The Semiglades: The Collision of Restoration,Social Values,and the Ecosystem Concept

Defining success targets in restoration and how social values affect them are two commonly discussed issues in restoration today. We believe that how success is commonly defined—with vague terms such as “healthy ecosystem” or cited as a return to a previous, historic state—needs to be reevaluated. With the increasing number of novel ecosystems, there is an increasing conflict between the ecosystem concept, social values, and restoration. This arises from the fact that ecosystems are defined by the values of the scientists describing them, necessarily constraining the ecosystem to a generally static concept. It is not directly the concept, but how it is perceived through our filter of social values that represses the creativity and innovation needed in restoration today. Within restoration, we feel that the ecosystem concept does a disservice by ignoring the increasing number of novel systems, and that hinders real progress in a time when hesitation can be costly. To best illustrate this, we offer the example of restoration of the Florida Everglades and how it has become a novel system in pattern and process. We suggest renaming the Everglades “The Semiglades” in hopes of opening a dialog to expose social/ecosystem biases and include novel landscapes in management and planning.     

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.     

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.     

The forest Gribskov, Denmark: lessons from the past qualify contemporary conservation, restoration and forest management

Knowledge of forest history is crucial for understanding the processes, structures, functions and current status of forest ecosystems. An enhanced understanding of the long history of disturbance factors affecting forest development and thereby the present state of the forest is particularly valuable when working with forest management, conservation and restoration. Integrating the legacies of past disturbances—natural as well as anthropogenic—into conservation and management strategies is likely to favour natural values and ecosystem services. A case-study in Gribskov, Denmark, using palaeoecological data and historical source materials explores the lessons learned from the past and leads to the suggestion of a conceptual model of how information from the past can increase understanding of long-term ecological processes.     

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.     

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.     

Egress! How technophilia can reinforce biophilia to improve ecological restoration

For effective and sustained ecological restoration, community support is essential. Yet, in modern society, artificial constructs and electronic technology now dominate most peoples' interests (technophilia). This has led to a perceived growing disconnection between humans and nature. We ask how such technology might be harnessed as an agent of connection to the environment, rather than being seen as a driver of detachment. We use the example of a hugely popular mobile augmented reality smartphone game “Ingress” to show how gaming technology can excite people about nature, unlock their inherent biophilia, and highlight the value of ecological restoration in their everyday lives.     

Assessing accuracy and precision for field and laboratory data: a perspective in ecosystem restoration

Unlike most laboratory studies, rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures may be lacking in ecosystem restoration (“ecorestoration”) projects, despite legislative mandates in the United States. This is due, in part, to ecorestoration specialists making the false assumption that some types of data (e.g. discrete variables such as species identification and abundance classes) are not subject to evaluations of data quality. Moreover, emergent behavior manifested by complex, adapting, and nonlinear organizations responsible for monitoring the success of ecorestoration projects tend to unconsciously minimize disorder, QA/QC being an activity perceived as creating disorder. We discuss similarities and differences in assessing precision and accuracy for field and laboratory data. Although the concepts for assessing precision and accuracy of ecorestoration field data are conceptually the same as laboratory data, the manner in which these data quality attributes are assessed is different. From a sample analysis perspective, a field crew is comparable to a laboratory instrument that requires regular “recalibration,” with results obtained by experts at the same plot treated as laboratory calibration standards. Unlike laboratory standards and reference materials, the “true” value for many field variables is commonly unknown. In the laboratory, specific QA/QC samples assess error for each aspect of the measurement process, whereas field revisits assess precision and accuracy of the entire data collection process following initial calibration. Rigorous QA/QC data in an ecorestoration project are essential for evaluating the success of a project, and they provide the only objective “legacy” of the dataset for potential legal challenges and future uses.     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

P > .05: The incorrect interpretation of “not significant” results is a significant problem

Statistically nonsignificant (p > .05) results from a null hypothesis significance test (NHST) are often mistakenly interpreted as evidence that the null hypothesis is true—that there is “no effect” or “no difference.” However, many of these results occur because the study had low statistical power to detect an effect. Power below 50% is common, in which case a result of no statistical significance is more likely to be incorrect than correct. The inference of “no effect” is not valid even if power is high. NHST assumes that the null hypothesis is true; p is the probability of the data under the assumption that there is no effect. A statistical test cannot confirm what it assumes. These incorrect statistical inferences could be eliminated if decisions based on p values were replaced by a biological evaluation of effect sizes and their confidence intervals. For a single study, the observed effect size is the best estimate of the population effect size, regardless of the p value. Unlike p values, confidence intervals provide information about the precision of the observed effect. In the biomedical and pharmacology literature, methods have been developed to evaluate whether effects are “equivalent,” rather than zero, as tested with NHST. These methods could be used by biological anthropologists to evaluate the presence or absence of meaningful biological effects. Most of what appears to be known about no difference or no effect between sexes, between populations, between treatments, and other circumstances in the biological anthropology literature is based on invalid statistical inference.     

The relevance of international restoration principles for ecosystem restoration practice in Rwanda

The restoration of degraded ecosystems is considered a key strategy to contribute to ecological integrity and human well-being. To support restoration practice, 10 “Principles to guide the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030” were conceived through a consultative process and put forward by a group of leading international restoration actors. The extent to which these principles can inform successful restoration activities on the ground, however, remains largely unknown. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, we probed 32 stakeholders who plan, manage, and implement restoration in Rwanda to elicit which factors they perceive as most important for successful restoration based on the UN Decade principles. Using the Q-methodology, we discovered that participants overall agreed that the UN Decade principles are relevant to inform successful ecosystem restoration in the study area. Further, the Q-study revealed three distinct groups of stakeholders with different priorities in terms of opinions on restoration aims, stakeholder involvement, and relevant spatial scales. Based on semi-structured interviews, we identified four considerations for successful restoration that require special attention in future restoration interventions in the study area: (1) restoring historical conditions, (2) collecting baseline data, (3) increasing local communities' sense of ownership, and (4) pursuing a long-term vision for restoration activities. To address these considerations and thereby harvest the potential of ecosystem restoration to benefit both people and nature in the long run, diverse stakeholders with different priorities for restoration need to come together to discuss possible differences in their perceived priorities, perspectives, and approaches.     

Knowing when (not) to attempt ecological restoration

Here we argue that there are two important steps in the decision process to restore ecological system that are often ignored. First, consideration of restoration is in response to observed change in a system, but ecological systems can fluctuate widely in their normal dynamic. Thus, there is an imperative to interpret ecological change; shifts in community structure that represent “typical” fluctuations in a properly functioning ecosystem do not warrant restoration, while change associated with phase shift in the system may well demand restoration action. Second, where restoration effort is warranted, it needs to be determined whether management responses are likely to be successful within resource constraints. Where ecological change involves pronounced hysteresis, even massive effort may have little chance in effecting recovery to a preferred ecosystem state. Theory and models indicate that consideration of the characteristic length scales (CLSs) of ecological systems provides an unambiguous interpretation of ecological change, enabling differentiation of “typical” fluctuations from phase shift, and here we show that CLSs can be calculated for real communities from their species' dynamics, and that their behavior is as predicted from theory. We also show that for ecological systems where local interactions and forcings are well understood, validated simulation models can provide a ready means to identify hysteresis and estimate its magnitude. We conclude that there are useful tools available for ecologists to address the key questions of (1) whether restoration attempts are warranted in the first place and, if they are, (2) whether it is practical to pursue them.     

Too much common sense,not enough critical thinking!

This paper explores two different views about common sense—those of Clifford Geertz and Antonio Gramsci. It examines their presuppositions, assesses their utility for archaeologists, and considers the implications of current common-sense explanations of the past. It points out that common sense is both historical. Yesterday’s common sense sometimes morphs into today’s good sense or scientific truth. Today’s common sense or scientific truth often becomes tomorrow’s false consciousness or folklore. Common sense is also relational. Groups with different positionalities in hierarchically organized societies may have widely divergent views about what is common sense. Finally, it raises the question of why particular “common sense” explanations of the present—buttressed with claims that they are rooted historically in a fixed, unchanging human nature and morality—are repeatedly resurrected by fundamentalists and conservatives in both hemispheres to justify political arguments and to reassert or impose or particular power relations.     

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.     

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.     

Indicators of success should be sensitive to compositional failures: reply to Suganuma and Durigan

Species composition is a fundamental attribute of restored ecosystems, but it was excluded from a recent set of indicators of restoration success recommended for the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Suganuma and Durigan (2015) write off species composition as “unpredictable,” but their analysis did not account for key compositional predictors, like site history and restoration technique. The result is a framework for evaluating restoration success that is insensitive to common restoration failures—including poor ecosystem functioning and lack of resilience.     

Restoration Goes Wild: A Reply to Throop and Purdom

Throop and Purdom’s proposal for virtues based restoration is consistent with my concept of focal restoration, but their interpretation conflates focal restoration with participatory restoration. We disagree on the meaning of wilderness and on the appropriate underlying relationship between nature and culture, which affects how each of us regards the role of restoration in so‐called wilderness. I prefer the term “wildness” over wilderness precisely because the former locates the power of meaning in process rather than place. The primary metaphors we used to describe the proper role of restoration differ, too. Throop and Purdom prefer “healing,” whereas my preference is for “design” as a way of acknowledging the moral implications of restoration interventions in natural processes.     

“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.