A modest proposal for restoration ecology

Abstract

Restoration ecology struggles to mitigate human-caused ecological damage. Non-native species are a particular challenge. This article describes two restoration attempts following introduced species in California and then makes a radical culling proposal. Environmental regulations, legal protections, and restoration projects are necessary to preserve ecosystem services, but such policies are often unpopular. Restorers often struggle when public opinion opposes evidence-based practice, and this occurs particularly when the interventions involve killing mammals. Therefore, restoration efforts may benefit from more attention to how individuals perceive the acceptability of environmental policies and how to communicate policy options effectively for individuals to make informed decisions. Restoration ecology can follow the recent shift of medicine away from imperatives and toward informed patient choice. Restoration projects may benefit from recent advances in psychology and communication that help individuals make policy decisions that align with their personal values.

A comment on the protect–manage–then‐restore workflow

“…A biodiversity‐offset and intervention hierarchy was also reviewed (Maron et al 2015; Bidaud et al 2018; Damiens et al 2021) to frame and anchor the expectations for a climate approach to structure decisions using the protect–manage–restore workflow. There have also been similar efforts in restoration ecology with wildlife and policies associated with assessing the net good from culling by the costs of these choices societally (Brick 2019). Principles, ordered in application or in consideration when needed, advance all research associated with sustainable biodiversity maintenance (Norström et al 2020).…”

Three Approaches to Restoration and Their Implications for Social Inclusion

“…Social inclusion factors heavily into the theories underpinning resilience restoration, but as long as the Bonn Challenge remains an endeavor led by external actors, local communities remain vulnerable to being treated as experiments rather than as co-experimenters (Brick 2019). Mediating this divide requires that the global restoration agenda turn from funneling restoration resources through national governments and large NGOs to consider how to better vest power and agency at local scales (McDermott 2009, Reed et al 2018.…”