The ecological restoration of degraded lands is older as a
practice than the disciplines that study it, and that seek to advise its proponents.
These disciplines, however, have an
opportunity to refine the work, and to reflect upon the significance of its
outcomes in much the way that intellectual engagement with any praxis –
agriculture, hunting, or even art, for example – can augment practice.
The ecological evaluation of restorative management identifies
best practices, measures progress towards stated targets, and elucidates basic
ecological processes from ongoing manipulations of managed landscapes. The
social sciences have clarified the way in which restoration emerges from the institutional
governing structures, and sought to identify the processes whereby management
is either agreed upon, or alternatively provokes, opposition in communities
adjacent to restoration sites. Philosophical
reflection on restoration sharpens our understanding of key conceptual terms,
like nature, revises our considerations of ethical obligations, and can help
restorationists appreciate the full spectrum of values emerging from attempts
to “make nature whole.” The way in which
restoration influences well-being and “topophilia” – an abiding love of place –
is of interest to environmental psychologists.
Restoration may provide a profound way of getting to know a new place,
and awaking practitioners from what I call “toponesia”, a forgetfulness of
place.
Using examples from the Chicago Wilderness region I briefly
inspect each of these perspectives: restoration from a natural and social
sciences, environmental philosophy, and as a sustainability endeavor that can
potentially evoke a love for and allegiance to the places that we live.
Draft abstract for panel on "Interdisciplinary Insights for Guiding Future Ecological Restoration and
Sustainability Efforts." For SER Midwest Great Lakes Chapter Meeting next month (see here)
No comments:
Post a Comment