|
• Defining the Limits of
<br />Restoration: The Need
<br />for Realistic Goals
<br />Joan G. Ehrenfeldl
<br />Abstract
<br />The search for a universal statement of goals for eco-
<br />logical restoration continues to generate discussion
<br />and controversy. I discuss the diverse roots of restora-
<br />tion ecology, and show how the complex lineages
<br />within the field have led to diverse, and divergent,
<br />sets of goals. I then review the three major themes
<br />that currently are used to develop statements of goals:
<br />restoration of species, restoration of whole ecosystems
<br />or landscapes, and the restoration of ecosystem ser-
<br />vices, and point out both the advantages and the limi-
<br />tations and problems associated with each category.
<br />Finally, I suggest that restoration ecology would be
<br />better served by recognizing that the diversity of con-
<br />ditions requiring restoration demands much flexibil-
<br />ity in goal setting, and that restorationists should seek
<br />to develop guidelines for defining the sets of condi-
<br />tions under which different kinds of goals are appro-
<br />priate. I further suggest that goals would be more eas-
<br />ily and more appropriately set if restorationists would
<br />set forth at the outset the true scope and limitations of
<br />what is possible in a given project.
<br />Key words: goal- setting, wetlands, conservation biol-
<br />ogy, ecosystem management, ecosystem services, land-
<br />scape management.
<br />Introduction
<br />The specification of goals- for restoration projects is
<br />frequently described as the most important compo-
<br />nent of a project, because it sets expectations, drives the
<br />detailed plans for actions, and determines the kind and
<br />extent of post - project monitoring. Not surprisingly
<br />then, the nature of restoration goals is the subject of fre-
<br />1Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, 14
<br />College Farm Road, Cook College, Rutgers University, New
<br />Brunswick, NJ 08901, U.S.A., email ehrenfel@rci.rutgers.edu
<br />© 2000 Society for Ecological Restoration
<br />quent comment (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996; Box 1996;
<br />Hobbs & Norton 1996; Kershner 1997; and many oth-
<br />ers). Although the statement of restoration goals can
<br />take many forms, it remains undear if there is an opti-
<br />mal way of specifying goals, and if so, what form this
<br />statement should take. In particular, debate within the
<br />communities of both restorationists and conservation-
<br />ists has been concerned with the appropriate level of
<br />organization at which goals should be specified (Aron-
<br />son & Le Floc'h 1996; Goldstein 1999). The level of orga-
<br />nization (species, communities, ecosystems, water-
<br />sheds, or landscapes) in turn reflects the ecological
<br />processes that practitioners may perceive as critical to
<br />the restoration effort (Allen et al. 1997; and associated
<br />papers therein).
<br />Like conservation efforts, restoration can be oriented
<br />around particular species, can address community
<br />composition, or may be centered on whole ecosystems
<br />or landscapes (Risser 1995; Falk et al. 1996; Kershner
<br />1997). Goals may also be stated in terms of ecosystem
<br />services. The recent attempt to place a dollar value on
<br />such services (Costanza et al. 1997) has accentuated the
<br />interest in using services as a basis for goal - setting. The
<br />debate as to which of these levels is the appropriate, op-
<br />timal, or best focus of restoration and conservation
<br />goals has excited strongly worded statements (Gold-
<br />stein 1999; Risser 1999; Walker 1999) addressed to both
<br />conservationists and restorationists. Here, I review the
<br />relative merits and pitfalls associated with specifying
<br />restoration goals based on species, ecosystem functions,
<br />and ecosystem services, and offer some suggestions.
<br />Multiple Goals from Multiple Origins
<br />The goals set for restoration projects are highly vari-
<br />able, in part, because restoration ecology has a complex;
<br />heterogeneous lineage. Four main themes can be dis-
<br />cerned (Fig. 1). Each reflects a largely separate course of
<br />development of the theory and practice of restoration.
<br />One line is derived from conservation biology and is
<br />centered on the restoration of individual species. Spe-
<br />cies- centered goals for restoration are reflected in a va-
<br />riety of recent publications (Falk et al. 1996). Conserva-
<br />tion biologists have also emphasized the recognition
<br />and preservation of rare or endangered communities,
<br />and restoration goals centered on the reestablishment of
<br />such assemblages can be considered a facet of the con-
<br />servation- derived root of restoration. Efforts by state
<br />Natural Heritage programs to identify and restore rare
<br />communities exemplify this theme. Practitioners of this
<br />form of restoration emphasize the need to duplicate
<br />natural conditions as a standard of restoration success.
<br />Currently, the restoration of communities— particular
<br />associations of organisms —is a primary focus of many
<br />restoration efforts.
<br />Restoration Ecology Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 2 -9 MARCH 200(
<br />
|