Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
because centers of concentrated wealth tend to thwart democratic processes (Brunk-
horst; Boyce, Narain, and Stanton 2007). To that end, land trusts (Brunckhorst, Whit-
ney) and other private land holdings provide some of the best opportunities for fo-
cused, largely uncomplicated restoration projects. Common land projects, on the
other hand, are often more difficult because (1) there are numerous stakeholders,
some of whom will use litigious actions to get what they want; (2) properties are man-
aged by government agencies and are subject to entrenched bureaucratic cultures;
and (3) landscape-scale restoration projects (e.g., Everglades Restoration in Florida,
Bay-Delta Project in California, Natura 2000 in Europe, Four Forest Restoration Ini-
tiative in Arizona) require organizational and political skills unknown to most res-
torationists. Such projects also require effective and authentic means of public par-
ticipation (i.e., necessary public feedback; Abrams, Escalera Reyes) to ensure a
representative process that will be as equitable as possible.
Mainstream economists' failure to acknowledge ecosystem services/natural capital
is another power issue noted by authors of this volume. In particular, Kim and Hjerpe
make the case for ecological economics, and its full-cost accounting of externalities
(i.e., natural capital), as an essential element of ecological restoration. They also ar-
gue for an economics that recognizes the need for collective management of lands
held in common and suggest that “the success of collective action is possible when
the institutional and organizational settings are designed in a way that provides bene-
fits to participants, guarantees their rights, and facilitates responses to changing condi-
tions” (201).
Like the movement toward social justice, connecting ecological economics with
ecological restoration pushes the practice further into the social context and away, at
least in many cases, from its original intent of restoring only plant associations and an-
imal populations, and into restoring full ecosystems, including human communities.
Perspective
When working in human-influenced ecosystems where participation and power are
in constant tension and flux, it is important to keep things in perspective or, as the
American civil rights movement saying reminded its adherents: “Keep your eyes on
the prize!” Working in the expanded scope of ecological restoration, it is very easy to
become drawn into the emotions of working with others in complex situations or to
withdraw into the objectivity of scientific studies and lose touch with the social rea-
sons for that work. Having a framework of reference becomes important to working
through issues (both technical and social) without losing your integrity and good judg-
ment. We offer, here, such a framework—one based on the integral theory of con-
temporary philosopher, Ken Wilbur, and made more accessible by the topic
Integral
Ecology: Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World
(Esbjörn-Hargens and Zimmer-
man 2009).
The Wilbur/Integral Ecology framework, which has been reviewed previously in
a restoration context by Clewell and Aronson (2007), provides a quadranic approach
to capturing reality. The quadrants are (1) individual-subjective (I), (2) individual-
