Restoring landscapes: the authenticity problem

Abstract

Philosophical concerns about restoring landscapes often revolve around two, connected, issues. First is the idea that a restored landscape, even if it is a perfect replica, has lost some of its value. The claim might appeal to a break in the continuity of the landscape and that continuity is part of what is valuable. Alternatively, often in the case of natural landscapes, the appeal is that any human manipulation is inauthentic; here the analogy is sometimes made with the art world and the restoration is deemed a fake. The second problem highlighted in philosophical debates is that the greater the success of restoration projects, the more threatened natural landscapes become: any claim that something must be preserved in its pristine or historically layered state is undermined by the claim that it could be put back again.Initially I discuss two opposing potential responses to these claims: (1) that humans are part of nature and thus cannot be an alien dominating force outside of nature; and (2) that nature is itself a social construct. Neither of these positions is entirely satisfactory, but what they jointly reveal is the reality of our fluid and multifaceted relationship with the world. I then show that Elliot's claim of the additional value of pristine nature is actually not based on an inherent value, but is dependent on the human valuation of it. I propose an alternative that places the source of value in the thing itself and thus arrive at a positive role for restoration as the setting in train and guiding of positive relationships above and beyond their social or public amenity value to us.

‘Fluvial geomorphology and environmental design’: Restitution for damage, rehabilitation, restoration or rewilding?

“…We should not forget Brook's (2006) view that humans are part of nature and nature is a social construct. However, climate and culture must be taken together in design.…”

Reassessing the role of plants in society

“…The ways in which the value of nature can be expressed and measured has produced a substantial body of scholarship, which falls outside the scope of the present discussion. One key point made by Brook (2006) warrants examination however and that is that the value of the natural world is relational – that is, the same entity will mean different things to different people. This is reiterated by Street (2003), who suggests an inability to account for this is one of the principal failings of international environmental law, and particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity.…”

‘Catchment Consciousness’ – Will Mantra, Metric or Mania Best Protect, Restore and Manage Habitats?

“…Brook (2006) suggests that all concerned should begin from considering the relative status of humans and nature and whether we are part of the ecosystem. Her view is that 'there is not a valid distinction between a natural and a human-created landscape outside of our cultural concerns.…”