Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
restoring, repairing and rehabilitating the natural and
socio - ecological ecosystems
on which we all
depend, new synergies of this kind are clearly called
for. All of the categories of 'nature' referred to in
Chapter 1 - ' wilderness ' or near natural systems, semi-
natural ecosystems and production systems - not to
mention the fourth category in Figure 1.3, namely,
over-exploited systems - can all be approached from
ecological, economic, social, cultural and political per-
spectives, as per Figure 1.1. Of course, the intensity of
human impact in each category may be strong, moder-
ate or close to nil, and of course such a simplistic typol-
ogy can distract from the tremendous complexity of
landscapes (and seascapes) that occur around the
world. Yet for now, it can help advance discussion,
especially in an interdisciplinary setting.
Making interdisciplinarity 'work' is actually a huge
achievement, but
transdisciplinarity
takes us several
steps further. We appreciate, by the way, that the term
transdisciplinarity can seem daunting, especially when
you learn that common synonyms or related terms and
expressions are being used in the academic literature
such as ' post - normal science ' , ' mode - 2 knowledge ' ,
' integration and implementation sciences ' and ' inter-
disciplinary and interprofessional problem solving'
(see e.g. Scholz
et al
. 2000 ). Following Max - Neef
(2005), who provided an approach that we adopt here,
transdisciplinarity implies that we must cross not only
traditional boundaries between scientifi c fi elds and
engineering, design or management professions, but
also the unoffi cial but deeply entrenched frontiers
between scientifi c and nonscientifi c habits, techniques
and social communities. Indeed, the goal is to get pro-
fessionals, scientists, public offi cials, landowners, busi-
nesspeople and leaders of local people - in brief, all
relevant stakeholders - involved in the restoration
process and the transition to
sustainability
.
We will now illustrate the importance of inter- and
transdisciplinarity in ecological restoration with a brief
introduction regarding values followed by a presenta-
tion of the key notions of
natural capital
- a stock or
asset, and
ecosystem services
- the dividends which
fl ow to human society from natural capital. Thereafter,
we discuss a core group of fundamental ecological
concepts related to three different levels of interest in
restoration ecology, respectively focusing on the reinte-
gration of
landscapes
, the repair of degraded or
impaired
ecosystems
and fi nally the salvation and
protection of endangered
biodiversity
.
2.2.1
Determining values of nature
When it comes to determining how people value
'nature', it is important to recall that 'monetary value'
is just one among many options, or proxies in eco-
nomic terms, that can be applied. But it is an important
and convenient one, however, for two reasons. Firstly,
money is something that everyone understands, and
which therefore facilitates communication. Secondly,
money - and the postulates of economists and eco-
nomic pundits - plays a huge role in our lives as citizens
today, whether we approve of this state of affairs or
not. The good news from conservationists' perspective
is that in recent years there is a new school of thought
in economics called
ecological economics
(Daly &
Farley 2010). This approach is helping to mainstream
nature conservation and restoration objectives into
political decision-making and negotiation processes at
national and international levels. Costanza and Daly
(1992), and many others since, have argued that
'natural capital' has become a limiting factor for both
human well-being and economic sustainability (elabo-
rated in Aronson
et al
. 2006, 2007a; Blignaut
et al
.
2007). De Groot
et al
. (2002) developed a framework
to help integrate values of
ecosystem goods and
services
in the process of decision making.
2.2.2 Ecosystem goods and services,
natural capital
The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
(MA 2005 )
defi ned ecosystem goods and services as natural prod-
ucts and processes generated by ecosystems that
sustain and fulfi l human life (cf. Daily 1997). We prefer,
however, to adopt the typology provided by the inter-
disciplinary, UN- and EU-funded project called
The Eco-
nomics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB), that
distinguishes between
ecosystem processes and
functions
,
ecosystem services
and
human well-
being
in terms of the benefi ts and values people per-
ceive or assign to those services (de Groot 2010). This
becomes still more clearly interdisciplinary when we
see that the term
natural capital
is used as an eco-
nomic metaphor for
ecosystems
and
biodiversity
(Ne ß h ö ver
et al
. 2011). Natural capital is in fact a
broad concept indicating the limited stocks of both
physical and biological natural resources found on
Earth (Aronson
et al
. 2007a ).
