Restoring Ecosystems Around the Mediterranean Basin: Beyond the Frontiers of Ecological Science

Based on concrete examples gathered from the Mediterranean region, this article shows why restoration ecology around the Mediterranean Basin must go beyond ecological science to embrace a contrasting local vision which integrates social and political realities. By taking into account the growing gap between the northern and southern/eastern shores of the Mediterranean, we propose the adoption of a double agenda for restoration around the Mediterranean to overcome the fact that restoration objectives are often jeopardized by political decisions initially aimed to promote conservation and lack of available technical means (even when appropriate scientific and political means are secured), and to enhance local actions with lasting impacts on the ecosystems. Our discussion illustrates how current ecological problems have become extremely complex and how the success of restoration projects depends on effective social interactions. Here, the simple juxtaposition of disciplines is no longer sufficient. We suggest going beyond existing ecological and socioeconomic frontiers to fill three main gaps. To fill the “design gap” it is important from the outset to promote a full debate for correct definition of the project's objectives and success indicators. Second, to fill the “implementation gap” ecological restoration science should be linked to information technology and cognition science to develop tools adapted for ecological debate. Third, to fill the “evaluation gap” aesthetic, social, cultural, and economic indicators should be defined during the debate process.     

Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology—Introduction

Although the aim of and the need for ecological restoration, and restoration ecology as its scientific base, are obvious, the field is still struggling with defining its basics. This situation, reflected by the debate about alternative terms to replace “restoration,” the ambiguous self‐image as a movement, art, application, or science, and the lack of a unifying conceptual framework, results in an uncertainty about the future development of the field. In a 10‐year project, an interdisciplinary Research Training Group in Jena followed the regeneration of one degraded terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem, respectively, and suggested a conceptual model for regeneration and restoration that was derived from the shared features of the two systems. As part of the scientific discussion of this new approach, an international workshop “Present State and Future Perspectives of Restoration Ecology” was organized in Jena in November 2004. The following collection of 12 opinion papers and 1 concluding chapter reflect the discussions at the workshop and contributes to the “self‐finding” process of restoration ecology.     

自然湿地生态恢复研究综述

湿地由于具有丰富的资源、独特的牛态结构和功能而享有“自然之肾”之称。为了更好地保护和开发利用湿地,世界各国都在积极采取措施阴止湿地的退化或消失,湿地的生态恢复与重建问题已成为生态学和环境科学的研究热点,在全面综述国内外湿地生态恢复研究进展的基础上,对湿地乍态恢复研究的重点和热点进行了探讨和分析,指出我国为做好湿地生态恢复工作尚需进一步加强湿地生态恢复的方法学、基础理论、应用技术和示范推广等方面的研究。     

Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World—Response to Cabin (2007)

Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an “ivory tower” mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using “square grids” placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin’s critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small‐scale and truly haphazard successes without well‐designed studies that can provide peer‐reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise ( Sagan 1996 ), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures.     

Science and Restoration Under a Big, Demon Haunted Tent: Reply to Giardina et al. (2007)

In a recent editorial, I discussed how the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world human complexities can limit the practical relevance of formal scientific research and argued that less formal approaches might often be more efficient and effective. Giardina et al. criticized this editorial and argued that formal science has and increasingly will play a central role in ecological restoration in particular and human progress in general. Here, I respond to these arguments and expand upon the ideas presented in my previous editorial. I further illustrate how despite superficial appearances the utilitarian value of formal science may often be largely indirect. I also argue that the complexities of ecological and human systems combined with the subjective values and political beliefs underlying restoration make transforming this discipline into a unified “hard science” virtually impossible. Because values and politics also underlie most environmental conflicts, and scientific inquiry is inherently unsuitable for resolving these kinds of disputes, the future success of restoration may depend more on political support than scientific progress. Dogmatic, nonfalsifiable faith in the universal superiority of “rigorous” scientific knowledge and methodologies can foster arrogance and intolerance and blind us to the ephemeral nature of scientific “truths” and the double‐edged sword of scientific “progress.” My hope is that Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) will remain a big inclusive tent that embraces a healthy diversity of foci and approaches that emulate the extraordinary diversity we find within the natural ecosystems and human cultures we strive to preserve, restore, and reconnect.     

Science, Art, or Application—the "Karma" of Restoration Ecology

The present state of restoration ecology is far away from Bradshaw’s “acid test for ecology.” The conclusions drawn from the series of papers in this issue and from the Jena workshop suggest some directions in which the field may progress. More attention must be paid to the degraded state, which should be evaluated by its specific features and carefully analyzed before any restoration plan is laid down. Restoration goals have to be realistic, which includes the appreciation of globally changing conditions, resulting in a paradigm‐shift toward “forward‐restoration.” Basically, the transition from the degraded state conditions to the target state is a kind of succession that is manipulated by the application of goal‐orientated and system‐specific disturbances. Whenever possible, restorationists should step back and make use of naturally occurring succession, which requires a sophisticated restoration strategy, involving flexible management responses, multiple alternative target states, robust measurements for the restoration progress, and careful long‐term monitoring. The unique feature of restoration ecology is the involvement of socioeconomic decisions, and conceptual frameworks for ecological restoration have to implement the specific links to natural succession. To bridge the gap between ecological theory and on the ground restoration, it is essential that restoration practice is translated into the vocabulary and thinking of basic ecology. If all these aspects are integrated, ecological restoration as an application—and restoration ecology as an applied science—may develop into an acid test for our understanding of interactions between people and their environment, rather than for pure ecology.     

Restoration and Science: A Practitioner/Scientist's View from Rare Habitat Restoration at a Southern California Preserve

Researchers reexamining the relationship between restoration science and practice report a continuing scientist‐practitioner gap. As a land manager with scientific training, I offer my perspective of the chasm and describe a restoration practice infused with as much science as the realities of limited budget and time allow. The coastal sage scrub (CSS) restoration project at Starr Ranch, a 1,585 ha Audubon preserve in southern California, combines non‐chemical invasive species control, restoration, and applied research. Our practices evolve from modified scientific approaches and the scientific literature. Results from experiments with non‐optimum replication (on effects of seed rates, soil tamping, and timing of planting) nonetheless had value for management decisions. A critical practice came from academic research that encouraged cost‐effective passive restoration. Our passive restoration monitoring data showed 28–100% total native cover after 3–5 years. Another published study found that restoration success in semiarid regions is dependent on rainfall, a finding vital for understanding active restoration monitoring results that showed a range of 0–88% total native cover at the end of the first season. Work progresses through a combination of applied research, a watchful eye on the scientific literature, and “ecological intuition” informed by the scientific literature and our own findings. I suggest that it is less critical for academic scientists to address the basic questions on technique that are helpful to land managers but rather advocate practitioner training in methods to test alternative strategies and long‐term monitoring.     

The SER Standards,cultural ecosystems,and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social‐ecological restoration.     

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on‐the‐ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.     

Policy Language in Restoration Ecology

Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy‐relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision‐makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy‐specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with “climate change” or “global warming” in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision‐making processes.     

A creative collaboration between the science of ecosystem restoration and art for sustainable stormwater management on an urban college campus

This article presents an interdisciplinary, on‐campus, student project, titled “The Rain Project” that I designed as an urban ecosystem restoration model as well as a collaborative pedagogical approach between ecological science and art at George Mason University (GMU), Virginia, U.S.A. A group of students from several disciplines (e.g. environmental science, art, civil engineering, biology, communication, and film/media) participated in designing and constructing a floating wetland for a campus stormwater pond as part of sustainable stormwater management. The Rain Project has numerous implications for college education, scholarship, and service while presenting a novel way of building a sense of community among undergraduate students for ecological awareness and literacy. The work of Jackie Brookner, a renowned eco‐artist who worked extensively on stormwater, and its relevance to the project is discussed. I strongly suggest the need for linking art and the science of ecosystem restoration to best obtain improvements in much‐needed communication for the success of community participatory restoration projects. I also believe that this kind of interdisciplinary, campus project can facilitate the changes we need to train higher education students to be able to both think differently and communicate effectively. The Rain Project introduced students to new learning strategies that connected “systems thinking” with art, ecological science, and restoration practices.     

Time for a paradigm shift toward a restorative culture

The United Nations' recent declaration of a Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) conveys the immense scales of degradation we face and the urgency of ecological recovery. Yet it speaks predominantly to productivity‐based approaches that may poorly balance conservation and development goals. As a result, it overlooks or distorts the very real potential for the holistic restoration of natural and cultural ecosystems to achieve lasting social and human health and well‐being benefits, and help stem the grotesque loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health in these times. There is need for a profound paradigm shift to address the prevailing economic and political climate that is keeping our world and biosphere on their current ominous trajectory. Such a paradigm shift could be based on the idea of a “restorative culture.” Practically, this could proceed by coupling the foundational philosophies and modus operandi of restoration ecology with public health medicine. The outcome would be an era of more healthy and more science‐ and knowledge‐driven sustainable restoration and local redevelopment. A restorative culture would recognize the fundamental linkages between ecosystems and human health, and consider biodiversity as fundamental to personal, community, and cultural well‐being and resilience. This requires public–private and community and individual partnerships at city, township, and watershed scales, as well as progressive industry champions working in collaboration with governments and the United Nations.     

“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

One of the means of creating a more robust methodology for ecological restoration involves reducing the gap between ecological theory and restoration practices. A common strategy to do so is using meta‐analysis to understand key drivers of restoration outcomes. “Active” and “passive” is a dichotomy often used to separate restoration strategies in such meta‐analyses. We investigate previously raised concerns about selection bias and subjective categorization of strategies. We promote a paired experimental design in future empirical research and propose the use of three categories of restoration strategy in lieu of “passive” and “active” to alleviate inconsistency in definitions and categorization.     

People as Ecological Participants in Ecological Restoration

In 1987, Bradshaw proposed that ecological restoration is the ultimate “acid test” of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems ( Bradshaw 1987 ). Although this concept is widely supported academically, how it can be applied by restoration practitioners is still unclear. This is an issue not limited to Bradshaw’s acid test, but moreover, reflects a general difficulty associated with the polarization between conceptual restoration (restoration ecology) and practical restoration (ecological restoration), where each has functioned to certain degree in isolation of the other. Outside of the more obvious pragmatic reasons for the relative independence between ecological restoration and restoration ecology, we propose that a more contentious explanation is that the approach taken toward understanding ecosystem development in restoration ecology is tangential to what actually takes place in ecological restoration. Current paradigms assume that the process of ecosystem development in restoration should follow the developmental trajectories suggested by classical ecological succession models. However, unlike these models, ecosystem development in restoration is, at least initially, largely manipulated by people, rather than by abiotic and biotic forces alone. There has been little research undertaken to explore how restoration activities impact upon or add to the extant ecological processes operating within a restoration site. Consequently, ecological restoration may not be so much an acid test of our understanding the functioning of ecosystems, but rather, an acid test of our understanding mutually beneficial interactions between humans and ecosystems.     

Insights from a Cross‐Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long‐standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross‐disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole‐landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human‐modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross‐disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com .     

Restoration Ecology to the Future: A Call for New Paradigm

The discipline of restoration ecology has grown remarkably in the past decades, providing new ideas and opportunities for conserving biological diversity, managing ecosystems, and testing ecological theories. On the other side, its past‐oriented, static, and idealistic approach has been criticized for subjectivity in determining restoration goals, inapplicability to dynamic ecosystems, and inability for restoring certain irreversible losses. Moreover, unpredictable sustainability of the restored ecosystems, which were modeled after its historical fidelity, adds our skepticism under the changing environment. This paper calls for a new paradigm of ecological restoration to the future. A future‐oriented restoration should (1) establish the ecosystems that are able to sustain in the future, not the past, environment; (2) have multiple alternative goals and trajectories for unpredictable endpoints; (3) focus on rehabilitation of ecosystem functions rather than recomposition of species or cosmetics of landscape surface; and (4) acknowledge its identity as a “value‐laden” applied science within economically and socially acceptable framework. Applicability of ecological theories to restoration practice is also discussed in this paper.     

From Biodiversity to Ecodiversity: A Landscape-Ecology Approach to Conservation and Restoration

An environmental revolution is urgently needed that will lead to a post-industrial symbiosis between man and nature. This can be realized only if the present unrestrained biological impoverishment and neotechnological landscape degradation are replaced by the creation of healthy and attractive landscapes. Restorationists can fulfill a vital role in this process. They must broaden their scales from biodiversity restoration in small, protected nature islands to the large-scale restoration of natural and cultural landscapes. To achieve this they must restore not only the patterns of vegetation but also the processes that create these patterns, including human land uses. Their goal should be to restore the total biological, ecological, and cultural landscape diversity, or “ecodiversity,” and its intrinsic and instrumental values of highly valuable, endangered seminatural, agricultural and rural landscapes. For this purpose it is essential to maintain and restore the dynamic flow equilibrium between biodiversity, ecological, and cultural landscape heterogeneity, as influenced by human land uses, which occur at different spatial and temporal scales and intensities. Recent advances in landscape ecology should be utilized for broader assessment of ecodiversity, including proposed indices of ecodiversity, new techniques such as Intelligent Geographical Information Systems (IGIS), and Green Books for the holistic conservation and restoration of valuable endangered landscapes. Restoration ecology can make an important contribution to an urgently needed environmental revolution. This revolution should lead to a new symbiosis between man and nature by broadening the goal of vegetation restoration to ecological and cultural landscape restoration, and thereby to total landscape ecodiversity.     

Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

The Recent Double Paradigm Shift in Restoration Ecology

The fields of ecology and ecological restoration possess an enormous potential for cross‐fertilization of ideas and information. Ecology could play a major role in informing practical restoration, whereas restoration projects, often situated in quite extreme environments, provide an excellent opportunity to test ecological theories. Efforts to base restoration on more of a scientific foundation, however, have recently started gathering momentum, following the call for such a link by Tony Bradshaw in 1987. On another level, as we gather more experience and information from restoration projects, it is becoming equally clear that often neglected socioeconomic and political aspects of restoration should not be forgotten in the overall approach to restoration. The two paradigm shifts in ecological restoration, toward more scientific foundation and better inclusion of socioeconomic limits and opportunities, locate restoration firmly in the transdisciplinary arena, with all the concomitant challenges and opportunities. In this sense, ecological restoration could be compared to the medical profession, where both a sound knowledge of science and human nature are a prerequisite for success in healing.