point has not only been missed, but you've used your crossbow to shoot yourself in the ass.

User avatar
Australian rePublic
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17226
Founded: Mar 18, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Australian rePublic » Sun Sep 08, 2019 4:10 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:

To be fair I did start the draft 'tomorrow', but didn't get it finished because school exams took priority...

Trotterdam wrote:How? Do you just remove the roads causing the fragmentation, even though that would severely impact your population's mobility? Do you install some sort of animal crossings to make it easier for them to cross those roads?

In fact, make it clearer from the opening that roads and the suburbs clinging to them, not cities, are the problem.
Australian rePublic wrote:Wait, how long has the city bren there? You sound like it's been there for a decade or so

Hmm. I could address both of those by adjusting the core premise to be more along the lines of increased expansion of cities as the population grows (taking irl Australia as somewhat of an example), then saying the transport corridors are fragmenting @@ANIMAL@@ populations.

EDIT: That version is now up. As for assumptions about @@ANIMAL@@, I've kinda assumed it's land-based. It doesn't seem too bad imo, but it's something that should probably be addressed.

But then dividing nature reserves. You'd just be shrinking them
Disclaimer: In-Character posts are NOT a reflection of the real world Australian government, any government departments, or any Australian states or territories. I have no authority over real world government decisions. This nation does not reflect my views, as I am trying to unlock banners
From Sydney, NSW. From Greek ancestry. Orthodox Christian. Date of Birth: 1 October 1995
Why stylised as "rePublic"
16 Published Issues and 1 WA resolution
Please sign my petition to help me achieve justice (real life)
Issue Ideas You Can Steal

User avatar
SherpDaWerp
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 105
Founded: Mar 02, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby SherpDaWerp » Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:24 am

The whole issue is that @@NAME@@'s roads are dividing and shrinking nature reserves, yes.
I'm not entirely sure I get your meaning here.
I have the No Sex policy. For clarification: recreational sex is allowed, just not reproductive sex.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:That is to say, the point has not only been missed, but you've used your crossbow to shoot yourself in the ass.

User avatar
Candlewhisper Archive
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 19440
Founded: Aug 28, 2015
Capitalizt

Postby Candlewhisper Archive » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:39 am

Based off urban habitat fragmentation. The premise is that even though @@CAPITAL@@ has loads of parks and @@NAME@@ is eco-friendly, the fact that these green spaces are fragmented can still contribute to severe damage to the natural environment. I've tried to make the options a genuinely difficult decision, because the validity of high eco-friendliness means the nation is likely to just go with the "good for the environment" option, so I've made 2 options that could fulfil these criteria so they have to actually make a decision.


Bolded part should be in the issue premise itself. It's a needed explanation to give the term "habitat fragmentation" some context.

Options all need more humour, I think. Try to zing it up a little.

Good issue premise though, this one has potential.
Last edited by Candlewhisper Archive on Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:40 am, edited 1 time in total.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Got Issues?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Candlewhisper Archive

Advertisement

Remove ads