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.     

The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge

The terms “ecological restoration” and “restoration ecology” are frequently interchanged. Restoration ecology is the suite of scientific practices that constitute an emergent subdiscipline of ecology. Ecological restoration is the ensemble of practices that constitute the entire field of restoration, including restoration ecology as well as the participating human and natural sciences, politics, technologies, economic factors, and cultural dimensions. This paper is motivated by the concern that the broader practice of restoration may become narrowed over the next decade as a result of zealous attention to scientific and technological considerations, and that restoration ecology will trump ecological restoration. Scientific and technological acumen is necessary for successful restoration, but insufficient. Maintaining a broader approach to restoration requires respect for other kinds of knowledge than science, and especially the recognition of a moral center that is beyond the scope of science to address fully. An example of integrated restoration is presented: the ecological and cultural restoration of Discovery Island (near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) by the Lekwungen people (Songhees First Nation).     

Restoration ecology: the study of applied optimism

As a young trainee in the field of restoration ecology in the modern age, it is difficult to feel optimistic about our future. As many environmental protections are de‐regulated and the climate crisis heightens, I turned to restoration to find hope in a changing world. Restoration ecologists are the optimists of biology. We work every day to make the world a better place and our passion and forward thinking spurred the United Nation's “decade of restoration.” Learning about the successes of the hardworking members of this field gives me hope. As the earth moves toward an unimaginable future, we should continue to try to make the world a better place and encourage those around us to act and restore the environments they value, whether it be large‐scale restoration or preserving garden pollinator habitat. I am forever thankful to restoration ecology and the optimism the field provides.     

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.     

Restorative and regenerative: Exploring the concepts in the circular economy

The most recognized definition of the circular economy is that it is a restorative and regenerative economy. Despite the wide use and importance attributed to the concepts of “restoration” and “regeneration,” they are rarely defined or explained in the circular economy literature. In this context, this study critically examines the two terms, while providing guidance on their future utilization and development. Specifically, the study investigates the origin of the concepts, their adoption in frameworks that anticipated the idea of the circular economy, and their connotations in the circular economy literature. The examination supports the need for clear and distinct definitions, combined with precision in usage. From a review of the literature, restoration is a better‐defined concept than regeneration, although it needs conceptual re‐enforcement relative to the biological/ecological aspects of the circular economy. This study suggests looking in the direction of restoration ecology, a well‐established branch of ecological research. Conversely, regeneration is a symbolic/evocative term with little practical application in the context of circular systems except in the case of certain agricultural practices. Until new conceptual developments intervene, regeneration does not seem to be applicable to the economy as a whole and because of this, might be abandoned as a guiding principle of the circular economy. Unlike regeneration, restoration can be considered a core principle because it has widespread application and can be a point of reference for circular applications. This does not preclude the possibility that other concepts may be needed to augment restoration.     

Epilogue: Toward a Transdisciplinary Science of Ecological and Cultural Landscape Restoration

To bridge the gaps between restoration as a science and as a practice, restoration ecology has to broaden its scope toward transdisciplinarity in close cooperation with landscape ecologists and other holistic environmentally oriented scientists, professionals, practitioners, and stakeholders. For restoration, the ongoing transdisciplinary scientific revolution has opened new insights to cope with the complex bio‐hydro‐ and human‐ecological network relations. The Total Human Ecosystem (THE), integrating humans with all other organisms and their total environment at the highest level of the global hierarchy, should become the unifying holistic paradigm for all synthetic “eco‐disciplines.” These should link ecological knowledge, wisdom, and ethics with their scientific and professional expertise from the natural and social sciences and the humanities. As the tangible matrix for all organisms, including humans, our industrial Total Human Landscape is the concrete spatial and functional system of the THE. It forms a closely interlaced network of solar energy–powered natural and seminatural biosphere landscapes and fossil energy–powered urban and agro‐industrial technosphere landscapes. The self‐organizing and self‐creative restoration capacities of biosphere landscapes are driven by mutually amplifying auto‐ and cross‐catalytic feedback loops, but the rapidly expanding technosphere landscapes are driven by destabilizing “run‐away” feedback loops. To prevent a global breakdown and to ensure the sustainable future for both humankind and nature, these positive feedbacks have to be counteracted by restraining, cultural feedbacks of environmental planning and management, conservation, and restoration. As the theme of this special issue alludes to, this template should become an integral part of an urgently needed sustainability revolution, to which the transdisciplinary landscape restoration could contribute its important share.     

The Challenge to Restore Processes in Face of Nonlinear Dynamics—On the Crucial Role of Disturbance Regimes

Increasingly, restoration ecologists and managers are challenged to restore ecological processes that lead to self‐sustaining ecosystem dynamics. Due to changing environmental conditions, however, restoration goals need to include novel regimes beyond prior reference conditions or reference dynamics. In face of these fundamental challenges in process‐based restoration ecology, disturbance ecology can offer useful insights. Here, I discuss the contribution of disturbance ecology to understanding assembly rules, ecosystem dynamics, regime shifts, and nonlinear dynamics. Using the patch and multipatch concept, all insights are organized according to two spatial and two temporal categories: “patch–event,”“patch–multievent,”“multipatch–event,” and “multipatch–multievent.” This concept implies the consideration of both spatial patterns and temporal rhythms inside and outside of a restoration site. Emerging issues, such as uncoupling of internal and external dynamics, are considered.     

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.     

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.     

“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.     

Landscape Pattern Dynamics and Mechanisms during Vegetation Restoration: A Multiscale,Hierarchical Patch Dynamics Approach

The spatial pattern of vegetation changes during ecological restoration, and these changes are affected by the process of restoration. The objective of this study was to integrate the pattern and mechanism of forest restoration in the Dinghushan Nature Reserve (DNR), Guangdong, China, based on data from remote sensing and long‐term field observations. We studied the pattern dynamics of three main forest types and their underlying mechanisms during restoration following a multiscale, hierarchical patch dynamics framework that integrates population, community, and landscape processes. Remote sensing data were used to determine the changes in landscape pattern during different periods of forest restoration from 1978 to 2006. At the landscape scale, the number, area, and perimeter of the needle/broad‐leaved mixed forest (MF) and the evergreen broad‐leaved forest (BF) increased, whereas those of the tropical needle‐leaved forest (NF) decreased during succession. Our analysis based on long‐term field observations indicated that the change rate of NF was lower than that of MF during 1981–1996, but became much higher during 1996–2007. The rate of change in landscape pattern and the progression of succession stages were consistent with each other. Our results also showed that species regeneration and community succession are the biological basis of forest landscape dynamics during vegetation restoration. Landscape pattern analysis allowed us to show “what” happened during vegetation restoration and “where,” and population and community analysis indicated “why” and “how” it happened.     

Some Remarks on the Socio-Cultural Background of Restoration Ecology

Restoration ecology plays an important role in nature conservation policy in Europe today. It establishes the scientific basis for restoring ecosystems altered or destroyed by man to a more “natural” state. The goals of restoration ecology can generally be described in terms of increased biodiversity, enhanced water retention capacity, avoidance of soil erosion, etc. In practice, however, a discrepancy exists between the high ideals of restoration goals and reality, where one often encounters limiting factors. These limiting factors can include the conflict between different restoration goals, the unpredictability of restoration goals owing to long‐term effects and stochastic events, the insufficient social acceptance of landscape changes during restoration processes, and the use of restoration processes themselves (e.g., undisturbed succession, certain management measures like impoverishment of fertilized areas) as restoration goals in place of a certain resource quality (such as species composition, population sizes, water quality). Two examples from southern Germany show that restoration goals in European cultural landscapes can only be implemented successfully when they are integrated into the respective land use systems.     

Wilderness Restoration: The Paradox of Public Participation

Recent trends in ecological restoration complicate the job of wilderness managers. An emphasis on volunteer participation in restoration designed to foster human/nature relationships often conflicts with the mandate to leave land untrammeled. We frame this conflict as the “participation paradox.” Higgs’ (2003) Nature by Design contains a response to the paradox that includes a strong defense of participatory focal restoration and a related critique of wilderness. After identifying the limitations of Higgs’ arguments, we address the paradox by showing how an appeal to the moral virtues of humility, self‐restraint, and altruism supports a restrictive conception of wilderness and a healing metaphor for wilderness restoration. The virtue‐informed healing metaphor provides an argument for restricting volunteer participation and long‐term restoration projects in wilderness areas. It also identifies the general conditions in which damaged wilderness should be allowed to “heal itself.” The upshot of our approach to the paradox is that some standards for good restoration should be contextualized to land use designations. In particular, the emphasis on participatory restoration is appropriate in humanized landscapes but not in wilderness.     

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.     

Ecological restoration success: a policy analysis understanding

This article discusses how ecological restoration success can be understood and evaluated using a policy analysis lens. First, this article details a conceptual tool that helps to develop a more encompassing set of criteria to assess restoration activities that provide socioeconomic benefits. Second, by broadening the understanding of restoration success and how it can be evaluated, it allows a more critical view of evaluation itself and its uses as a policy tool. A table is presented that can help practitioners reveal preferences and clarify the aims and objectives of particular initiatives. The table also sensitizes practitioners to the complexity of the links between restoration rationales and evaluation criteria, which in turn may open up much needed discussion and dialogue between restoration participants about the underlying values an actor may wish to promote. It heightens awareness of the fact that evaluation methods need to recognize that restoration is driven by multiple rationales often in the same project, both process driven and output oriented, which in turn can change over time. Adding process and output criteria together may also raise issues of priority. Evaluation criteria thus need to be assigned in ways that reflect these multiplicities, while at the same time recognizing that some restoration values might be conflictual and that there may be winners and losers. Furthermore, judgement about “failure” of a project can change as new goals emerge in delivery and implementation. Ecological restoration evaluation should therefore be ongoing, contextual, and not a one‐off event.     

Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting

The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.     

Methods for tracking sagebrush‐steppe community trajectories and quantifying resilience in relation to disturbance and restoration

Understanding how plant community dynamics are impacted by altered disturbance regimes is a pressing challenge for restoration ecology. Most assessments of community dynamics involve computationally intensive statistical techniques, while management often defers to derived, qualitative “state‐and‐transition” models. Here, we demonstrate an intermediate approach to track and predict community resilience, diversifying the tools available to assess ecosystem change. First, we develop indices of sagebrush‐steppe community structure in permanent monitoring plots based on plant functional types and our conceptual understanding of the ecosystem. The indices define a bivariate space within which the trajectories of permanent monitoring plots can be tracked. Second, we quantify two metrics of community resilience: resistance (overall change during the time period) and stability (average amount of movement per monitoring period). Plots dominated by obligate seeder shrubs displayed low resilience relative to those dominated by grasses and forbs or resprouting shrubs. Resilience was strongly related to initial plant functional type composition and elevation. Our results suggest restoration objectives should consider how plant traits control ecosystem responses to disturbance. We suggest that the approach developed here can help assess longer‐term resilience, evaluate restoration success, and identify communities at risk of state transitions.     

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.     

On the Status of Restoration Science: Obstacles and Opportunities

Terrestrial restoration ecology is not as well developed as aquatic and wetland restoration. There are several key obstacles to progress in restoration ecology, but these obstacles may also be viewed as opportunities to exploit. One obstacle is demonstration science, or an overreliance on simplistic experiments with few treatment factors and few levels of those factors. Complex, multivariate experiments yield greater insights, especially when teamed with sophisticated methods of data analysis. A second key obstacle is myopic scholarship that has led to little synthesis and weak conceptual theory. A greater awareness of and explicit references to ecological principles will help develop the conceptual basis of restoration science. Where should restoration ecology be headed? We should consider forming partnerships with developers, landscape artists, and industry to do complex, large‐scale experiments and make restoration a more common part of everyday life.