Unifying Concepts - Restoration Ecology: The New Frontier - page 12

According to the MA (2005) and TEEB (2010,
2011), there are four, partially overlapping types: (1)
renewable natural capital (the restoration of ecosys-
tems), (2) nonrenewable natural capital (subsoil assets,
e.g. petroleum, coal and diamonds), (3) replenishable
natural capital (e.g. the atmosphere, potable water and
fertile soils) and (4) cultivated natural capital (e.g.
crops and forest plantations). To help show how this
notion provides a clear and usable model of the rela-
tionship between ecosystems and society, we quote
from Aronson et al . (2007b) :

2.2.3 Setting goals of restoration

For the full (i.e. democratic and participatory) restora-
tion process, essential for ecological restoration projects
to be successful over time, we need transdisciplinarity.
Goal setting and the choice of goals are among the
most important decisions to be taken at the interface
between science and society. This should come after
common values have been discussed by stakeholders
and project managers, not before! In other words,
before starting to actually ' do ' ecological restoration,
we need to know 'why' we should try to restore
damaged or altered ecosystems and to what state or
condition or trajectory we wish to see them move
(Higgs 1997; Clewell & Aronson 2006, 2007). Ecolo-
gist Margaret Palmer and coworkers (Palmer et al .
2005) spoke of a 'guiding vision' to help defi ne what
we - as a society - want to achieve in a restoration
context. This in turn demands, in our view, insight and
discussion among stakeholders on the causes of degra-
dation in an historical perspective. It is the task of the
science of restoration ecology to search for laws and
general rules, and to develop applicable concepts and
theories, including, very simply, how to get from State
C 'back to' the State A of Figure 1.2.
In Chapter 1, we distinguished three different levels
of ambition in the broad fi eld of ecological restoration,
as exemplifi ed by the terms restoration, rehabilitation
and reclamation. Here we elaborate a bit more on these
terms, to illustrate how goal setting depends on col-
laboration between parties. As noted already, the term
ecological restoration is often used in a very broad
and rather vague way, to mean bringing a site, or place,
or ecosystem 'back' to something called or considered
as ' original ' , ' initial ' or, more precisely, ' pre - distur-
bance' conditions in the sense employed in Chapter 1
(Figures 1.2 and 1.3 ). Ecological rehabilitation , in
the broad sense, is the improvement of ecosystem func-
tions without necessarily achieving or even seeking a
full return to ' pre - disturbance ' conditions. A rehabili-
tated site will be similar in ecological functioning to the
reference system (as discussed in this chapter) and
contain similar but not necessarily the same organ-
isms. Emphasis is generally on restoring ecosystem
processes and functions so as to increase the fl ow of
services and benefi ts to people. But, nonhuman
members of ecosystems are considered as well, and as
in restoration, ecological rehabilitation implies consid-
eration of an ecosystem of reference - a concept we
will develop further in what follows. Finally, reclama-

The restoration of natural capital is any
activity that integrates investment in and
replenishment of natural capital stocks to
improve the fl ow of ecosystem services,
which enhances all aspects of human
well-being. In common with ecological
restoration, natural capital restoration is
intended to improve the health, integrity,
and self-sustainability of ecosystems for
all living organisms. (p. 5)

This statement implies a diversity of rationales, both
scientifi c and nonscientifi c. It also brings together
various kinds of values that are all necessary for an
'entire restoration process' or what Clewell and
Aronson (2007) called holistic restoration . These
include (1) ecological values, based on ecological
science and what it can tell us about sustainability at
population, community and ecosystem levels, (2) socio-
cultural values, based on equity, intergenerational
justice, and cultural customs and perceptions and
(3) economic values, based on effi ciency and cost effec-
tiveness combined with the ecological economics
caveats that natural capital is the basis of all econo-
mies. This approach was adopted in the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and further elabo-
rated in the global assessment on the economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB 2010, 2011).
Weesie and van Andel (2002) modifi ed this model,
aiming at explicitly including non-anthropocentric, or
biocentric, values in the valuation system. Clewell and
Aronson (2007) added personal, psychological and
spiritual values, for example those resulting from aes-
thetic motivations, to this triple valuation, further illus-
trating the need for transdisciplinarity in the valuation
of nature. In the second chapter of the topic Restoring
Natural Capital , Blignaut et al . (2007) expressed this
same sentiment from a transdisciplinary perspective.