Ecological restoration: A new frontier for nature conservation and economics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.05.005Get rights and content

Summary

Ecological restoration is still perceived by many conservationists, and the majority of economists, as a diversion, a delusion, and – far worse – a waste of money. In this paper we point out that restoration is in fact complementary not only to nature conservation but also to sustainable, equitable socio-economic development. This is because restoring and augmenting the natural capital base generates jobs and improves livelihoods and the quality of life of all in the economy.

In developing countries, where most biodiversity hotspots occur, both conservation of nature and the restoration of degraded ecosystems will find local support only if they are clearly linked to socio-economic development. Conversely, sound socio-economic development in the environmentally damaged portions of those countries undoubtedly will require ecological restoration of the natural capital base. Nature conservation, ecological restoration, and sustainable economic development policies should therefore be planned, budgeted and executed conjointly.

Introduction

Ecological restoration (ER) can be defined as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed” (SER 2004). To this bare-bones definition, we would add that ER is a process that recovers and improves the functionality of ecosystems within landscapes consisting of lands in agricultural production as well as set-aside nature reserves. Restoration ecology is the science behind – and alongside – the practice of ER. Assisting ecosystem recovery augments biodiversity, and ecosystem services, at the landscape scale. Most conservation efforts focus on set aside land- or seascapes that are clearly demarcated and considered to be relatively ‘intact’, ‘natural’ or otherwise of significant conservation value. Ecological restoration is concerned both with these set-aside, protected areas and with the utilised portions of natural environments where people live, grow food and extract natural resources (Blignaut et al. in press). The concept of humans as integral members of ecosystems has been widely endorsed globally, as witnessed by UNESCO's definition of biosphere reserves as “areas of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems promoting solutions to reconcile the conservation of biodiversity with its sustainable use”. Additionally, ecological restoration was described as “a means of conserving biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods” in a recent “call to action” issued by the ecological restoration joint working group of the Society for Ecological Restoration International and the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management (SER/IUCN: http://www.ser.org/content/Globalrationale.asp).

Happily, the notion of ecological restoration is now entering popular culture, public policy, and education at a remarkably fast rate, especially in North America, Australia, South Africa, and also in some parts of Europe. Faced with our rapidly growing ecological footprint, and the mounting number of ecological crises worldwide, ecological restoration clearly has a key role to play in conserving species, and natural capital, and for improving human well-being – both materially and culturally (Harris et al. in press; Leigh 2005; Van Andel & Aronson 2006). In this introductory paper, and in the invited papers which follow, we briefly explore the views of those antagonistic towards restoration, provide a rebuttal, and then explain why restoration, conservation and sustainable economic development are mutually complimentary, and that the conceptual and practical boundaries among them are becoming increasingly blurred. An important step awaiting us is to further splice the science and the practice of these three interrelated activities, even as the range of landscapes that we see—natural, semi-natural and cultural, etc. – become more complex (Machado 2004). In the concluding essay, we offer a brief overview, and a glimpse of the way forward.

Section snippets

Why not to restore?

Natural areas everywhere are being converted and ‘sacrificed’ for short-term economic gain at an ever-increasing rate by an ever-growing human population (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The threshold of socio-economic sustainability has been surpassed in most nations and regions of the world. Because social sustainability ultimately depends on ecological sustainability, this trend must be reversed.

Yet opponents of ecological restoration argue that restoration is encroaching on the

Why restore natural capital? Pragmatic reasons and a strategic approach

Clewell and Aronson (2006) describe five main motivations to restore degraded ecosystems, including idealistic, technocratic, heuristic, biotic and pragmatic. The pragmatic rationale for ecological restoration was described as consisting of two components – the restoration of ‘natural capital’ (RNC) and climate amelioration. However, the RNC approach to ecological restoration can effectively be viewed as an umbrella strategy with many spokes, including the other motivations identified above.

What are the tactics of RNC? We suggest some of the following

  • (1)

    Mainstreaming, i.e. bringing the benefits and motivations into the common discourse of the general public, so that it becomes taken for granted.

  • (2)

    Creating employment and livelihoods, and striving to restore social capital, defined as institutions, relationships, social networks, and shared cultural beliefs and traditions that promote mutual trust.

  • (3)

    Enhancing services and goods within timescales that benefit individuals.

  • (4)

    Using those approaches that are locally affordable and ecologically and

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank Oonsie Biggs, Andy Carey, Jeff Herrick and Paddy Woodworth for their helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank Christelle Fontaine for all her help, and our superb team of contributors. We send un abrazo to our friend Antonio Machado for the invitation to put together this special issue on restoration, and his feedback and encouragement along the way. James Aronson gratefully acknowledges the European Commission for support of the CREOAK project FP5: QLRT-2001-01594,

References (24)

  • A. Machado

    An index of naturalness

    Journal for Nature Conservation

    (2004)
  • J. Aronson et al.

    Restoration of natural capital: Pros and problems

    Restoration Ecology

    (2000)
  • Aronson, J., Milton, S. J., & Blignaut, J. N. (Eds.). (in press). Restoring natural capital: Science, business and...
  • A. Balmford et al.

    Economic reasons for conserving wild nature

    Science

    (2002)
  • Blignaut, J. N., Aronson, J., Archer, S., Clewell, A. F., Woodworth, P., & Desai, N. (in press). The values and ethics...
  • J. Cairns

    Ecological restoration: Replenishing our national and global ecological capital

  • Editorial: Restoration of natural capital

    Restoration Ecology

    (2000)
  • A.F. Clewell et al.

    Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems

    Conservation Biology

    (2006)
  • G.C. Daily et al.

    The new economy of nature

    (2002)
  • Harris, J. A., Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Aronson, J. (in press) Ecological restoration and global climate change....
  • R.J. Hobbs et al.

    Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology

    Restoration Ecology

    (1996)
  • K. Holl et al.

    Paying for restoration

    Restoration Ecology

    (2000)
  • Cited by (107)

    • Extending the DPSIR framework to analyse Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response of sand dune management in Manawatu-Whanganui (New Zealand) since the 19th century

      2022, Ocean and Coastal Management
      Citation Excerpt :

      The main legal tool of coastal management in New Zealand is the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) (New Zealand Government, 1991). The practise of ecological restoration has become a panacea for enhancing the recovery of the ecosystems that were damaged by humans (Aronson et al., 2006). Policy item 1.1.2 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (New Zealand Government, 1994), Department of Conservation (1994) identified the protection and conservation of active dunes as a matter of national importance (Hilton et al., 2000).

    • A Trustworthy Human–Machine framework for collective decision making in Food–Energy–Water management: The role of trust sensitivity

      2021, Knowledge-Based Systems
      Citation Excerpt :

      Social psychology, as a subfield of psychology, studies the influence of the imaginary or actual existence of others on the feelings and the behavior of the individuals [100]. Social influence is one of the areas that is studied by social psychology, and Kelman [101] defined the processes of attitude changes as a result of social influence as compliance, identification, and internalization which can be extended to include other types such as conformity [91] and self-fulfilling prophecy [102]. Considering the social influence, we introduced trust pressure and trust sensitivity, which have the power of altering the behavior of the actors.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text