The majority of ecosystem restorations are conducted on
relatively small scales and usually by one agency or organization. In
addition, they are usually performed on property owned solely by the
party conducting the restorations. In many cases, the disturbances to
the system being restored are limited: the mitigational restoration of
wetlands impacted from road construction for example. In other cases,
impacts to an ecosystem are widespread but, for a wide variety of
reasons, attempts at restorations are relatively small: isolated
prairie pothole restorations within an expansive agricultural region, for
example. In either situation, restorations at this small scale are
quite different than restorations that are undertaken on much larger
scales.
What is it that makes large scale restorations different than
restorations conducted on a more modest scale? First, large scale
restorations are often the result of large scale intensive, ecologically
destructive human interactions with the land. In some cases, the
Kissimmee and Platte Rivers for example, these interactions were
deliberate alterations of ecosystems to better meet perceived human needs
and desires. The fact that we are attempting to reverse these
alterations is perhaps a reflection of changing perspectives that our
culture is undergoing with respect to our relationship to the land. This
becomes especially salient when one considers the scale at which some of
these restorations are occurring and the tremendous costs involved.
The scale of a restoration, however, can also be a detriment. In many
ways, the scale of a project drives decisions about what interactions are
feasible. Applying soil amendments to a 3 acre restoration may be
feasible; applying the same amendments to a 3000 or 30,000 acre
restoration becomes unfeasible. As in the case of the Kissimmee River
restoration, there was no money or time to conduct any site preparation
or plantings, things that hardly ever go ignored on small scale
restorations. Oftentimes, these decisions are purely economic and must be
made regardless of the actually ecological need. Thus, in large scale
projects restorationists often need to conduct the restoration without
the resources that are required to pay attention to detail. This is true
for interventions that can and cannot be made and also for the monitoring
process. These factors may become especially evident because large scale
restorations are often high profile projects where achieving "success"
becomes very important.
Another difficulty in dealing with large scale restorations is the
problem of logistical coordination. Because a large amount
of land is usually involved many individuals, organizations and agencies
have a stake in the restoration. This can sometimes result in logistical
grid locks. As reported in the case study of the Anacostia River
Restoration, over 60 governmental agencies were involved in this project.
Depending on the circumstances, this can also provide technical expertise
in many different areas that could be valuable to the restoration
process.
Another common thread that runs through these case studies is the high
amount of community involvement in the restoration projects. In some
cases, the community involvement is a critical factor in implementing the
interventions and monitoring the success. Once again, this is a factor
of a larger scale restoration having more "neighbors". Since there are
more people effected by the restoration, it is likely that more people
will become involved.
As we have seen, restoration ecology is an extremely diverse field
encompassing disciplines like hydrology, botany, ecology, wildlife
biology, geology, genetics, population ecology, soil science, economics
and sociology. Large scale restorations are unique in that they often
involve more of these disciplines on a single restoration site. The
restoration of a small patch of prairie in Iowa, for example, would
probably involve a botanist and a soil scientist. The restoration of
8,000+ acres as in the Walnut Creek restoration project, however, also
involves hydrologists, wildlife biologists, botanists, ecologists and
people to work on the social aspects of this restoration.
Finally, large scale restorations offer the challenge of viewing and
managing ecosystems on a landscape level. This is perhaps the true test
of our understanding of landscape ecological processes as they function
on the large scale. These "landscape" restorations permit us to stop
delineating specific, single unit ecosystems and allow us to view
ecosystems as they should be viewed: in the larger landscape context
taking into account ecotones and the interrelationships between different
ecosystems. This also permits us to consider the restoration of habitat
for species that require large tracts of land. In a landscape that is
riddled with small unconnected islands of habitat, these large scale
restorations may be extremely important for the survival of some species.
For all of their differences, large scale restorations in practice are
very similar to small scale restorations. Many times, the same
techniques are used in both: using agroforestry to decrease erosion in
the mountains of Guatemala employs the same techniques if it is conducted
on 5 acres or 5000 acres. This, however, means that there is much
overlap in the problems that plague both types of restorations. As the
science of restoration ecology grows, so will our understanding of how to
overcome these difficulties and restore even large scale ecosystems to
their naturally functioning state.