Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
human interactions in those ecosystems they define as cultural by saying, “The resto-
ration of such [cultural] ecosystems normally includes the concomitant recovery of
indigenous ecological management practices, including support for the cultural sur-
vival of indigenous peoples and their languages as living libraries of traditional eco-
logical knowledge” (SER Primer 2004). While this is an important recognition of in-
digenous cultures within the context of restoration, it fails to address how the
mainstream society might use ecological restoration practices to reengage with nature
and move beyond the idea of nature as other and into the worldview of reciprocal res-
toration. See the chapters 19 and 21 in this volume for other perspectives about more
mainstream eco-cultural practices.
A Gradient of Terminology
Terminology is important in the way it frames the discourse, and several terms have
been used to express varying levels of integration between cultures and land restora-
tion. Here I discuss and compare three terms that have been used to describe this re-
lationship—“biocultural restoration,” “eco-cultural restoration,” and “reciprocal res-
toration.” The term “biocultural restoration” was first used by Dan Janzen to describe
his initiatives to involve local cultures as allies in the restoration at Guanacaste Na-
tional Park in Costa Rica (1988). Cairns (2000) uses the term to categorize restoration
projects that have a significant input and support from citizen groups and take place
in a cultural landscape. In a number of cases, the approach to integrating culture and
restoration has been decidedly top-down, and cultural participation appears limited to
restorationists cultivating social support for their projects. Biocultural restoration has
become associated with this important, but potentially superficial, approach to cul-
tural engagement.
Some authors have replaced “biocultural” with “eco-cultural” (Higgs 2003; Mar-
tinez 2003). In examining the pattern of use of this term, it seems to be applied to res-
toration projects that are substantially guided and informed by the cultural goals and
knowledge of the inhabitants of a cultural landscape, where the humans are active
participants in the restoration. Eco-cultural restoration represents a much deeper
level of cultural engagement of an indigenous culture, as in the case of the Sinkyone
Intertribal Wilderness Project (Martinez 1992).
If we use the indigenous worldview to frame the relationship of restoration, what
language might we use? Among the primary tenets of indigenous environmental phi-
losophy is reciprocity. Thus I propose that we need a new term to describe that to
which we might aspire; a new term wherein we recognize and act from the essential
interconnectedness of land and people, where all flourishing is mutual. That new/old
term is “reciprocal restoration” (see box 18.1).
Becoming Indigenous to Place
In addition to its significance for indigenous cultures, reciprocal restoration has
the potential to occur within mainstream society by reengaging people with land,
