|
Social Justice and Habitat Restoration
A Commentary on the Science and Practice of Ecological Restoration
By Anton
G. Endress
Throughout the world,
there is an expanding interest in restoring
terrestrial and
freshwater environments. Some are motivated by the disappearance of wild
places and the species that inhabit them; others are motivated by the loss
of recreational opportunities; and still others are concerned about the
declining quality of life and wonder what the legacy to future generations
will be. Whatever the motivation, the role of restoration ecology in
revitalizing transformed and often degraded landscapes by increasing their
natural character, restoring ecological integrity, and conserving
biodiversity is so powerful and fundamental that it has been identified as
the career for the 21st century and the future of conservation
biology. Definitions vary, but an essential aspect of restoration ecology in
the United
States is the goal of bringing an ecological system back to some or all
of its original or former state. Elsewhere, the goal of restoration is
less directed towards a particular historic assemblage of organisms than it
is directed towards establishment of a self-regulating system that functions
ecologically within its particular landscape context. Achieving such goals
requires both the understanding of ecological and evolutionary processes
ranging from the molecular to landscape levels of organization and the
integration of ecology, economics, sociology, psychology, and public policy
among several disciplines.
Landscape Modification Drives the Need for Ecological Restoration
Environmental problems today are unprecedented in nature
and magnitude. As a result of agriculture, industry, recreation,
international commerce, and urbanization, the ever-expanding human
population has extensively transformed the landscape. The resulting
consequences have been significant: loss of biodiversity, climate change,
biotic species additions and losses, atmospheric eutrophication, and altered
biogeochemistry. For example, the Midwestern USA comprises a region in which
agricultural, urban, and suburban development has placed increasing demands
on the region's land. In terms of the proportion of land that remains in a
natural or semi-natural state, this region is one of the most degraded
landscapes in
North America. In Illinois for example, much has changed since 1820 when
Euro-American immigrants began to settle in its forests, grasslands, and
savannas. Habitat losses were rapid: annual rates of forest clearing in the
late 1800s approached 2% (equivalent to
contemporary tropical
deforestation
rates) and prairie conversion to cropland occurred at the annual rate of
3.3% between 1830-1860. The remaining pre-settlement forest, prairie, and
wetlands are ca. 0.1%, <0.01%, and 5% respectively of the pre-settlement
ecosystems. Most of its landscape was converted to agriculture; Illinois
ranks 49th nationally for its portion of pre-settlement habitat remaining,
and often leads the USA in annual maize and soy production. Habitat
fragmentation has also been significant: <17% of the remnant prairie is in
parcels >4 ha; only ca. 11% of remnant forest sites are >40 ha; 14 prairie
bird species have declined at an average of 38%; and edge species are
flourishing. Invasions of non-indigenous species are increasing in severity
and scope. In the past century, one in seven native fish species in Lake
Michigan was either extirpated or suffered severe population crashes and
exotic species have assumed the roles of major predators and major forage
species. Nearly 32% of the vascular plant species in Illinois today are
nonnative, up from 10% in 1878 and 16% in 1950. Members of the Poaceae and
Asteraceae contribute ca. 25% of the non-native taxa.
Which restorations? Where? What goals? Who decides?
From such extensive
landscape transformation and degradation, however, is the phoenix of
ecological restoration borne. Complex restoration efforts are underway or
have been envisioned in urban, rural, terrestrial, and aquatic systems.
Although restoration is often accomplished (or attempted) at a small spatial
scale, some of the largest restorations in the USA are now underway or
planned in Illinois and surrounding states (e.g., Midewin National Tallgrass
Prairie, Lost Mound, Kankakee Sands, and Badger Arsenal). The intention is
to enhance natural structure and function to restore ecological health.
Ecosystem restoration has
roots in ecology, landscape architecture, conservation, reclamation,
environmental mitigation - and a corresponding diversity of approaches and
applications. Generally, the practice of ecological restoration is based on
individual experiences of practitioners that are usually gained at the local
level. However, the theoretical foundation of ecology is often drawn from
research conducted in pristine habitats or places largely free of severe
anthropogenic impact; specific theory-driven predictions in the local
context are often lacking. The Midwestern landscape is dominated by
agriculture, but is also punctuated by numerous communities with large human
populations. Therefore, efforts to develop theory for restoring habitat and
preserving biodiversity must also account for the complexity and variation
within an urban-exurban framework.
Restoration ecologists
are currently developing and refining an array of research- and
experience-based techniques and technologies suitable for the challenges
presented. Whether a particular restoration project is ultimately judged to
be successful depends on the achievement of pre-established goals, of which
some may be ecological in nature, while others not. Considering
restorationists are a diverse community of scientists and practitioners who
live with a variety of sometimes inconsistent goals, it is not surprising
that any given target for restoration could be supported by a mix of science
and values, and tenaciously argued by its proponents.
So how are restoration
decisions involving today's fragmented and urbanized landscapes made? Most,
if not all, of the alternative choices seem to require more than scientific
knowledge: Which site to restore?
Which habitat to preserve
or species to conserve? Which restoration approaches are most likely to
succeed? Will societal benefits exceed the costs? The power to affect human
policy regarding the use of biotic resources and the maintenance of
biological diversity depends on research and explicit public discourse about
management alternatives and their actual costs. In consequence, social
scientists, political scientists, and members of the general public also
have important roles in ecological restoration.
Environmental
decision-making about restoration has shifted away from accepting just the
claims of experts and now accommodates a greater diversity of contentions.
The expert-based processes of the past often grew from legal statutes
developed by municipalities and agencies that outlined decision-making
processes. Stakeholders, particularly those lacking political clout or
scientific expertise, were excluded from decision forums, and at best, were
treated as 'the public interest' by planning processes. While land
management decisions previously were conducted based on science and expert
opinion, the shift frames decisions as informed by science and expert
opinion, but essentially driven by a more inclusive representation of
stakeholder values. As a result, establishing restoration goals, determining
priorities, and making decisions become a social process in which scientific
expertise is democratized. Because restoration practice is typically
conducted within a context of land use change, the forces influencing the
goals of any given restoration frequently become tied to community-based
decision processes. The empowerment of communities via socially just
processes should thus become an increasingly important feature of
restoration.
Issues related to
empowerment often surface during implementation of a project, but they don't
surface as often or often enough at the planning stage when project goals
are being defined. This may result from a lack of stakeholder awareness,
interest, or access. Or it might stem from the tension between scientists
wondering whether citizens have the capacity to be meaningfully involved
with decision making about complex issues and citizens who no longer accept
uncritically the judgments of scientists in matters of social welfare and
public interest. Yet such tension is moot given decisions whether defining
restoration goals or prioritizing actions inevitably require, and citizens
often demand, participation and active involvement. The scientists do not
have the authority to place boundaries around the scope of dialogue relevant
to goal setting.
Many of the values
underlying the
process of goal setting may have a strong emotional component attached to
them. Unfortunately, these are frequently ignored when restoration advocates
make decisions about the criteria to which a site will be restored.
Ecological restoration projects can become volatile when public values are
assumed, not assessed, or ignored. An example from an
Illinois restoration
project is illustrative. The removal of non-native trees associated with a
prairie restoration was viewed as a necessary task with beneficial
consequences. However, nearby residents, many viewing themselves as
environmentalists, perceived the removal of non-native trees and brush as
being a destruction of nature, as lacking respect for historical uses, and
disrupting the area's sense of place. Other stakeholders, such as birders or
hunters, viewed the removals as a shift in wildlife habitat, and one that
precluded survival of their favourite species. Citizen groups felt ignored
and struggled to voice their concerns to a seemingly closed decision
process.
Summary
The challenge of
ecological restoration is thus complex and profoundly important, requiring
the integration of knowledge and methods across disciplinary, cultural, and
social boundaries. While retaining its fundamental anchor in science,
ecological restoration must engage an explicit social process in which
diverse, and even conflicting, values beyond the science are articulated.
Social justice emerges from a mutual sharing of knowledge amongst
stakeholders (experts and non-experts included) within a forum where the
discourse is larger than the science. When community stakeholders have been
engaged in the process and perceive it to be fair, the restoration goals
defined and priorities set are most likely to be supported community-wide.
With such support, the community becomes invested in the restoration project
and a successful outcome is more likely.
Department of Natural
Resources & Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
U S A
E-mail: [email protected] |
