The definition of restoration is notoriously slippery. If we accept
that the idealized definition of restoration is the return of a site to a
state that existed prior to human disturbance, we must admit that many
restorations fall short of this ideal. This is not a condemnation of
restoration, nor an accusation of misleading practice; it is simply a
recognition that this ideal is often unattainable for a variety of
reasons. Restorations must compromise this ideal in order to become
reality.
Restorations on agricultural sites are not exceptions to the generality
of compromise. What these areas were prior to settlement has been
obscured by the effects of subsequent human activity. What these areas
can be restored to will continue to be affected by agriculture. The papers
in this section serve well to illustrate important elements of the
decision-making process that leads to the final shape of restoration
projects. By examining the projects outlined in these papers, we can
begin to understand what basis we have for deciding what are appropriate
restoration goals and techniques, given that conditions exist which
require that we compromise the ideal restoration scenario.
The basis for developing appropriate restoration goals and techniques
lies in a thorough examination of the context of the site in question.
The importance of the environmental context of a site is obvious. It
would be inappropriate, not to mention difficult, to construct a wetland
on a well-drained hilltop. However, other aspects of environmental condition
are more subtle. Restoration projects in agricultural areas
usually take place on land that has been removed from agricultural
production (see Blumenthal for an important and interesting exception).
The reasons why that land is no longer cultivated can have important
implications for the restoration possibilities for that site. A farm
abandoned because of soil exhaustion probably requires very different
restoration goals and techniques than one abandoned solely because of
financial considerations. Sometimes land is abandoned because it was
unsuitable for agricultural in the first place. The conditions that make
it unsuitable usually suggest appropriate restoration goals (see
Propsom).
The type of agriculture practiced at a site also circumscribes
restoration possibilities. The environmental impact of grazing is
extraordinarily different than row-cropping. Grazing often leaves
remnants of the original ecosystem behind (see Buchanan). These
remnants, although seldom entirely intact, can provide not only a idea of
the composition of the target community but also propagule sources as
well. Large-scale row-cropping, on the other hand, can completely
obliterate the original ecosystem oven many square miles. The
uncultivated lands in these areas may not even be representative of the
original ecological communities. They might be woodlots planted in
non-native trees, or abandoned pastures in various stages of invasion by
native and non-native plants alike.
In less obvious ways, the context of a site goes far beyond mere
physical considerations. Restoration sites reside in a legal and
regulatory landscape as well as a physical landscape. Governments on all
levels constrain possible land use through zoning laws and by giving land
special designations such as preserves or refuges. In fact, government
regulations are one of the main reasons restorations are undertaken in
the first place. Mitigation requirements dictate the specifics of many
restorations on public and private land. On government-owned land such
as parks and wildlife refuges, management goals often have great
influence in dictating which types of restoration are possible (see
Propsom and Peterson).
Financial considerations are never far from the heart of any restoration
decision making process. Economic constraints have the ultimate veto
power over most restoration plans. Private restoration projects are not
immune from these constraints (see Kaster). Public projects have the
added burden of spending public money in a responsible way. This can
sometimes lead to restoration choices made on the basis of the likely
success of a project, regardless of how appropriate such a project may be
for the site in question. More often, it appears that economic
responsibility is achieved by carrying out restoration plans that do not
conflict with the managerial aims of the institution in charge of the
restoration.
In addition to the regulatory, managerial and economic constexts of
restoration, government agencies need to be aware of the social
considerations that surround restorations on public lands. The public
are apt to view land managers as providing them with a product (see
Stommers). On a superficial level, this means they want to see results
that are immediate and impressive. Prairie restorations projects usually
take this aspect of public scrutiny into consideration by placing a
vibrant visual display of prairie flowers in an exceedingly public
location. On a deeper level, the public wants to understand what is
being done to the land. Providing an explanation of the restoration
goals and process is a way for managers to assuage public concerns when
restoration projects temporarily look ugly or unpleasant.
By explicitly examining this multiplicity of contexts surrounding
restorations, we can begin to understand how particular restoration
projects acquire their goals. No other paper in this section so clearly
demonstrates the importance of assessing the full context of a
restoration project as does Blumenthal's. By taking the social and
economic context of the land into full consideration, the initiators of
the project he describes come to the somewhat unique conclusion that the
ecosystem which should be restored is not the presettlement ecosystem but
the one that the agriculturalists in the area depend upon most. It is
not wrong for restorationists to put the social and economic context of a
project before the environmental context, it is realistic. In the
situation described by Blumenthal, it would be absurd to ask the
agriculturalists to give up their land so that it could be restored to
the presettlement vegetation, even if it were technically feasible. The
project highlights the potential for restoration to become more than an
exercise, however useful it may be, in regulation-prescribed mitigation
or conservation education. When the entire context of a project is taken
into consideration, restoration can become a way to help not only the
land but also the people that depend on it.