Postwar open-space loss converted conservation into a suburban problem and generated new causes
Evidence
Almost from the first, then, the loss of open space was a hot issue. It bothered many people deeply, and it became one of the most important arguments for a new kind of activism. As one writer argued in 1964, “conservation is no longer a distant, rural concern that can be left to the conservationists. During the postwar years it has sneaked up and come viciously to roost as a pressing suburban problem.” The issue also had a kind of generative power. The more people thought about the destruction of open space, the higher the stakes seemed. Again and again, in different ways, the issue drew public attention to other environmental problems. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 546
Categorization
- ADDENDUM: Connects to the Eco-Justice theme of how a specific land-use grievance (sprawl eating open space) scaled up into broader environmental demands — the dynamic of one visible harm disclosing others.
- recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
- XREF: connects to: Suburban sprawl pulled established conservation groups toward urban environmental concerns — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 553; Postwar suburban sprawl provoked organized protest against its environmental costs — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 0; Postwar housing development sharply raised environmental costs that people then politicized — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 15 (+7 more)
Broader Connections
- Open-space preservation seeded the local grassroots activism of the postwar environmental movement
#expands(0.90) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 559 - Suburban development relocated environmental threats from distant wilderness to the suburban home itself
#expands(0.85) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 570 - The erosion crisis migrated from farmland to suburban construction by 1965
#exemplifies(0.80) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 825