Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
ecosystem integrity. However, they emphasize the need to critically interrogate histor-
ical narratives and to carefully examine data quality, assumptions, and prejudices be-
fore prescribing ecosystem restoration target conditions. Indeed, “forestry statistics in
international circulation are the epiphenomena of power relations with long histori-
cal roots. Their reiteration is far from neutral, but serves to reinforce those power rela-
tions in ways, and with effects, from which their proponents might prefer to be disso-
ciated” (Fairhead and Leach 1998, 197). The myth of primeval ecological stability, an
ahistorical ecological account of vegetation change, and a jaundiced view of local
people's knowledge and behavior all served the interests of forestry and conservation
institutions anxious to control valuable forestland and resources.
It might be particularly difficult for Western scientists to apply these lessons to situ-
ations within their own countries, where they have a comfortable but perhaps superfi-
cial or biased familiarity with cultural and ecological patterns. In his research about
conflicts between environmental and property rights advocates in the western United
States, McCarthy (2002, 186) observed a tendency among social scientists to under-
value the ecological knowledge of the latter group: “(A)nglo-American social scientists
sometimes find it easier to study, recognize, and valorize only the environmental
knowledges and practices of third world peoples.” If local residents and landowners
are to become constructively engaged in ecosystem restoration, their experience, per-
spectives, and ways of knowing the landscape must be recognized, respected, and re-
flected in restoration initiatives.
Returning to the oak example, consider the other important questions: Who bene-
fits? Who loses? Who pays? In oak restoration, where ownership is largely private, yet
the goods produced are both public and private, weighing the obligations of the land-
owner against those of society involves complex value judgments. The work of resto-
ration is expensive; thinning and removing invasive brush and trees from oak stands
can cost thousands of dollars per acre. Opportunities are limited to offset the costs of
restoration activities, much less profit from them. Many landowners are concerned
that if their habitat improvements result in increased populations of protected species,
their lands may become subject to the Endangered Species Act and local land use re-
strictions, along with associated compliance costs (Ellefson 2000; Raedeke, Rikoon,
and Nilon 2001; Brook, Zint, and Young 2003; Mehmood and Zhang 2005; Matta,
Alavalapati, and Mercer 2009).
Considering these potential costs, should landowners pay for restoration? If not,
how should society subsidize restoration on private land? For some, landownership is
an indicator of relative privilege. For others, especially those who depend on the land
for their living, poorly performing natural resource sectors may cause them to live at
the margin. In the administration of technical and financial assistance programs from
such taxpayer-funded policies as the Farm Bill, rates of pay are generally fixed. When
conservation easements are used outside these programs to ensure that restoration is
maintained over time, land values set the price; people who own more valuable prop-
erties receive higher rates of payment for conservation easements. The social dialogue
about conservation and the line between public and private goods is rife with these
