Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the 1940s, and subsistence use made them what they were. Today, planners and con-
servationists have wrestled with the need to both restore sustainable landscapes and
justify their existence, socially and economically. One approach has been to recognize
the output of restoration in providing ecosystem services; essentially the benefits that
ecological systems provide to society (see chap. 14, this volume). This is relevant to
fenland because it produces socioeconomic and environmental goods, including
floodwater storage, carbon sequestration, leisure and health benefits, and opportuni-
ties for tourism and recreation.
Some of these provide direct economic benefits to both indigenous local people
and newcomers. However, while businesses and employment are linked to habitat
creation, few engage directly in managing the created ecology. Thus they differ fun-
damentally in their relationships with nature and natural resources from the close de-
pendence of earlier communities. Indeed, it is often the case that leisure, recreational,
and tourism uses are effectively parasitic on the landscape, putting little or nothing
back into maintenance (Rotherham 2008b). Some new habitat creation projects and
restoration initiatives try to engage local people by linking creation and conservation
to local enterprises. Conservation bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds, the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, and the National Trust, attempt to relate their
conservation efforts for key target species to local people and their economy.
Conclusion
A key issue is the balance between “restoration” (i.e., return to ecologically sympa-
thetic management through reestablishing traditional land uses) and “creation” (i.e.,
establishing new landscapes on former industrial or intensive agri-industrial land). I
conclude that initiatives need both resonance with local communities and economic
viability to maintain long-term sustainability. Across diverse sites and situations, the
studies highlight potential for restoration and recovery of historic landscapes once
managed traditionally by local people. Some projects were particularly successful
with remarkable recovery or reappearance of rare and once extinct species.
However, some projects had serious difficulties and lacked holistic approaches
with problems identified in recovery and restoration of cultural landscapes. These
sites are
not
natural since human impacts are deeply etched in their fabric, but are
“eco-cultural landscapes.” This raises questions about what we restore and why. How
can we address conflicts between contemporary, sustainable landscapes and ecology,
and recognize and conserve the unique historic archives of these resources? The stud-
ies help inform debates, raising issues and questions about key difficulties in restora-
tion and creation programs. In particular, there has been catastrophic rapid loss of lo-
cal cultural knowledge about the origins of these landscapes, so decisions about
approaches to restoration and creation by local people and experts are not based on
firm understanding of the resource. This means expected outcomes differ signifi-
cantly from reality. The visual impact of management, such as woodland coppicing,
can upset local people who expect an untouched “natural” area.
