Royal National Park

#1

#2

#3

The ecosystem of the Royal National Park is slightly similar to the ecosystem of my home in Marblehead, Massachusetts in the US. Both are coastal ecosystems, however, they differ greatly in wildlife, vegetation, and structure. At home, my town is on a peninsula so the ocean is in nearly every direction. Unlike Royal National Park, in Marblehead, its not easy to walk along the shore as it is mostly jagged rock. In addition, there are only a handful of public beaches and the rest of the land is crowded out by homes. Although most of the Royal National Park walk went over cliffs, we were still able to walk on them with relative ease. There were man made foot paths but they weren't entirely necessary and the walk could've still been done without them.

In terms of wildlife, there are few animals in Marblehead aside from a typical seagull, squirrel, or raccoon. Although we didn't see much wildlife in Royal National Park, we were well aware that it is home to a vast array of animals such as echidnas, wallabies, and snakes.

As for Vegetation, the two areas were fairly different for being coastal regions. At home, trees are plentiful and can be all over the coast. I didn't see many trees near the coast in Royal National Park, but instead the land was covered in thick bush that served as a blockade to any creature around the size of a human.

The geological structure of the two areas was also different. In Marblehead, the beaches are very rocky and the other parts of the shore are almost all large formations of jagged rock. I would go as far as to say that there are no cliffs there while Royal National Park is almost all vertical cliff. In addition, the smooth sandstone is both easy to walk on, but also very pleasant to look at. Parts of it were so white that it looked like snow, while others were tinted a sort of caramel and looked slightly like ice cream.

I would say I connect to both environments similarly as they are similar ecosystems. I find both of them very beautiful; however, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. After seeing the coast of Royal National Park I would say it almost represents the light side of a "coastal spectrum" if you will, whereas Marblehead would be the dark side. Royal National Park has a warm, friendly, welcoming coast with its smooth and bright sandstone, vibrant blue water, and endless brush. There is almost a sense of comfort despite the land being total wilderness. As for Marblehead, its sharp, rocky shore coupled with its dark, cloudy water couldn't be more uninviting. It seems a little ironic that as unfriendly as its shores appear, it is home to a large population of people. Compared with the gentleness of Royal National Park, you would think the two areas would serve different purposes. I will admit I am slightly exaggerating as Marblehead is quite welcoming on bright summer days and conversely Royal National Park, with its cliffs and other hazards, is certainly not the safest place to be.

Personally, my connection to these two areas is relatively weak compared to other natural environments. I connect with them visually, by admiring their beauty and their aesthetic features. I have a far stronger connection to environments where I'm able to physically connect with the land, especially when it involves a challenge. I've found a particularly strong connection to mountains as there is no shortage of activities to be done. At the same time, I find the view at the top all the more beautiful if I have to earn it by hiking for however many hours it requires.