Inclusive Urban Ecological Restoration in Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Ecological restoration is a practice of hope; hope because restorationists envision a better future as a result of their efforts. Ecological restoration is a practice of faith; faith because restorationists work in a world of uncertainty. Finally, ecological restoration is a practice of love; love because restorationists care about, and give their lives to, efforts that protect and enhance the lives of humans and other-than-human beings alike. Ecological restoration is a human practice, and because it is, people matter. In this book we endorse the idea that humans are an integral part of nature and that they play a key role in determining, either consciously or otherwise, the condition of the environment in which they live. We also support the idea that the practice of ecological restoration is one of the more positive ways that humans can interact with the rest of the natural world. Moreover, we seek to show why recognizing and under-standing the human dimensions of ecological restoration are critical to the success and longevity of all ecological restoration efforts, especially those undertaken at large scales, on public lands, and/or within urban/suburban settings. These are situations where restoration activities move beyond the vision and control of an individual land-owner or small group of like-minded people; these activities are community-based ef-forts that involve the ideas and concerns of many people. A fundamental assumption underlying the concept of ecological restoration is that humans are responsible for degrading the natural environment and, therefore, hu-mans have a responsibility to repair it. At the heart of ecological restoration is a vision of a better relationship between humans and the rest of the world. Unfortunately, there is no unified vision of who we are as people, how the world around us operates, and what this better relationship should look like. We believe, however, that ecologi-cal restoration provides a forum within which we can study the dialogue between hu-mans and nature, and between various human stakeholders. In this book, we do so by studying the human aspects of collaboration and community-based ecological resto-ration, restoration economics, volunteerism, environmental education, eco-cultural practices, and politics, governance, and planning. One of the first things we observe when studying ecological restoration is that, be-cause humans are intimately involved, the practice is inherently (1) value laden, (2) context driven, (3) prone to be immersed in disagreement and compromise, and (4) experiential. Numerous studies have shown that determining restoration goals and best prac-tices are value-laden activities because they involve human perceptions, beliefs, emo-tions, knowledge, and, ultimately, behaviors (Gobster and Hull 2000; Bright, Barro, and Burtz 2002; Morford and James 2002; Shindler, Wilton, and Wright 2002). This is problematic when one practices ecological restoration from a strictly scientific per-spective, because ecological science alone fails to capture the full extent of the issues we are trying to solve or that must be bridged in order to reach a science-based solu-tion. As historian and ecologist Robert McIntosh points out, " The conflict between the image of science as objective and value-free and that of ecology as intrinsically value-laden and a guide to ethics for humans, animals, and even trees is difficult to reconcile. Segregation of strictly scientific concerns from matters of public policy is not easy, as atomic scientists had found " (McIntosh 1986, 308). Furthermore, ecolog-ical restoration activities take place in cultural, political, and economic contexts that produce different " strains " and definitions of ecological restoration. This is especially true as one looks at projects across various regions and at international scales. In addi-tion, these contexts are dynamic and can change with the addition or removal of even one influential person from an oversight group, management team, legislative body, or field crew. Influxes of funding, passage of key legislation or mandates, perceived cri-sis conditions, and increased public awareness and support can also play key roles in advancing restoration activities. Likewise, bad press, poor relationships with clients and stakeholders, and other negative associations tend to doom the best plans and override the findings of sound scientific research. As we have seen in numerous situations (e.g., Cook County Forest Preserves, the Everglades, San Francisco nature parks, southwestern ponderosa pine forests), these two factors—value ladenness and context—can and do produce situations where dis-agreements have halted or canceled restoration efforts. Moreover, these two aspects of the human condition often compromise the historical authenticity (Egan 2006) or historical fidelity (Higgs 2003) of ecological restoration projects and move them closer to some other kind of conservation effort (i.e., reclamation, revegetation). To move forward under conditions characterized by uncertainty, disagreement, and complexity, our experience tells us that, instead of seeking greater control we must use pertinent strategies, such as the democratic process, inclusiveness, and re-specting local values and knowledge. We must also recognize competing land-use views, differing visions of human–nature relationships, and opposing values related to job creation and financing. Working through these strategies can help develop solu-tions amenable to both nature and humans. Finally, human involvement in restoration practices is experiential in both the physical and the psychological sense, making it open for educational possibilities, artistic interpretations, and spiritual and physical renewal. These efforts can, likewise, aid in resolving situations blinded by mistrust and ignorance. Ultimately, people are innately part of restoration projects as experts, learned amateurs, or volunteers, or as the general public affected by the results of restoration projects. To leave them unrec-2 why people matter in ecological restoration