Written by Artemis Larkou, HUB-CR

The Myth

Biodiversity loss in Ostrava is caused only by industry – individual or small community actions cannot influence it.

The Reality

Biodiversity loss in regions such as Ostrava is often attributed exclusively to industrial activity, creating the impression that only large-scale regulatory or technological interventions can make a meaningful difference. However, scientific evidence shows that biodiversity decline is driven by a complex interaction of multiple pressures, not a single dominant cause. The IPBES Global Assessment identifies five major direct drivers of biodiversity loss worldwide: land-use change, climate change, pollution, invasive species, and over-exploitation¹. Industry contributes to some of these drivers, particularly pollution, but is far from the only factor shaping ecological outcomes. Urbanisation, soil sealing, habitat fragmentation, and changes in land management often exert as much pressure on biodiversity as industrial emissions. Reports by the European Environment Agency show that urban and peri-urban regions experience biodiversity decline primarily because natural habitats are replaced or degraded through development, transport networks, and expanding infrastructure². These influences accumulate over time and are intensified by climate-related stress, making biodiversity loss a multi-driver phenomenon, not something caused solely by industry.

In Central and Eastern European cities, for example, habitat fragmentation caused by transportation corridors, residential development, and commercial expansion often disrupts ecological networks more than industrial activity itself. Studies show that the structure and connectivity of urban green spaces are essential for maintaining viable populations of plants and wildlife³. When natural land is divided into isolated patches, the ability of species to disperse, feed, and reproduce is compromised, regardless of local pollution levels.

This broader understanding also highlights why individual and community actions are not irrelevant. Research on human–nature interactions demonstrates that small-scale stewardship—such as maintaining green courtyards, supporting native vegetation, or participating in local conservation initiatives—contributes to improved ecological awareness and long-term pro-environmental behaviour⁴. Even when these actions do not directly offset industrial pollution, they shape social norms, knowledge, and collective motivation, which are essential components of effective biodiversity protection. Community engagement is also a critical element of urban environmental management. European policy assessments underline that biodiversity goals cannot be achieved through regulation alone; they depend on public support, participation, and long-term stewardship. When residents assume responsibility for local spaces, from neighbourhood greenery to school yards, they create social and ecological conditions that support resilience and help counteract widespread habitat degradation. These contributions may be small individually, but collectively they foster stronger community ownership and healthier urban ecosystems.

Why this misconception matters

If people believe that biodiversity loss is driven only by industry and that community contributions are meaningless, they are less likely to participate in conservation efforts. This disengagement undermines environmental education, reduces public accountability, and weakens the social foundations needed for long-term biodiversity protection. Acknowledging the multiple drivers of biodiversity loss—and the value of community involvement—builds trust and encourages wider participation in ecological stewardship across regions such as Ostrava.

References

1. IPBES. (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment
2. EEA – European Environment Agency. (2023). Urban adaptation in Europe: How cities and towns respond to climate change.  https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/urban-adaptation-in-europe
3. Aronson, M. F. J., et al. (2014). A global analysis of the impacts of urbanization on bird and plant diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspb/article-abstract/281/1780/20133330/77069/A-global-analysis-of-the-impacts-of-urbanization?redirectedFrom=fulltext
4. Soga, M., & Gaston, K. J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human–nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2), 94–101. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.1225