Values and Science in Ecological Restoration—A Response to Davis and Slobodkin

In ‘‘The Science and Values of Restoration Ecology’’ (Restoration Ecology, this issue), Davis and Slobodkin (henceforth D & S) present the view that the goals and objectives of ecological restoration can only be set in a social context, and that the science of ecology only becomes important during the implementation stage of a restoration project. In so doing, they adopt a perspective that is in direct contradiction to many of the key tenets of The SER (Society for Ecological Restoration) Primer on Ecological Restoration (SER Science & Policy Working Group 2002; henceforth the ‘‘Primer’’). The Primer is a first attempt by nine members of SER International’s Science and Policy Working Group to describe the young and evolving field of ecological restoration, its principles and its strategies. The Primer conceptually describes how ecological restoration projects can be planned, conducted, monitored, and evaluated, and seeks to show how ecological restoration articulates with ecosystem management and nature conservation, and how it relates to allied activities like rehabilitation and ecological engineering. The Primer was posted on SER International’s website in April 2002, with the anticipation that feedback from around the world would stimulate and assist the preparation of a second edition that would respond to all constructive criticism. Fifteen months later, it is clear that the Primer is having an impact on restorationists and their clients, not to mention the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and other international organizations (Society for Ecological Restoration International News 2003). In the context that this first attempt can be improved upon, critical essays such as that of D & S are most welcome. As the three primary authors of the Primer, all of whom have put a great deal of thought and discussion into its content while carefully following the international literature on the related subjects, we felt that it would be of value to present an expanded explanation of the tenets of the Primer with which D & S disagree, providing support from recent ecological literature on the more controversial topics. Davis and Slobodkin assert that ‘‘defining restoration goals and objectives is fundamentally a value-based, not scientific, activity’’, while the science of ecology ‘‘plays a central and essential role in the implementation of restoration projects.’’ We consider their emphasis on value-based aspects of restoration to be a nonissue with which there is no disagreement in the Primer or generally among restorationists. However, we argue that ecological science has a much broader role in restoration than merely in its implementation. Furthermore, D & S dismiss as outmoded the term ‘‘ecosystem’’ which appears many times in the Primer, and also question the use of ‘‘integrity’’ and ‘‘health’’ as ecosystem attributes or desiderata for ecological restoration. They argue that ‘‘attributes such as ‘health’ and ‘integrity’ can (only) be meaningfully applied to entities that have been directly shaped by evolution, such as individual organisms.’’ However, ‘‘communities and ecosystems are not shaped as entities by evolution.’’ We find D & S’s critique of the Primer’s use of the terms ecosystem, health, and integrity to be unfounded. In addition, we object to the manner in which D & S relate restoration to architecture, engineering, and advocacy, and we express concern with their proposed definition of restoration.