Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
context driven, (3) prone to be immersed in disagreement and compromise, and (4)
experiential.
Numerous studies have shown that determining restoration goals and best prac-
tices are value-laden activities because they involve human perceptions, beliefs, emo-
tions, knowledge, and, ultimately, behaviors (Gobster and Hull 2000; Bright, Barro,
and Burtz 2002; Morford and James 2002; Shindler, Wilton, and Wright 2002). This
is problematic when one practices ecological restoration from a strictly scientific per-
spective, because ecological science alone fails to capture the full extent of the issues
we are trying to solve or that must be bridged in order to reach a science-based solu-
tion. As historian and ecologist Robert McIntosh points out, “The conflict between
the image of science as objective and value-free and that of ecology as intrinsically
value-laden and a guide to ethics for humans, animals, and even trees is difficult to
reconcile. Segregation of strictly scientific concerns from matters of public policy is
not easy, as atomic scientists had found” (McIntosh 1986, 308). Furthermore, ecolog-
ical restoration activities take place in cultural, political, and economic contexts that
produce different “strains” and definitions of ecological restoration. This is especially
true as one looks at projects across various regions and at international scales. In addi-
tion, these contexts are dynamic and can change with the addition or removal of even
one influential person from an oversight group, management team, legislative body,
or field crew. Influxes of funding, passage of key legislation or mandates, perceived cri-
sis conditions, and increased public awareness and support can also play key roles in
advancing restoration activities. Likewise, bad press, poor relationships with clients
and stakeholders, and other negative associations tend to doom the best plans and
override the findings of sound scientific research.
As we have seen in numerous situations (e.g., Cook County Forest Preserves, the
Everglades, San Francisco nature parks, southwestern ponderosa pine forests), these
two factors—value ladenness and context—can and do produce situations where dis-
agreements have halted or canceled restoration efforts. Moreover, these two aspects of
the human condition often compromise the historical authenticity (Egan 2006) or
historical fidelity (Higgs 2003) of ecological restoration projects and move them
closer to some other kind of conservation effort (i.e., reclamation, revegetation).
To move forward under conditions characterized by uncertainty, disagreement,
and complexity, our experience tells us that, instead of seeking greater control we
must use pertinent strategies, such as the democratic process, inclusiveness, and re-
specting local values and knowledge. We must also recognize competing land-use
views, differing visions of human-nature relationships, and opposing values related to
job creation and financing. Working through these strategies can help develop solu-
tions amenable to both nature and humans.
Finally, human involvement in restoration practices is experiential in both the
physical and the psychological sense, making it open for educational possibilities,
artistic interpretations, and spiritual and physical renewal. These efforts can, likewise,
aid in resolving situations blinded by mistrust and ignorance. Ultimately, people are
innately part of restoration projects as experts, learned amateurs, or volunteers, or as
the general public affected by the results of restoration projects. To leave them unrec-
