Ethical Adaptation to Climate Change: Human Virtues of the Future

4. History, Novelty, and Virtue in Ecological Restoration

4 History, Novelty, and Virtue in Ecological Restoration Eric Higgs Restoration as potential and incipient, as seed not fruit, as data not deed, is ongoing and cumulative, inviting incremental enrichment by future generations. —David Lowenthal, “Reflections on Humpty-Dumpty Ecology” The science and practice of ecological restoration have thrived for several decades on the idea that historical knowledge anchors our judgments and practice. The approach has shifted from the idea of fixed reference points to more recent process-oriented configurations. All of this is poised to change. The intensification of anthropogenic environmental and ecological change1 is moving the bar and the baseline: it is no longer clear what, if any, historical references are appropriate for restoration. Moreover, there are concerns that restoration as we know it may pass on, and certainly global processes of change challenge the local and regional focus of most restoration efforts. In this chapter I borrow from Throop’s notion (chapter 2, this volume) of historical fidelity as a primary criterion that extends from his healing virtues (humility, self-restraint, sensitivity, respect for the other), and tow history farther from the brink of oblivion than Sandler (chapter 3, this volume). Inspired by Thompson ’s invocation (chapter 10, this volume) of novel virtues for a novel future (environmental responsibility), I suggest that historical fidelity (or, historicity, the quality of thinking historically) is a new virtue appropriate to a rapidly changing nature. A source of inspiration is my decade-long field project in the Canadian Rockies examining landscape change with repeat photography. I mingle these with my understanding of the emergence of hybrid and novel ecosystems. Some brush clearing is required to understand what ecological restoration is, a subject that is doted on by philosophers and ecologists alike. The Society for Ecological Restoration International, the organization 82 Chapter 4 advancing the science and practice of restoration, stipulates this definition : “Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of ecosystems that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Society for Ecological Restoration International 2004). Restoration is a process (not a product) that involves human assistance (not control). Ecological restoration is a more general term than restoration ecology (science of restoration), and the adjective “ecological” signals both the focus (ecosystems ) and process (integrative). Nature restoration, as preferred by Hettinger (chapter 1, this volume), suggests that restoration activity emphasizes only nonhuman practices, whereas the practice of ecological restoration suggests human participation and connection. Indeed, many restoration projects thrive with meaningful and modest human engagement (Higgs 2003). Over the last decade, three large changes have been under way in how we understand restoration. First, it is now almost universally accepted that successful restoration depends on incorporation of social, cultural, political, economic, and aesthetic practices (Parks Canada 2008; Higgs 1997). It is not necessary for human interests to trump ecosystem functions , and under the right conditions people are enlivened by restoration and are more likely to act as guardians of ecological integrity. Second, there is greater awareness of cultural variation in how restoration is understood and practiced. This is especially true in the global South, where significant traditions of subsistence and small-scale agricultural production are incongruent with wilderness-based North American notions of restoration. As Hall demonstrated in his comprehensive comparative study of restoration in Italy and the United States (2005), Europe’s predominantly cultural landscapes admit a different kind of restoration than found in North America. Third, there is growing recognition that rapid environmental and ecological changes will force the meaning and practice of ecological restoration to shift. Just how far we need to go in modifying or displacing ecological restoration as a critical environmental practice hinges on the significance of history and also the extent to which we are willing to entertain flexibility in ecological futures: contingency in restoration admits a detachment from history. Albert Borgmann’s Crossing the Postmodern Divide (1992) proposes a distinctive quality of contemporary life in which we oscillate between sullenness and hyperactivity in responding to large-scale social and environmental challenges. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the discussions on climate change. For two decades scientists and activists have pressed for decisive responses from individuals, governments, and History, Novelty, and Virtue in Ecological Restoration 83 corporations. The response has been mixed, but primarily sullen. This shifted in response to a cascade of stories of climate-related effects, burgeoning scientific literature demonstrating myriad climate processes and impacts, and the public sanction of...