[PUBLISHED] Why Can't The @@ANIMAL@@ Cross The Road?

by **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. Even @@NAME@@ was named as an example of this effect, as the inevitable expansion of @@CAPITAL@@ makes inroads into previously untouched @@ANIMAL@@ habitat.
Validity
some eco-friendliness, over 250mil population and some urbanisation

Option 1
Dr @@RANDOMNAME@@, the author of the study, heaves a stack of paper onto your desk, as @@HE@@ explains: "We have tons of solid scientific evidence backing up this study. When you split existing habitats by putting roads through them, the native animal populations become disjointed. This means you can lose the Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@ in one of these fragments without noticing, but before long, it's disappeared from 20 or 30 fragments, and become an endangered species. You need to establish wildlife corridors and animal crossings linking green spaces across @@NAME@@ to prevent this effect from devastating native wildlife."
Validity
All
Outcome
it's difficult to see the sky for the animal crossing bridges

Option 2
"That doesn't go far enough!" says @@RANDOMNAME@@, who smells faintly of leaves and @@ANIMAL@@ urine. "Our cities have expanded too much. Our entire population could fit in an area half the size of @@CAPITAL@@. If we condensed our population, there would be no need to expand through these natural habitats! Now, I'm sure that there will be somewhat reduced quality of life with such cramped living conditions, but it will be worth it when the @@ANIMALS@@ thrive."
Validity
All
Outcome
a mansion in @@CAPITAL@@ is 20 square metres of space to yourself

Option 3
"Both of those solutions seem a bit extreme," ventures the Mayor of @@CAPITAL@@. "The Red-Faced @@ANIMAL@@s are doing fine, and this habitat-fragmentey-wotsit is just causing unnecessary panic. Real estate in @@NAME@@ is at a premium already! In fact, why don't we reclaim some of those green spaces for urban development? After all, they're supposed to be bad for the environment, and I'm sure our economy would like the boost."
Validity
All
Outcome
buying real estate near a living @@ANIMAL@@ leaves @@DEMONYMPLURAL@@ with red faces

by **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.

by **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

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:53 am

Trotterdam wrote:Huh, you have a weird definition of "tomorrow".

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.

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

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Trotterdam wrote:Huh, you have a weird definition of "tomorrow".

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

by **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.

by **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.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:30 am

I've added more description to the premise, and tried to spice it up with some more character description.
The irony in the characterisation of option 1 doesn't have the greatest delivery, but the idea's there.
Third Draft!

by **Candlewhisper Archive** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:58 am

On draft 3:

Looks decent.

Option 3 is a bit of a "do nothing" option though. I'd suggest going more extreme, along the lines of:

"If these fragmented spaces are of little use to nature, I suggest we reclaim them for urban development -- the economy will thank you for it."

by **SherpDaWerp** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:57 pm

Added proactive action to option 4, following CWA's suggestion.
Cleared up the irony in Option 1 a little bit, and provided 3 effect lines cause I can't choose between them all.
Finally, fixed up the macros in Option 2's effect line.
Draft 4!

by **Fontenais** » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:46 pm

SherpDaWerp wrote: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. Even @@NAME@@, known for its eco-friendliness, was named as an example of this effect due to @@CAPITAL@@'s many isolated green spaces.

I hope I don't sound stupid but I don't understand what you mean by 'isolated green spaces'. If a habitat is fragmented, I wouldn't imagine the fragments to be isolated.

I'm also a little confused as to the issue - is the issue that Capital has a lot of parks, and you want to link them up, or is the issue more about suburban sprawl, and how new roads cut through forests, etc?

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:04 am

Sorry this has been a while... *insert excuse about life getting in the way here*

Fontenais wrote:I hope I don't sound stupid but I don't understand what you mean by 'isolated green spaces'. If a habitat is fragmented, I wouldn't imagine the fragments to be isolated.

That's a very fair point. I just wanted a fancy-sounding word for split apart, and choosing "isolated" off the top of my head wasn't the best word choice.

Fontenais wrote:I'm also a little confused as to the issue - is the issue that Capital has a lot of parks, and you want to link them up, or is the issue more about suburban sprawl, and how new roads cut through forests, etc?

The issue is more about @@CAPITAL@@ having lots of parks and green spaces already (hence the eco-friendliness validity), but this new study reveals the parks across @@NAME@@ aren't as eco-friendly as they seem. I hope I've addressed your concerns a bit more with the new description.

I've also added a little bit more characterisation and removed some of the effect line options. New title also inspired by Jutsa's mega issues-idea list with the suggestion of

Issue about highways cutting off sections of nature. Discussed option possibilities and issue proposal here. Title suggestion: Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?"

Although that title kinda implies cars, so I'll have a think about another option. But for now: Draft 5!

by **Trotterdam** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:35 am

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Fontenais wrote:I hope I don't sound stupid but I don't understand what you mean by 'isolated green spaces'. If a habitat is fragmented, I wouldn't imagine the fragments to be isolated.
That's a very fair point. I just wanted a fancy-sounding word for split apart, and choosing "isolated" off the top of my head wasn't the best word choice.

I think "isolated" is a reasonable word to use here, actually.

SherpDaWerp wrote:
Fontenais wrote:I'm also a little confused as to the issue - is the issue that Capital has a lot of parks, and you want to link them up, or is the issue more about suburban sprawl, and how new roads cut through forests, etc?
The issue is more about @@CAPITAL@@ having lots of parks and green spaces already (hence the eco-friendliness validity), but this new study reveals the parks across @@NAME@@ aren't as eco-friendly as they seem. I hope I've addressed your concerns a bit more with the new description.

...That's a surprise? Even the best-kept city parks aren't going to be as eco-friendly as actual wilderness away from the cities, but that's also less of a big deal because cities are inherently smaller than all the land outside the cities.

I'd be far more worried about the roads thing.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:09 am

Trotterdam wrote:
SherpDaWerp wrote:That's a very fair point. I just wanted a fancy-sounding word for split apart, and choosing "isolated" off the top of my head wasn't the best word choice.
I think "isolated" is a reasonable word to use here, actually.

Isolated makes it sound like the 'fragments' are far apart, which wasn't my intention. My intention was that they are separate fragments, not necessarily that they are far apart.

Trotterdam wrote:That's a surprise? Even the best-kept city parks aren't going to be as eco-friendly as actual wilderness away from the cities, but that's also less of a big deal because cities are inherently smaller than all the land outside the cities.

I'd be far more worried about the roads thing.

I was thinking more along the lines of nature reserves or national parks than a 'public park' with cleared land and a playground, and in my experience said nature reserves tend to be well-kept and full of pretty good habitat.

How does this sound for making suburban sprawl part of the 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. Even @@NAME@@ was named as an example of this effect, as the inevitable suburban expansion of @@CAPITAL@@ makes inroads into previously untouched @@ANIMAL@@ habitat.

It seems to me that description has the vibe of overlap with an existing issue, although I cannot for the life of me remember which one.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:15 pm

Incorporated the description from the above post, and some tweaks to the description and Option 1 to make the actual problem a bit clearer.
Draft 6, and I'd like to submit soon if there's not much more feedback...

by **Fontenais** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:14 pm

I wouldn't say anything is wrong, per se, but just a few observations:
1. Why is the issue limited to nations with high eco-friendliness? Surely this issue can arise in a nation of almost any level of environmental concern? (likely to be some tree-hugging hippies in Nation)

2. As it is limited to nations with high eco-friendliness, I don't imagine that nations, which have consistently prioritsed the environment, would pick option 3
2.1. If you wanted a crazy third option, option 2 is the crazy option. I imagine condensing the population involves bulldozing half the city and then building hundreds of high-rise buildings.
2.2. If you make option 2 the crazy third option, then perhaps a reasonable 2nd option could be to prevent further suburban sprawl, and support the construction of medium and high density buildings in existing urban areas

by **Outer Sparta** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:17 pm

I think validity should be for everyone. Small nations also have this problem (such as the Netherlands, who has built plenty of wildlife crossings), so I don't see why it has to be exclusive for large nations. Also I don't get the high eco-friendliness validity when it's an issue that largely affects countries with low eco-friendliness. Just make validity for all nations to simplify the entire process. Regardless of high development or not, this issue would be something every country would deal with.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:45 pm

I'll definitely re-think that validity then. To explain the current validities though:

Fontenais wrote:1. Why is the issue limited to nations with high eco-friendliness? Surely this issue can arise in a nation of almost any level of environmental concern? (likely to be some tree-hugging hippies in Nation)

The original idea (as I somewhat outlined in the OP) was to 'challenge the belief' that lots of parks -> eco-friendly. Nations that have prioritised their environment would still have this issue because it is almost inescapable in the modern era of transit. Nations with low eco-friendliness would likely not have this debate in general, as their tree-hugging hippies focus more on "let's not clear-fell entire forests and strip-mine our entire country" rather than "splitting habitat is bad for the environment".

Fontenais wrote:As it is limited to nations with high eco-friendliness, I don't imagine that nations, which have consistently prioritsed the environment, would pick option 3

It's not necessarily extremely high eco-friendliness. My intention wasn't nations that are in the top 1%, more nations that are somewhat environmentally-conscious. As I also mentioned, having 2 eco-friendly options provides nations looking to improve their eco-friendliness with an actual decision rather than just having one "environment good" option.

Outer Sparta wrote:Small nations also have this problem (such as the Netherlands, who has built plenty of wildlife crossings), so I don't see why it has to be exclusive for large nations.

500mil is IRL quite large, but in NS it's not that massive. The idea behind the urbanisation/population validities was:

low-population rural nation - wouldn't have this issue because there's tons of free space anyway
low-population urban nation - wouldn't have this issue because they're all in the one small city anyway
high-population rural nation - might have this issue, dependent on whether they have massive highways or not
high-population urban nation - will definitely have this issue because their cities will expand

I think the validities should stay as they are but to alleviate your concerns, become a bit less pronounced. So it would be
some eco-friendliness, over 250mil population and some urbanisation (which has now been added to the OP, it's not worth going to Draft 7 over)
Ultimately it's the editors who code the validities in, so it becomes a bit necessary to have the context behind them in order to get it to work with the right levels on everything.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Oct 18, 2019 5:59 am

As I understand it, from an official explanation given to me several years ago, the 'Eco-Friendliness' stat doesn't measure how "environmentally conscious" (as such) your nation is. What it measures is how much your government is currently spending on such matters...

by **Trotterdam** » Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:38 pm

Bears Armed wrote:As I understand it, from an official explanation given to me several years ago, the 'Eco-Friendliness' stat doesn't measure how "environmentally conscious" (as such) your nation is. What it measures is how much your government is currently spending on such matters...

Which means that someone can go "you know, you're just pouring this money down the drain if you're not spending it on the right things".

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:28 am

Trotterdam wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:As I understand it, from an official explanation given to me several years ago, the 'Eco-Friendliness' stat doesn't measure how "environmentally conscious" (as such) your nation is. What it measures is how much your government is currently spending on such matters...
Which means that someone can go "you know, you're just pouring this money down the drain if you're not spending it on the right things".

Took the words out of my mouth, Trotterdam.

If the eco-friendliness stat is just how much the government spends on the environment, it stands to reason that some nations would be spending a lot without necessarily thinking about the impacts that money might have. With this issue I was trying to point out how Habitat Fragmentation can be quite detrimental to a nation's wildlife, even as that nation thinks they are doing great by having lots of parks & green space.

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Oct 26, 2019 5:28 pm

This is definitely last call time...
I'll submit this next weekend if there's no more feedback!

by **SherpDaWerp** » Sat Nov 02, 2019 1:43 am

Submitted
Thanks to everyone who gave feedback!

by **Bears Armed** » Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:08 am

Good luck!

by **Bears Armed** » Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:35 am

This is now in use, as #1290: Congratulations!

[PUBLISHED] Why Can't The @@ANIMAL@@ Cross The Road?

[PUBLISHED] Why Can't The @@ANIMAL@@ Cross The Road?

Who is online