You Can t Not Choose: Embracing the Role of Choice in Ecological Restoration

Transcription

1 EDITORIAL OPINION You Can t Not Choose: Embracing the Role of Choice in Ecological Restoration Stuart K. Allison 1,2 Abstract From the moment of its inception, human choice about how to treat the environment is a key part of ecological restoration. Because many, if not most, restoration projects require continual management once establishe, human choice remains a vital component of restoration projects for their entire life. But ecological restorationists often ownplay the role of choice in restoration, partly because we see the choice to restore as obvious an inherently goo an partly because we feel the restoration of more natural conitions for a habitat will lessen the impact of human choice over time. Some critics feel the role of human choice in restoration egraes the value of restoration. However, another response to human choice in restoration is to embrace choice, even with the problems it brings, an use choice as a way to more fully engage humans with the environment. If such choices are approache carefully, with recognition of the potential for poor choices, then restorationists can arrive at restorations that are better for both the environment an us. Key wors: conservation, ecological restoration, environmental ethics, human choice, lan management, restoration ecology. Introuction When I began working in ecological restoration 15 years ago, I ha recently finishe grauate school an wonere whether my research into isturbance ecology woul ever be relevant to anyone other than a small care of ecologists working on similar problems. My grauate program in ecology was base almost entirely in the unerstaning that ecology was a har, objective, pure science. Most people in the program regare any research one in habitats that were highly moifie by human activity as somewhat compromise. I ha hear a bit about ecological restoration but it was not until I foun myself working in the fiel that I became well acquainte with it. My initial response to working as a restoration ecologist was something along the lines of Wow! This fiel is amazing I can o real ecological science an o some goo for the environment at the same time! Everything about ecological restoration seeme inherently goo. Thus, I was shocke when I stumble upon articles by Elliot (1982) an Katz (1992) which were highly critical of ecological restoration. I knew that mitigation was problematic in that mitigation may give people license to estroy goo habitat in the name of evelopment, but I coul not unerstan how anyone coul fin problems with restoration of egrae habitat. 1 Department of Biology, Knox College, Galesburg, IL 61401, U.S.A. 2 Aress corresponence to S. K. Allison, sallison@knox.eu Ó 2007 Society for Ecological Restoration International However, as I gaine experience in ecological restoration, I began to evelop my own questions about restoration. I serve as a irector of a fiel station where some of my uties are to manage an stuy restore tallgrass prairies where restoration began in 1955 (Allison 2002). My initial questions about ecological restoration grew out of that management especially my struggles to prevent Black locust (Robinia pseuoacacia) from taking over the prairies. Black locust is a tenacious plant an removing it from the prairies has proven to be a ifficult task. I evelope a hatre of Black locust. One ay I aske myself, How i I get here? I am a plant ecologist who fins all plants to be fascinating an wonerful in some way, so how i I become someone who hates a particular plant? In the course of my research, I foun that even the ol well-establishe restore prairies I manage were significantly ifferent from remnant prairies in terms of species richness, spatial arrangement, an response to rought (Allison 2007, unpublishe ata; Allison 2002). That fining surprise me because I thought that 50-year-ol restore prairies shoul be fully mature an shoul function like truly ol remnant prairies. I wonere whether restore ecosystems woul ever completely match the remnant ecosystems we use as moels when esigning our restorations. As I reflecte on my own experiences an the critiques from Elliot an Katz, I starte to question the role of human choice in ecological restoration. My preecessors mae the choice to plant prairies on former agricultural lan in western Illinois, an I make choices about how to maintain those prairies. Ecological restorationists say one DECEMBER 2007 Restoration Ecology Vol. 15, No. 4, pp

2 of their main goals is to prouce restore ecosystems that will function with minimal input from humans but how o we reconcile the choices we make in restoration with a goal of minimal human input? That is one of the most critical questions facing us as we procee with ecological restoration in the twenty-first century. The Role of Human Choice in Ecological Restoration Ecological restoration is a practice in which choosing the best language to escribe that practice has been especially problematic. The Society for Ecological Restoration has evelope several efinitions for ecological restoration since the first official Society efinition in 1990 (Higgs 2003). The most recent, an probably not final, efinition from the Society states that: Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been egrae, amage, or estroye. (Society for Ecological Restoration Science an Policy Working Group 2002) The efinition was purposefully kept broa in orer to accommoate all varieties of ecological restoration unertaken by members of the Society (Society for Ecological Restoration Science an Policy Working Group 2002). There are avantages to eveloping a broa efinition, but such a efinition is problematic because it provies few guielines as to what constitutes goo restoration practices or goals an how to choose the best practices an goals. I o not inten to critique the arguments mae by Elliot an Katz because many others have alreay one so in the pages of this an other journals, but I mention their work to help put the problem of choice in restoration into context. One of their main concerns about ecological restoration was centere in the iea that we are better off choosing to preserve whatever wil habitats remain rather than trying to improve alreay amage habitat via restoration. I cannot think of anyone working in restoration who woul isagree with the nee to preserve remaining wil habitat. But what Elliot an Katz fail to acknowlege is that at this stage in human cultural an ecological history, the future of all habitats will epen upon human choice whether our choice is to preserve, restore, or continue to evelop habitat. While issuing a call for people to embrace ecological restoration Freerick Turner wrote: We must take responsibility for nature. That ecological moesty which asserts that we are only one species among many, with no special rights, we may now see as an abication of a trust. We are, whether we like it or not, the lors of creation; true humility consists not in pretening that we aren t, but in living up to the trust it implies by service to the greater glory an beauty of the worl we have been given to look after. (Turner 1985, pp ; emphasis ae) Despite his appeal to our sense of humility, there is an arrogance to his phrase the lors of creation an the notion that we have been given the worl to oversee that fits in all too well with our history of treating the Earth asaresourcethatisthereforustouseaswechoose. That arrogant attitue an resource-use min-set have lea to many of the problems which restoration aims to correct. Yet, Turner hit upon a funamental truth. It is clear that given the realities of global climate change, the human imprint on the face of the Earth is so large that there is no place that has escape our influence. If we look for nature an the natural in places without the human footprint, then we will never fin them because wil nature as a place evoi of human influence has cease to exist (McKibben 1989; Rees 2000). Daniel Janzen feels that humans have overwhelme the environment. An all this is to say that humans have won the battle against nature. Humanity makes its living by preventing restoration. It is up to us to accept the responsibility of putting the vanquishe back on their feet, paws, an roots. We can o it. (Janzen 1988, p. 244) Implicit in Turner s an Janzen s calls for recognition of human omination of nature, an thus uty to restore nature, is the notion that humans are uniquely situate to carry out this restoration. As far as we know, we are the only species to have evelope moral an ethical systems; thus, it is imperative for us to choose to repair the amages we have cause. If we are going to live in a worl that continues to possess riches of bioiversity an if we are going to live in a worl that has room for species an habitats that o not benefit us, then we must restore an preserve as much habitat as possible. Higgs (2003) sees ecological restoration as a complex iscipline in which goo restoration must be base on four key points ecological integrity (the restore ecosystem shoul function to maintain bioiversity an other key ecological properties), historical fielity (the restore ecosystem shoul be base on the ecosystem that was amage by past human activity), focal practices (restoration shoul generate meaning for humans through regularly working with nature), an wil esign (an acknowlegment that when restoring habitat, we are making choices about the future of that habitat but that we must also plan for natural processes taking over an moifying the habitat once our initial efforts at restoration en). Higgs thinks restorationists are key players in etermining how nature is efine an use an that restorationists must lea the process of helping restore not just nature but the human relationship to nature (Higgs 2005). Once restorationists fully recognize their role in choosing at least the starting conitions an hope for en point of restoration projects, it is vital for them to engage with both the environment an the human community to achieve the restoration of humans an nature. 602 Restoration Ecology DECEMBER 2007

3 Restoration as an Active Choice to Work With the Environment If we hee the call to accept our responsibility for repairing the amage we have cause to the nonhuman worl (an I think all restorationists accept that responsibility), we are left with some ifficulties. Humans have been choosing how to interact with the environment ever since the first members of Homo sapiens walke across the African plains. Our choices are usually mae for rational reasons in the short term, reflecting immeiate nees an esires, but too often, we have not fully consiere or unerstoo the long-term consequences of our choices (Harin 1968). Once we realize that our actions sometimes have negative consequences for the worl, we evelope two istinct moes of thought about how to respon to our actions that Evan Eisenberg has terme Fetishistic an Managerial (Eisenberg 1998). Fetishers are people who think nature knows best an is best left alone by humans as we always muck things up. For a Fetisher, the best way to eal with human environmental amage is to set asie preserves where humans never visit or at least leave no trace after visiting. In its most extreme version, a Fetishistic worl woul be one where all humans return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. On the other han, the managers (an restorationists are efinitely in the management camp) think that the only way to repair a amage Earth is for humans to become involve in restoration an management projects esigne to reuce human impact an improve the worl for other species. Eisenberg, who tens to be a Fetisher, worries that managers like managing: they have trouble keeping their hans off (Eisenberg 1998, p. 287). To a certain extent, he has a point. We restorationists o like working with the environment. It makes us feel better about our relationship with nature if we attempt to correct past human errors. Many restorationists, from Alo Leopol to Eric Higgs an Bill Joran, see active human involvement with managing an restoring the environment as key to eveloping a healthy relationship between the humans an the environment (Leopol 1939; Higgs 2003; Joran 2003). How then are we to satisfy our esire to manage an restore nature without mucking it up? Mark Michael classifies the human impact on nature as interference some event or action that reirects an ecosystem so that its processes, functioning, an structure are ifferent from before the interference (Michael 2001). Because restoration explicitly aims to reirect an ecosystem, restoration is a form of interference with nature. Restorationists usually inten their restoration of an ecosystem to return the ecosystem to some conition that woul be similar to that which existe before an earlier human reirection that we now regar as amaging the ecosystem. Michael conclue that there are egrees of interference an whether interference is ethically permissible or not must be etermine on a case-by-case basis. Michael s conclusion is helpful to us because it allows us room to negotiate whether restoration is proper an ientifies that we must make such ecisions in light of an examination of our goals an reasons for restoration. In orer for restoration to avoi the problem of being just another managerial interference with nature, for it to really be about repairing the environment an our relationship to the environment, then restoration has to avoi restoring the environment solely to benefit human nees an esires. Restoration must leave room for species that are not beneficial or esirable to humans an to allow the environment to evelop along pathways that are not controlle by humans (Gross 2006). Katz continues to see restoration as human omination of nature (Katz 2007) but it nee not be so. If restoration is a cocreative interaction between the humans an the environment, then restoration is not necessarily human omination of nature (Lakin 2005). Restoration will be an especially cocreative process if we attempt to learn from the lanscape itself, an assumption that the lanscape has its own agency an projects (Lakin 2005, p. 204). Although assuming that the environment has its own agency is taboo for Darwinian biologists (Davis & Slobokin 2004), many restorationists at least informally iscuss the environment in similar terms although they may not actually believe in such agency. Alo Leopol wrote about the lan thinking like a mountain an iscusse the lan having particular esires (Leopol 1949). If we think about restoration as a recursive process in which both sociocultural an ecological concerns are aresse with changes in one influencing the other while progressing towar a goal of mutual benefit for humans an the environment (Gross 2006), it is possible to envision a cocreative restoration without resorting to assumptions about environmental agency. Moels of Implementing Human Choice in Restoration How then o we approach the task of making wise choices in restoration? We usually start by talking about restoration achieving historical fielity an ecological integrity (Higgs 2003). But there is consierable ebate in the restoration community about what those terms mean. Does historical fielity mean restoring to some past conition an maintaining the ecosystem in that conition or oes it mean restoring to some past conition an then allowing for the inevitable ecological changes that will occur? An what exactly is ecological integrity? Is it having a certain amount of bioiversity an particular ecological functions? Does a restoration have ecological integrity if it is missing entire trophic levels? I manage 19 hectares of restore tallgrass prairie an area that is far too small to support Bison, the ominant large mammal herbivores characteristic of tallgrass prairies, let alone the large mammal preators that preye on Bison. Does a wellestablishe prairie plant community that lacks large mammals but supports arthropos, small mammals, an nesting by threatene birs like Henslow s Sparrow DECEMBER 2007 Restoration Ecology 603

4 exhibit ecological integrity? I think it oes, but I am biase in this case. For Eric Higgs an William Joran, the choices in restoration are really about humans choosing to restore both nature an the human relationship to nature. They focus on the process of restoration, seeing the process as an act that reunites humans with nature via regular performance. Higgs escribes restoration as a focal practice that generates meaning to humans via a synthesis of min, boy, thing (such as a tool), an the environment. Higgs employs the metaphor of restoration as a conversation, fully cognizant of the fact that nature cannot speak to us in wors. He feels that if we approach nature as an equal, we shoul be able to engage in a conversation with nature an ecipher the subtle messages nature provies (Higgs 2003). Joran sees restoration as a ritual in which humans use restoration as a way to aress the sense of shame that arises ue to our own inaequacies in how we treat nature. Joran sees communion as the primary metaphor for restoration using communion in both the sense of sharing an the spiritual fellowship (Joran 2003). Although these metaphors are helpful as we envision how to restore nature, ultimately we nee to make specific choices for each restoration project an we must move beyon metaphor to implementation. Given the realities of global climate change an human use of the Earth s resources (Vitousek et al. 1997), many people want to create new ways for humans to coexist with the rest of the worl s organisms. Some scientists an restorationists have evelope ieas for creating forms of restoration that they label win-win ecology, reconciliation ecology, an futuristic restoration, the key features of which are planning for human evelopment so that we share habitat an resources with other species, even those not useful or beneficial to us, an planning for restore sites to unergo ynamic changes as the Earth s climate continues to change (Rosenzweig 2003; Choi 2004). The goals of reconciliation ecology seem to be a bit too optimistic an human centere as the unerlying assumption is that humans will continue to evelop the Earth but will o so in a way that satisfies human nees for resources an beauty while also satisfying the nees of other species. But at this juncture in the relationship of humans to the environment, it is better to be optimistic than not. The centrality of human choice in restoration forces us to make ifficult ecisions when choosing our methos an goals in restoration projects. The questions about choice in restoration are almost never black an white, instea they are in a gray area. Environmental historian Kenneth Olwig has argue that if we remove human values from nature, then nature will not mean much to us an we will fail to properly appreciate an love it. He locates the origin of human values for nature in human interactions with nature an sees the nee for recognition of cultural lanscapes as the source of human value for nature (Olwig 1995). The choices we make about restoration may place value on wil nature, cultural lanscapes, or both, but we must choose what makes sense for each situation. In North America, there has been a tenency for restorationists to avoi engaging with cultural choices in ecological restoration. This avoiance is at least partly ue to a focus on restoring ecosystems to conitions that existe before European arrival an settlement an a failure to recognize the profoun effects First Nations people ha on the continent (Denevan 1992). As a result, North American restorationists are far behin their European colleagues in thinking about how to combine the natural an cultural in ecological restoration. Europeans have thought more about these issues partly because in Europe, it is harer to efine a point in time when there was a rastic change in lan-use practices an partly because in Europe, there is very little lan that is not currently in cultural use thus making it critical for restoration to incorporate human nees an esires. Dartmoor National Park in Englan was preserve as a national park because of its grassy, winswept open appearance. However, when humans first settle the area aroun 7,000 years ago, the lan was covere by an oak forest. It was turne into moors by the use of fire an the presence of omesticate grazing animals. Recent changes in fire regime an grazing have lea to an encroachment of wooy vegetation on the moors. Shoul the moors be restore to their grassy, open conition or restore to the pre human arrival forests? This is not an easy question to answer but the open grassy moor is highly value, an thus, maintenance of that ecosystem has been the goal of restoration there (S. Haring 2005, Schumacher College, Totnes, Devon, Unite Kingom, personal communication). Similarly in the Netherlans, restoration is an extremely complex question because restoration to wil conitions often means allowing natural processes to operate in former agricultural lans where the agricultural lan itself was create by iking an filling shallow marine habitats the lanscape itself is cultural in origin. The Dutch restoration movement must confront a series of questions about what kin of nature it really wants, what nature is or coul be, an how the relationship between nature, evelopment, an politics shoul be conceive of (Van Der Heijen 2005, p. 428). Dutch restorationists realize that goo restoration means local involvement in the ecisionmaking an restoration process an that it is critical to provie a mixture of habitats that promote bioiversity, wil nature, an culturally meaningful lanscapes (Van Der Heijen 2005). The European experience with restoration inicates that goo restoration will only happen when human choice is clearly acknowlege an incorporate into the process along with goals of increasing bioiversity an ecological integrity of the restore habitat. Conclusions When I was an unergrauate, one of my professors, Francis Cousens, tol us over an over again, You can t not choose. Failure to make a choice is a choice. Professor Cousens was talking about moral an political choices we 604 Restoration Ecology DECEMBER 2007

5 woul have to make an meant that if we i not make a carefully consiere choice, we were voting for maintenance of the status quo. Restorationists are face with the same ilemma with respect to ecological restoration. Ecological restoration is similar to conservation biology because both are crisis isciplines isciplines in which we often have to make ecisions an choices before we have enough information to be certain that we are making the best choice but in which we also know that failure to make a choice will result in further egraation to the environment an loss of things we value in nature (Soulé 1986). In many ways, the fact that we must struggle with making choices an whether we are making the right choices is goo for us. Trying to etermine the significance of our actions forces us to confront our assumptions an attitues about how humans shoul relate to nature an whether our actions fit our beliefs about that relationship. The role of human choice in restorations opens the oors to both human arrogance about our abilities to pick the right goals an methos for restoration an also human foolishness an error if we make poor choices for our goals an methos. Yet, if humans are to work in restoration, we cannot get away from human choice as one of the prime factors in restorations. We know from history that people of goo will sometimes make choices that turn out to be mistakes in our interactions withtheenvironment.inthelate1800s,apolicyoffiresuppression mae perfect sense to forest ecologists in North America. One hunre years later, we realize fire suppression was ba for our forests. We must hope that our choices at the least o not make things worse than they are now. To move forwar, we must embrace the role of human choice in ecological restoration, promote the benefits of greater interaction between the humans an the rest of the worl via restoration, an make sure our restorations preserve as much species an habitat iversity as possible. If we can achieve those things on a larger an larger scale, then we will have one much to promote the survival of many species an habitats that are both ecologically an culturally valuable. Implications for Practice Human choice is central to ecological restoration an an integral part of the process. Choices that result in goo restoration must recognize both ecological nees, such as maintaining bioiversity, ecological integrity, historical fielity, an long-term ynamics, an human cultural values an nees. By combining ecological an human nees in restoration, restorationists can evelop restorations that are ecological valuable an culturally meaningful. Acknowlegments Conversations with M. Spence, K. Rawles, B. Joran, S. Haring, an C. Bagot helpe me refine the ieas presente in this paper. K. Rawles an C. Bagot mae helpful comments on earlier rafts of this paper. LITERATURE CITED Allison, S. K When is a restoration successful? Results from a 45-yearol tallgrass prairie restoration. Ecological Restoration 20: Choi, Y. D Theories for ecological restoration in changing environment: towar futuristic restoration. Ecological Research 19: Davis, M. A., an L. B. Slobokin The science an values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 12:1 3. Denevan, W The pristine myth: the lanscape of the Americas in Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82: Eisenberg, E The ecology of een. Vintage Books, New York. Elliot, R Faking nature. Inquiry 25: Gross, M Beyon expertise: ecological science an the making of socially robust restoration strategies. Journal for Nature Conservation 14: Harin, G The tragey of the commons. Science 162: Higgs, E Nature by esign: people, natural process, an ecological restoration. MIT Press, Cambrige, Massachusetts. Higgs, E The two-culture problem: ecological restoration an the integration of knowlege. Restoration Ecology 13: Janzen, D Tropical ecological an biocultural restoration. Science 239: Joran, W. R. III The sunflower forest: ecological restoration an the new communion with nature. University of California Press, Berkeley. Katz, E The big lie: human restoration of nature. Research in Philosophy an Technology 12: Katz, E Book review of Eric Higgs. Nature by esign: people, natural process, an ecological restoration. Environmental Ethics 29: Lakin, D Does Restoration necessarily imply the omination of nature? Environmental Values 14: Leopol, A The farmer as a conservationist. American Forests 45: Leopol, A A san county almanac an sketches here an there. Oxfor University Press, New York. McKibben, B The en of nature. Ranom House, New York. Michael, M. A How to interfere with nature. Environmental Ethics 23: Olwig, K Reinventing common nature: Yosemite an Mount Rushmore a meanering tale of a ouble nature. Pages in W. Cronon, eitor. Uncommon groun: rethinking the human place in nature. W.W. Norton Company, New York. Rees, W. E Patch isturbance, ecofootprints, an biological integrity: revisiting the limits to growth (or why inustrial society is inherently unsustainable). Pages in D. Pimentel, L. Westra, an R. F. Noss, eitors. Ecological integrity: integrating environment, conservation, an health. Islan Press, Washington, DC. Rosenzweig, M. L Win-win ecology: how the earth s species can survive in the mist of human enterprise. Oxfor University Press, New York. Society for Ecological Restoration Science an Policy Working Group The SER primer on ecological restoration (available from accesse 1 July Soulé, M Conservation biology an the real worl. Pages 1 12 in M. Soulé, eitor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity an iversity. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunerlan, Massachusetts. Turner, F Cultivating the American garen: towar a secular view of nature. Harper s August: Van Der Heijen, H.- A Ecological restoration, environmentalism an the Dutch politics of New Nature. Environmental Values 14: Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, an J. M. Melillo Human omination of earth s ecosystems. Science 277: DECEMBER 2007 Restoration Ecology 605