The Human Dimensions of Biotic Homogenization
JULIAN D. OLDEN,∗ MICHAEL E. DOUGLAS,† AND MARLIS R. DOUGLAS†
∗
Center for Limnology, 680 Park Street North, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A., email olden@wisc.edu
†Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, U.S.A.
Considerable reshuffling of biotas has occurred in re-
cent decades, largely through the gradual replacement
of once spatially distinct, native communities with lo-
cally expanding and cosmopolitan, non-native ones, in
a process coined biotic homogenization (McKinney &
Lockwood 1999; Rahel 2000; Olden & Poff 2003; Rooney
et al. 2004). Implications of biotic homogenization sur-
faced recently within the context of discussions about
the ecological and evolutionary consequences for animal
life (Olden et al. 2004); the manner in which social as-
pects of human life may also be affected, however, is an
issue that has yet to be contemplated. Here, we argue
that the social repercussions resonating in the wake of
biotic homogenization must not be ignored and consider
the idea that the increasingly global uniformity in bio-
logical life may be linked to the loss of traditional values
and quality of life and have considerable consequences
for conservation-oriented advocacy and ecotourism. We
draw strong parallels and linkages between biotic homog-
enization and a more-acknowledged process of cultural
homogenization from the social sciences and discuss how
this relationship offers a useful analogy for conveying to
the public and policy makers the social implications of
biotic homogenization.
From a purely ethical perspective, one could argue that
biotic homogenization will degrade the quality of human
life by imbuing biological communities with an aestheti-
cally unappealing uniformity. Biological diversity, and its
endemic features, contribute to a person’s attachment
to a particular place, become part of a person’s identity,
and therefore support an individual’s psychological well-
being and a community’s identity and image of itself (Hor-
witz et al. 2001). This so-called sense of place, which links
issues of individual and community identity, or who we
are, to issues of place, or where we are, is directly threat-
ened by biotic homogenization as endemic elements of
the landscape that typify geographic regions and cultures
Paper submitted February 3, 2005; revised manuscript accepted April 28, 2005.
2036
Conservation Biology 2036–2038

C 2005 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00288.x
are slowly replaced by ubiquitous elements ( yet this same
attachment compels the introduction of exotic animals
and plants to make places “more like home,” thus con-
tributing to biotic homogenization). Since the musings of
Dewey (1925), a long tradition of research has revealed
that our experiences regarding where we currently live,
have resided in the past, or have visited color the way
we view and communicate about the environment and
embrace conservation-oriented practices. Experiences in
a highly homogenized environment will undoubtedly re-
inforce a different lens though which we view the natural
world. This in turn may challenge the sense-of-place con-
struct as a foundation in environmental awareness and
compromise its emerging role in policy making and land-
scape planning (Hillier 1999; Cantrill & Senecah 2001).
We must also recognize the economic repercussions of
biotic homogenization. Tourism is now the world’s largest
industry, generating nearly 200 million jobs, or some 10%
of global jobs (WTO 2003). The International Ecotourism
Society (TIES 2000) estimates that nature-related tourism
(Stronza 2001) accounts for approximately one-fifth of
total international travel. Although we recognize the po-
tential problems associated with ecotourism (e.g., Kiss
2004), we also argue that its sustainable benefits hinge
on the fact that people will gladly travel long distances to
visit areas of great natural beauty and diversity ( Whelan
1991). Thus one might expect biotic homogenization to
compromise this industry because the public will have
less incentive to visit areas similar to those in closer prox-
imity. To paraphrase James Kunstler from his book enti-
tled The Geography of Nowhere (1993), if every place
is the same, why go anywhere? Indeed, greater biolog-
ical homogeneity will influence not only how we view
the world but also our motivation to experience it. Mac-
Cannel (1976) evaluated the “ethnography of modern so-
ciety” and concluded that tourists searched for genuine
and personal experiences through travel so as to counter
Olden et al.
the superficiality and alienation that reverberate through
modern society. Therefore, one might expect a greater
need for genuine experiences to increase in response to
accelerating biotic and cultural homogenization (Crosby
1994) that intensifies feelings of superficiality and alien-
ation in society.
The United States is a case study for this cultural dete-
rioration in that regional suburbanization is rapidly trans-
forming rural America and threatening the uniqueness of
small towns whose diversity is a national resource (Sala-
mon 2003). Yet, American society also enjoys the conve-
nience of big-box retailers a short distance from home just
as die-hard anglers appreciate ubiquitous rainbow trout
in their local streams. These conveniences, however, are
only local and short term. For example, the presence of
Wal-Mart stores (5245 locations worldwide) is not the
economic boon to local economies that many would pre-
dict or want; rather, it has been linked to elevated family
poverty rates across the United States (Goetz & Swami-
nathan 2004).
This phenomenon offers conservation biologists a use-
ful compass for our dialog, in that public outcries over
the rapid spread of big-box retailers at the expense of re-
gionally endemic, mom-and-pop businesses (Vias 2004)
are similar to concerns expressed by scientists about ho-
mogenization of regional faunas. By exploring parallels
and linkages between cultural homogenization and bi-
otic homogenization, conservation biologists can attract
the attention of politicians and the public, groups that
are sensitive to economic indicators and the erosion of
“family values.” In this vein, one could argue that homog-
enization of the culinary landscape has contributed to
greater demands for genetically modified (and thus more
prolific) crops. This in turn has greatly diminished the
number of indigenous crop varieties and shifted farming
toward monocultures while increasing reliance on large
agribusinesses rather than small farms (Avise 2003). In
this example, linkages and perhaps even positive feed-
backs between cultural homogenization and biotic ho-
mogenization are evident. Amusingly, Robert Blair (2004)
provides a visualization of this linkage by pointing out
that “ . . . it is not a serendipitous circumstance that House
Sparrows can be found begging for French fries outside
McDonald’s restaurants anywhere in the world.”
Sparked by loss of biotic novelty and promotion of regu-
larity, conservation biologists must recognize the urgency
of educating policy makers and the public about the ho-
mogenization process. Some might suggest that species
diversity and the implications of its loss are slowly be-
coming familiar to the lay public, but we argue that the
complexities of these issues are changing with a rapid-
ity that outstrips public awareness. For example, human
activities have led to decreased global species diversity,
an aspect that indeed most can relate to. But at regional
and local scales, establishment of exotics often outweighs
loss of native species such that species diversity is actually
Biotic Homogenization 2037
elevated (Sax & Gaines 2003). To the uninitiated, such pat-
terns are seemingly counterintuitive and could well un-
dermine efforts to battle invasive species and sustain true
biological diversity. For these reasons, conservation biolo-
gists must stress to the popular media the various compo-
nents of biodiversity, including those complex and global
socioeconomic hardships posed by its homogenization
(Putz 1998).
Attitudes will surely differ concerning the social and
economic implications of biotic homogenization, just as
they do over many conservation issues. One fact is clear,
however: Biotic homogenization elicits serious concern
among conservationists as a major threat to regional in-
dividuality. Interestingly, urban centers are focal areas of
biotic homogenization (e.g., Blair 2004), yet they are in-
habited by those who place the highest value on species
conservation (Kellert 1996). Ecological awareness in ur-
ban planning and the active conservation of open spaces,
therefore, may provide the best opportunity for slowing
homogenization. Arguments for use of a broader “ecolog-
ical” approach to urban planning have existed for some
time (Geddes 1915) but have become amplified recently.
The American Planning Association has developed a vari-
ety of programs in recent years to support smart-growth
initiatives (www.planning.org), and the emerging field of
reconciliation ecology (sensu Rosenzweig 2003) details
how best to modify and diversify anthropogenic habitats
to harbor a wider variety of native species while still ben-
efiting humans. An example is the traditional American
lawn—well-kept, cropped, malleable, and free of dande-
lions and other insidious intruders. It has been reshaped
over past decades (Bormann et al. 2001), in part because
of national campaigns such as the Backyard Wildlife Habi-
tat campaign sponsored by the U.S. National Wildlife Fed-
eration (www.nwf.org).
Michael Huston (1994) states the case for biological
heterogeneity eloquently: “Diversity would not be inter-
esting if the level of diversity were the same everywhere.”
We argue that it would be wise for conservation biologists
to place biotic homogenization within a socioeconomic
context and explore the concomitant loss of individuals’
and communities’ sense of place and quality of life. By so
doing we gain the ear of policy makers and the lay public
with regard to the considerable biological and social con-
sequences of the approaching “Homogecene” and help
ensure that the value of biodiversity will remain reflected
in the fabric of our society.
Acknowledgments
We thank L. Poff and D. Sax for discussions and J. Putz, J.
Vander Zanden, C. Solomon, B. Roth, M. Diebel, P. John-
son, and the Vander Zanden laboratory for engaging con-
versation on the manuscript. Our thoughts are synopsized
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
2038 Biotic Homogenization
from a presentation by J.D.O. in the Invasive Species sym-
posium at the second biennial meeting of the Interna-
tional Biogeography Society. J.D.O. was supported by The
Nature Conservancy’s David H. Smith Post-doctoral Con-
servation Research Fellowship Program.
Literature Cited
Avise, J. C. 2003. The best and the worst of times for evolutionary biol-
ogy. BioScience 53:247–255.
Blair, R. B. 2004. The effects of urban sprawl on birds at multiple
levels of biological organization. Ecology and Society 9, available
from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss5/art2/ (accessed
June 2005).
Bormann, F. H., D. Balmori, and G. T. Geballe. 2001. Redesigning the
American lawn: a search for environmental harmony. 2nd edition.
Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
Cantrill, J. G., and S. L. Senecah. 2001. Using the “sense of self-in-place”
construct in the context of environmental policy-making and land-
scape planning. Environmental Science and Policy 4:185–203.
Crosby, A. W. 1994. The homogenization of the planetary biome. Pages
25–36 in C. K. Chapple, editor. Ecological prospects: scientific, re-
ligious, and aesthetic perspectives. State University of New York
Press, Albany.
Dewey, J. 1925. Experience and nature. Dover, New York.
Geddes, P. 1915. Cities in evolution: an introduction to the town plan-
ning movement and to the study of cities. Williams and Norgate,
London.
Goetz, S. J., and H. Swaminathan. 2004. Wal-Mart and county-wide
poverty. Staff paper 371. Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Avail-
able from http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/publications.htm (accessed June
2005).
Hillier, J. 1999. Habitat’s habitus: nature as sense of place in landuse
planning decision-making. Urban Policy and Research 17:191–204.
Horwitz, P., M. Lindsay, and M. O’Connor. 2001. Biodiversity, endemism,
sense of place, and public health: inter-relationships for Australian
inland aquatic systems. Ecosystem Health 7:253–265.
Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological diversity: the coexistence of species
on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Olden et al.
Kellert, S. R. 1996. The value of life. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Kiss, A. 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity
conservation funds? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:232–237.
Kunstler, J. H. 1993. The geography of nowhere. Simon and Schuster,
New York.
MacCannel, D. 1976. The tourist. 2nd edition. Schocken Press, New
York.
McKinney, M. L., and J. L. Lockwood. 1999. Biotic homogenization:
a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14:450–453.
Olden, J. D., and N. L. Poff. 2003. Toward a mechanistic understanding
and prediction of biotic homogenization. The American Naturalist
162:442–460.
Olden, J. D., N. L. Poff, M. R. Douglas, M. E. Douglas, and K. D. Fausch.
2004. Ecological and evolutionary consequences of biotic homoge-
nization. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19:18–24.
Putz, F. E. 1998. Halt the homogeocene: a frightening future filled with
too few species. The Palmetto 18:7–10.
Rahel, F. J. 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States.
Science 288:854–856.
Rooney, T. P., S. M. Wiegmann, D. A. Rogers, and D. M. Waller. 2004.
Biotic impoverishment and homogenization in unfragmented forest
understory communities. Conservation Biology 18:787–798.
Rosenzweig, M. L. 2003. Win-win ecology: how Earth’s species can
survive in the midst of human enterprise. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Salamon, S. 2003. From hometown to nontown: rural community effects
of suburbanization. Rural Sociology 68:1–24.
Sax, D. F., and S. D. Gaines. 2003. Species diversity: from global decreases
to local increases. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18:561–566.
Stronza, A. 2001. Anthropology of tourism: forging new ground for
ecotourism and other alternatives. Annual Review of Anthropology
30:261–283.
TIES (The International Ecotourism Society). 2000. Ecotourism statis-
tical fact sheet. TIES, North Bennington, Vermont. Available from
http://www.ecotourism.org (accessed June 2005).
Vias, A. C. 2004. Bigger stores, more stores, or no stores: paths of retail
restructuring in rural America. Journal of Rural Studies 20:303–318.
WTO ( World Tourism Organization). 2003. Tourism highlights 2003.
WTO Press, Madrid. Available from http://www.world-tourism.org
(accessed June 2005).
Whelan, T., editor. 1991. Nature tourism: managing for the environment.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.