There is a magical machine that measures the rise and fall of ideas, and it is likely to become the peak of classical ecological restoration in 2003. This is of course a simpler time. At least in most discussions in this field, the beasts we encounter in daily recovery practices today are largely missing: climate change, new things emerging, and ever-changing views of nature and culture. Classical restorationists face damaged and degraded ecosystems and are confident of restoring to their pre-damaged condition.
It was at that time—when restoration as a science and practice lingered in the stagnant waters of consciousness and policy—my book "Nature by Design" came out. In it, I put forward a comprehensive view of restoration, taking ecology and culture seriously, and advocating a more reconciled and participatory relationship with the world outside of humanity. This drove the growing number of restoration techniques that had emerged in the early 2000s. Published only 14 years after the establishment of the Ecological Restoration Society (SER), which I chaired at the time, it ended a period of seeking core principles and values.
In the 1990s, the field began to merge, which was a combative period. Before the enduring definition was accepted in 2001, there were many early definitions of restoration at work: “Helping the restoration of degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems.” There is one that not only represents the ecosystem but also in order to recognize the value and value of restoration. The importance of the hard fight. It is almost unbelievable that less than 20 years later, the United Nations will launch the Ecosystem Restoration Decade (2021-2030). I don't really know that 2003 was the pinnacle of classical restoration, but it is at least reasonable.
Soon after, all hells collapsed.
It started with people’s growing awareness of the impact of a rapidly warming climate on ecosystems. Publications began to appear in the mid-2000s, focusing on new climate envelopes, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, and the prospect of species that will be locked out of their usual habitats, sometimes leading to extinctions. Recovery models are difficult to keep up, especially when historical conditions are not feasible as a reference or recovery efforts are impractical.
At the 2007 joint meeting of the American Ecological Society and the Ecological Restoration Society, the dialogue on climate change was ubiquitous. A large panel discussion on recovery and climate change raised concerns about the end of history as a meaningful anchor. This prompted some of us to ask, what is restoration without history? After all, it is an outstanding historical undertaking (the "re" in restoration). In a subsequent article, we believe that historical knowledge plays a role in recovery in many ways. Although climate change brings complications, most of them will continue to play a role in the future.
Historical knowledge plays a role in recovery in many ways, and despite the complications brought about by climate change, most of them will continue to play a role in the future.
Will the more flexible Restoration 2.0 replace the classic fix? Obviously, global change and regional climate change are not the only environmental changes that have an impact on recovery. Various altered biogeochemical cycles are driving the development of ecosystems in new directions. The work of the Stockholm Resilience Institute on "Planetary Boundaries" shows a series of environmental changes, from a shift in precipitation patterns to elevated atmospheric aerosols to enrichment of nutrients.
Restorationists began to report frustrations and failures in restoring highly altered ecosystems. For example, changing abiotic conditions through processes such as nutrient enrichment or salinization makes it almost impossible for the ecosystem to return to its pre-degraded state. Some articles discussing "non-analog" or "novel" ecosystems began to appear in the early 2000s and have gained momentum during this decade. I was part of the team that came together in 2011 and they focused our minds on the ideas and reality of the new ecosystem, which led to the first comprehensive synthesis.
Some people believe that foxes entered the chicken coop by allowing restoration practitioners to abandon their commitment to historical continuity. This is reminiscent of earlier criticisms of restoration, accused of diluting preservation and preservation (this did not happen). Restoration ecologists are looking for ways to understand and integrate climate science, while practitioners require greater flexibility in setting goals.
Although climate is appealing to the environment in which ecosystems operate, invasive species are driving ecological changes more directly. Since Charles Elton's 1958 classic book on ecological invasions, a subfield has been merged around ecological characteristics and the impact of species migration to locations outside their normal range. The increase in global movement of people and goods has promoted the integration of the subfield of invasion biology, the time interval of which is roughly the same as that of resumption of development, which has improved border surveillance and transportation practices and strengthened management.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed the "Top 100" list of the world's most serious invasive species, which will be updated regularly. Recovery practitioners often focus on removing or managing invasive species. I learned painfully from the arduous efforts of the local Vancouver Island to solve the problem of bullying plants and animals such as Rubus armeniacus, English ivy (Hedera helix) and Eastern ash. The lesson of the squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis). For those who think that this kind of biological mixing is the inevitable result of globalization, and even this kind of mixing is only a problem for a few species, the very serious objection is the loss of the unique combination of species formed through the evolutionary interaction of specific locations. And usually more than a long time. There is an understandable acrimony on the front line of invasive species management, but there is also resistance. Some questioned the language of militarism, while others asked whether there might be a middle ground between uncompromising eradication and acceptance of persistent species.
The rise of ecosystem services as a framework for analyzing the economic value of nature has changed the discussion about the role of restoration. The framework was notable in 2005 with the publication of the Millennium Assessment, which is a global report card on ecosystem health. Service thinking has spread widely. Ecosystem services are used at all levels to demonstrate the benefits of protecting and restoring ecosystems. From pollination to climate regulation, there are now sophisticated calculation methods to determine how much any particular ecosystem contributes to human well-being. It can form trading services and offset markets. Degrading or destroying an ecosystem will reduce natural capital. On the contrary, restoration can rebuild or partially rebuild it.
From pollination to climate regulation, there are now sophisticated calculation methods to determine how much any particular ecosystem contributes to human well-being.
Critics argue that ecosystem services commoditize ecosystems, and ecosystems bear the burden of locking natural values in a broader economic model. The explosive growth and universality of ecosystem services provide a new frame of reference for evaluating nature: Although distortions have been made to adapt and adjust “cultural services” to reflect spiritual and non-consumer uses, the non-human center evaluation of nature The argument is vague. This change in the moral stance of the ecosystem and the role of restoration is part of a larger change in the way of thinking about and positioning restoration.
My formulation of focus practices is based on observations of how people strengthen their relationship with natural processes and places through restoration. I wrote about this in "Nature by Design", telling how the restoration of the traditional harvesting and cooking techniques of common Camassia quamash means more than just restoring degraded grassland. These actions illustrate the ancient cultural relationships that maintain the ecosystems that are valued today. It is increasingly recognized that restoration contributes to cultural revival, while emphasizing the restoration of ecosystems, which provide important materials, food and medicines for people whose livelihoods still directly depend on ecosystems. Restoration has evolved to bring this critical relationship alive and eliminate the classic view of restoring that is only ecosystem-centric. Of course, the indigenous communities that ecologists are turning to traditional ecological knowledge have known this for thousands of years.
The Ecological Restoration Association published the first "Introduction to Ecological Restoration" in 2002, which officially included a very lasting definition of restoration. The Primer relies on the first decade of a society that has formulated a series of policies. Features such as the nine attributes of restoration of the ecosystem stem from this conversational cauldron (I am reminded of my first SER meeting in 1992, which had a heated debate on the true meaning of restoration). Primer has been used in this field for a few years, but it is beginning to fray on the edges, especially in terms of climate change and cultural participation.
Since 2011, criticism of Primer has reached peer-reviewed literature. More and more people believe that this field is going beyond the scope set by SER. It should have been revised long ago. The amendment was formulated in 2016 with an urgent deadline version for the Convention on Biological Diversity Forum and adapted from the latest Australian ecological restoration standards at that time.
A large number of restoration ecologists expressed concern about the 2016 SER “International Standard”: it narrowed the scope of restoration, quantified the results that were actually qualitative, embedded performance standards that were difficult to prove, and pushed social and cultural participation to the edge. A group including the former SER chair (myself included) and the editor of restoration ecology wrote an article arguing that a principle-based approach should be used, such as the World Commission on Protected Areas 2012 guideline on restoration, rather than standards-based method. Standards enforce consistency, which is a difficult prospect for areas where themes are ecologically and culturally diverse. We believe that principles create openness and adaptability. The title of the second edition of 2019 does include "Principles" and it does list eight different principles. I believe that it is moving in a better direction to support the needs of restorationists everywhere.
Although there have been delays in revising the Primer, or pressure on the launch of international standards, or the need to adopt inherently diverse methods for restoration on a global scale, the emergence of restoration allies is still very significant. I dare not call them all recovery, because I think the core of the challenge for the next ten years is to understand the meaning of various recovery strategies (or what SER calls the "recovery continuum").
Starting more than ten years ago, tropical forest restoration experts have proposed something called "forest landscape restoration". At first glance, it seems to be restored as usual, but it involves forests and is on a larger scale. From a detailed point of view, the principles of forest landscape restoration and the principles of guiding ecological restoration are different in focus (the former is more people-oriented and less critical of history).
In Europe, the rise of "rewildization" is a huge success story. Projects supported by organizations such as Rewilding Europe often use the reintroduction of predators or herbivores to bring ecosystems and entire landscapes into more biodiversity conditions. Why re-wild rather than restore itself? I think this can be traced back to European restorationists’ long-term attention to North America’s pre-disturbance ecosystem; this is not an experience at all in most parts of Europe, because it traces the cultural practices of many centuries.
The long-term practice of "reclamation" usually involves restoring degraded industrial (usually mining) sites to production capacity. Reclamation increasingly borrows tables from the restoration manual, as do other practices named after "restoration" and "revegetation." Perhaps the most challenging is the surge in interest in ecological design: well-designed ecological function areas on the roof, bio-swales on the roadside, and campus ecosystems. recover? Not exactly, but all of these practices are dedicated to eliminating the impaired restorative impulse.
This enthusiasm at the beginning of the decade of the restoration of the United Nations ecosystem is inspiring. It also solves problems that may not be immediately apparent when eager to accept the prospect of solving the problem. Can relatively narrow “ecological restoration” (such as SER) serve the international community to deal with poverty alleviation, community empowerment, social justice, climate adaptation and mitigation, and relentless pressure on measurable actions? When the details of the mismatch between the principles and standards are exposed, for example, the mismatch between the relatively open wild and the relatively strict ecological restoration perspective, people will feel disillusioned. What will happen? How to best deal with rapid recovery methods that involve adaptation, such as fast-growing genetically modified tree species? Are there clear regulations on how to best manage synthetic biology, genomic technology, nanotechnology, drone swarms for cultivation, and other innovations?
Moreover, what is the term embedded in the United Nations Decade: "ecosystem" restoration? Ecosystems are larger than living organisms and ecological communities, and smaller spatial units than landscapes and ecological zones. Language is really important, and this may be a complicated factor. In 2003, I asked, "What is the use of restoring the periphery in a sanitary manner?" I suggested an inclusive view of restoration, accepting almost any restoration, "including mitigation projects, replacement, re-creation of ecosystems, and formal naturalization gardens." It is possible to repair the "falling into a meaningless situation absorbed by the social fashion landscape trend". The argument against this is mainly to ensure professional standards and advocate an exclusive view of restoration. Therefore, the debate is fierce and is now on the international stage.
As restoration is at the center stage of the global commitment to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, reverse biodiversity decline, and mitigate climate change, the need to understand and ensure the cornerstones that prevent restoration has become even more urgent.
Eric Higgs is a professor at the School of Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria and author of the book "Nature from Design: People, Natural Processes and Ecological Restoration". He is writing a new book "Change Nature: Human Ambition and Bittersweet Aspirations" in which he advocates that future restoration can adapt to rapid changes and is committed to social justice.
Note the images of Jasper National Park at the top of the article: these composite images are part of the Mountain Legacy Project and their origins are described in "Nature By Design". The 1915 image (above) is from MP Bridgland's topographical survey of north-central Jasper National Park. Jeanine Rhemtulla and Eric Higgs returned to the same location in 1998 and found that the buildings in Jasper Town had undergone dramatic forest filling and changes. Mountain Legacy field staff returned in 2019 and found an unprecedented outbreak of mountain pine beetles (red on the tree). And, it is like this: the transfer reference of ecological restoration. [1915 images provided by the Canadian Library and Archives; 1998 and 2019 images (middle and bottom) provided by the Mountain Legacy Project; image composition by Mary Sanseverino].
Populism throws gasoline on the political flames, making cooperation on climate change almost impossible.
How to mobilize visual culture to deal with the most changing events in human stories.
In the past two decades, French sound artist Yannick Dauby has traveled throughout Taiwan to capture the singing of frogs.
The sublime is the foundation of the nobility of classicism, the awe of romanticism and the horror of Gothic.