Google Meet Link: https://meet.google.com/bxz-dryo-mib
Land Management Unit Info: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Y4by7NEXoyv2a-3quHUfbjH9wT5EYUwm?usp=sharing
ML map: https://www.sustainthetable.com/MerryLea/qgis2web_MAP/#16/41.3281/-85.5263
What exactly is restoration ecology?
What role do humans have in nature?
What are YOUR experiences with restoration ecology?
The articles by Temperton (2007) and Davis & Slobodkin (2004) discuss the evolving field of restoration ecology, particularly the intersection between the scientific underpinnings of the field and the value-based decisions that influence its goals and practices.
The field of restoration ecology has undergone two significant paradigm shifts. The first shift was towards establishing a stronger scientific foundation for restoration practices, emphasizing the application of ecological theories and knowledge to guide restoration efforts. The second shift involves recognizing the importance of incorporating socioeconomic and political factors into restoration approaches, acknowledging that successful restoration requires more than just scientific expertise.
The author advocates for a transdisciplinary approach to restoration, drawing parallels with the medical profession, where both scientific knowledge and an understanding of human nature are crucial for successful healing. The article highlights the need for improved communication and collaboration between academic ecologists, restoration practitioners, and other stakeholders to achieve effective and sustainable restoration outcomes.
The article also touches upon the complexities of restoration in the face of global change and the increasing globalization of species. It suggests that restorationists may need to consider "designer ecosystems" and "futuristic restoration" approaches that acknowledge the dynamic and unpredictable nature of future environments.
The authors argue that defining restoration goals is fundamentally a value-based activity, not a scientific one. They contend that ecological communities and ecosystems lack intrinsic purpose and, therefore, ecological principles cannot be used to justify specific restoration goals.
The article critiques the use of terms like "ecosystem health" and "ecosystem integrity" in defining restoration objectives, asserting that these terms are value-laden and not scientifically grounded.
The authors propose a definition of ecological restoration as "the process of restoring one or more valued processes or attributes of a landscape." This definition emphasizes the role of social values in determining restoration goals while acknowledging the importance of science in implementing those goals.
Both articles recognize the critical role of science, particularly ecology, in the implementation and practice of restoration projects.
Both acknowledge the limitations of purely scientific approaches to restoration and emphasize the need to consider broader societal and value-based perspectives.
Temperton (2007) advocates for a transdisciplinary approach that integrates science, socioeconomics, and politics, suggesting that restoration ecology should move beyond solely scientific considerations. In contrast, Davis & Slobodkin (2004) draw a sharper distinction between science and values, arguing that defining restoration goals is primarily a value-based activity and that science should be focused on implementing those goals.
Davis & Slobodkin (2004) explicitly critique the use of terms like "ecosystem health" and "ecosystem integrity" in restoration ecology, considering them to be value-laden and lacking scientific basis. Temperton (2007), while acknowledging the anthropomorphic nature of such terms, still sees their potential usefulness in guiding restoration efforts, particularly in the context of defining desired states for ecosystems.
Both articles contribute to the ongoing discussion about the complex relationship between science and values in the field of restoration ecology. They agree on the importance of both scientific knowledge and societal values in achieving successful restoration outcomes but differ in their perspectives on how these two domains should interact and inform restoration practices. Understanding these perspectives is crucial for navigating the complexities and challenges of restoring degraded ecosystems in an ever-changing world.