Advancing Toward "Eden"

There are two ways to exploit natural systems. Rip-off or restore. While self-serving euphemisms (e.g., "green," "sustainability," "reforestation," and "the" ecology) may be as repulsive to purists as they are appealing to reformers and spin-hypers alike, they...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Wayne Tyson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Resilience Alliance 2000-07-01
Series:Ecology and Society
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/resp6/
id doaj-4bf5b7d2d094444ab1a45576b8cdab25
record_format Article
spelling doaj-4bf5b7d2d094444ab1a45576b8cdab252020-11-25T00:02:52ZengResilience AllianceEcology and Society1708-30872000-07-0141r610.5751/ES-00190-0401r06190Advancing Toward "Eden"Wayne TysonThere are two ways to exploit natural systems. Rip-off or restore. While self-serving euphemisms (e.g., "green," "sustainability," "reforestation," and "the" ecology) may be as repulsive to purists as they are appealing to reformers and spin-hypers alike, they do serve the purpose of laying a stone or two toward bridging the gap between the rampant masses and the enlightened. So what's the next stepping stone between scientific understanding, applications that work, and broad enough acceptance of the implications of the applications and the science behind them? In most of my work (highway cuts and fills, pipelines, landfills, and the like), "equilibrium" is not an issue. The patient is, theoretically, dead. Therefore, equilibrium, or at least the initiation and acceleration of a trend that is in that direction, becomes the issue. The issue is: "Is restoration necessary?" What measures beyond the incredible resilience of natural processes, given enough time, are feasible, and will restoration of the ecosystem equilibrium be the result? How closely will, and how closely can, the "restored" ecosystem resemble the "original?" When is equilibrium achieved? The scientifically stringent performance criteria proposed independently by both St. John and Ewel in the 1980s require that a succesful ecosystem restoration project must: (1) be capable of perpetuating itself without outside subsidy (no irrigation or fertilizer); (2) be resistant to long-term weed invasion; (3) closely match the original ecosystem's productivity; (4) recycle nutrients; and (5) exhibit the entire range of critical biological components. These criteria should stand until improved. How are these criteria to be measured and judged? Any takers?http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/resp6/ecological restorationecosystem restorationenvironmental policyexploitationfuturismhabitat restorationinterventionnatural systemsresiliencesuccessionsustainability
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Wayne Tyson
spellingShingle Wayne Tyson
Advancing Toward "Eden"
Ecology and Society
ecological restoration
ecosystem restoration
environmental policy
exploitation
futurism
habitat restoration
intervention
natural systems
resilience
succession
sustainability
author_facet Wayne Tyson
author_sort Wayne Tyson
title Advancing Toward "Eden"
title_short Advancing Toward "Eden"
title_full Advancing Toward "Eden"
title_fullStr Advancing Toward "Eden"
title_full_unstemmed Advancing Toward "Eden"
title_sort advancing toward "eden"
publisher Resilience Alliance
series Ecology and Society
issn 1708-3087
publishDate 2000-07-01
description There are two ways to exploit natural systems. Rip-off or restore. While self-serving euphemisms (e.g., "green," "sustainability," "reforestation," and "the" ecology) may be as repulsive to purists as they are appealing to reformers and spin-hypers alike, they do serve the purpose of laying a stone or two toward bridging the gap between the rampant masses and the enlightened. So what's the next stepping stone between scientific understanding, applications that work, and broad enough acceptance of the implications of the applications and the science behind them? In most of my work (highway cuts and fills, pipelines, landfills, and the like), "equilibrium" is not an issue. The patient is, theoretically, dead. Therefore, equilibrium, or at least the initiation and acceleration of a trend that is in that direction, becomes the issue. The issue is: "Is restoration necessary?" What measures beyond the incredible resilience of natural processes, given enough time, are feasible, and will restoration of the ecosystem equilibrium be the result? How closely will, and how closely can, the "restored" ecosystem resemble the "original?" When is equilibrium achieved? The scientifically stringent performance criteria proposed independently by both St. John and Ewel in the 1980s require that a succesful ecosystem restoration project must: (1) be capable of perpetuating itself without outside subsidy (no irrigation or fertilizer); (2) be resistant to long-term weed invasion; (3) closely match the original ecosystem's productivity; (4) recycle nutrients; and (5) exhibit the entire range of critical biological components. These criteria should stand until improved. How are these criteria to be measured and judged? Any takers?
topic ecological restoration
ecosystem restoration
environmental policy
exploitation
futurism
habitat restoration
intervention
natural systems
resilience
succession
sustainability
url http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/resp6/
work_keys_str_mv AT waynetyson advancingtowardeden
_version_ 1716234102843113472