Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Perspective Essay Novel ecosystems: A bridging concept for the consilience of cultural T landscape conservation and ecological restoration ⁎ Eric Macdonalda, , Elizabeth G. Kingb a College of Environment and Design, University of Georgia, 285 S. Jackson Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA b Odum School of Ecology and, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Four themes of consilience (white arrows) between cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration, which are embodied in the novel ecosystems concept.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: We evaluate the historical, philosophical, and practical relationships between two fields of theory and practice: Restoration ecology cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration. Each field has distinct intellectual and disciplinary Heritage conservation roots, bodies of theory, norms of practice, institutions, and modes of professional discourse. Yet both aim to Human-nature dichotomy understand and wisely steward environments for the benefit of humans and non-human nature, and both grapple Interdisciplinary collaboration with similar issues inherent in the complex nexus of nature, society, history, and sustainability. Increasingly, the Cultural landscapes thinking and the practices that once clearly distinguished their respective efforts have begun to converge — Pluralism reaching similar conclusions on challenging issues, and thus building consilience. Coincident with this trend toward consilience, the concept of “novel ecosystems” has arisen. Novel ecosystems are ecological assemblages that form self-organizing systems that have no historical precedent. We argue that the novel ecosystems concept is a useful frame through which to expose, articulate, and address many of the philosophical, ethical, and pragmatic challenges and tradeoffs that cultural landscape conservationists and ecological restorationists grapple with today: the fuzzy lines that distinguish humans from nature, the impossibility of going back in time, the resulting problems of defining goals given diversity of potential priorities, and the value of greater social inclusivity in the practice of restoration. We believe novel ecosystems also provide a powerful bridging concept through which we can understand and align with one another's epistemological perspectives, and continue building consilience and collaborations to conserve, steward, and celebrate our cultural and natural heritage and environment.

1. Introduction distinct cultures of scholarship and practice: cultural landscape con- servation and restoration ecology. Our recent collaborative experiences This essay stems from our respective efforts to restore and better have prompted us to contemplate our different perspectives on the steward neglected landscapes, which we have approached from two convergence of history, culture, and nature in landscapes. With

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Macdonald), [email protected] (E.G. King). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.015 Received 4 August 2017; Received in revised form 27 February 2018; Accepted 29 April 2018 Available online 18 May 2018 0169-2046/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159 colleagues and students, we have begun to explore the restoration of landscape, present needs, or intended future function. While CLC three neglected “junkscapes” (Lister, 2006) on our university campus: a prioritizes the aesthetic, spiritual, economic, and other social values stream valley that was the area’s first industrial corridor, an old-growth that inhere within a place, its practitioners also grapple with under- forest that was part of a 1920s youth camp, and a “people’s park” that standing and managing landscapes as ecosystems. In this respect, its during the early 1970s hosted some of the town’s first outdoor rock- practices and discourse increasingly resonate with those of con- and-roll performances. Each site retains obvious cultural vestiges of temporary ER. these earlier periods, along with elements that evoke both deeper and Ecological restoration also seeks to manage human-influenced more recent layers of time. The past and present are also discernible in landscapes with reference to a past, historical condition—a process that the ecological composition, structure, and functions of these land- the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) defines as “assisting the scapes—reconfigured landforms stripped of topsoil, mature native trees recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or de- towering above thickets of non-native vegetation, predator assemblages stroyed” (SER, 2004, p. 3). Degradation, damage, and destruction are of feral and native animal species, and stream channels partially di- normative concepts that describe undesirable states in terms of species verted into underground pipes. In discussing how our own approaches composition, structure, ecosystem functioning, or system resilience. to landscape restoration applied to such places, we concluded that Undesirable states are typically viewed as direct or indirect results of neither our disciplinary training nor the sites themselves offered clear human activity, and the goal of re-establishing a more desirable state is answers to fundamental questions: Which period in a site’s history usually pursued by returning to one that existed historically. ER tends should serve as a benchmark? Assuming that restoring key historical to focus on natural systems at the level of plant communities, ecosys- ecological characteristics or cultural features of these sites is desirable, tems, and landscapes, applying interventions that aim to foster long- how much restoration is even possible? term, self-sustaining recovery. Some theorists distinguish between Our discussions were facilitated by the newly formalized concept of “meliorative” interventions, which aim to improve the value and/or “novel ecosystems” in restoration ecology, which are defined as as- utility of an ecosystem for the benefit of people, and “ecocentric” re- semblages of organisms and abiotic elements that form self-organizing storation, which focuses on “the literal recreation of a previously ex- systems that have no historical precedent. As we explored how this isting ecosystem” and is guided by an ethos of restoring ‘nature for concept pertained to our own approaches to landscape restoration, we nature’s sake’ (Jordan & Lubick, 2011, p. 2). Ecological restoration may noted that the essential themes underlying core debates within our furthermore be distinguished from restoration ecology, which is the fields were strikingly similar, and that during the past two decades both scienti fic field that develops ecological theory, applied knowledge, and the salient challenges and the trajectories of thought seemed to be methodologies to inform and support ecological restoration. Herein, we converging. The novel ecosystems concept helped us frame the pressing use the term ER to encompass a range of approaches that vary in the challenges in our arenas of study and practice, and became a powerful degree to which they aim to restore historic conditions, such as species bridging concept through which we could understand and align with reintroductions (in which components, but not all ecosystem functions one another's epistemological perspectives. are restored) and rehabilitation (in which key functions, but not all In this essay, we trace the evolution of cultural landscape con- historic biotic components are restored). servation and ecological restoration to highlight similar and often parallel stages of development, as well as four key themes that suffuse 2. Conserving cultural landscapes and restoring ecosystems: the discourse and work of each field: (1) the extent to which humans historical parallels may be conceptually separated from non-human nature, (2) the pre- valence and normative views of linear, deterministic change and A number of authors have provided accounts of the historical de- equilibrium versus dynamic complexity in cultural and ecological sys- velopment of both CLC (Buggey, 1998; Goetcheus, Karson, & Carr, tems; (3) questions about the value of “authenticity,” or the degree to 2017; Goetcheus & Mitchell, 2014; Lennon, 2013; Mitchell, 2016; which restored ecosystems or cultural landscapes can and should re- Mitchell, Rössler, & Tricaud, 2009; O’Donnell, 2017; Taylor, 2013), and plicate historic conditions, and (4) the role of expertise and community ER (Allison, 2012; Hall, 2005; Higgs, 2003; Jordan, 2003; Jordan & participation in restoration and conservation. We argue that perspec- Lubick, 2011). Below, we draw upon these and other sources to offer a tives relating to each theme have shifted in recent decades in ways that historical synopsis of these two fields, highlighting their parallel stages generate greater alignment, overlap, and consilience between the two of development, and key similarities and differences with respect to the fields. We posit that the concept of “novel ecosystems” entails these underlying premises of their work. aspects of consilience, and that it may prove useful as a bridging con- cept toward greater integration of the two fields in the future. 2.1. Antecedents and initial foundations (ca. 1900–1930s) We use the terms “cultural landscape conservation” (CLC) and “ecological restoration” (ER) to denote two rather broad fields of Antecedents to both ER and CLC extend into antiquity (Dudley, practice and theory related to the management of human-built or Mansourian, & Vallauri, 2005; Jackson & Hobbs, 2009; Jordan & human-influenced environments. The former term refers to organized Lubick, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2009). As distinct fields of professional efforts to recognize, protect, and steward environments that have practice, however, each is of more recent origin. Both arose from late evolved through interactions between humans and non-human nature. nineteenth-century developments in Western post-Enlightenment sci- The UNESCO World Heritage Committee (2016, p. 11) defines cultural ence and philosophy, emerged as fields of specialized inquiry during the landscapes as environments that “represent the ‘combined works of first half of the twentieth century, and matured as professions by the nature and of man.’” Examples include designed gardens and parks, century’s end. CLC is generally viewed as part of the broader realm of urban plazas, suburban neighborhoods, farm districts, agricultural heritage management that took root in Europe, North America, and fields, managed forests, nature sanctuaries, and even sites that exhibit Australia during the nineteenth century (Lennon, 2006; Mitchell et al., no obvious evidence of human use but which hold potent cultural as- 2009), with subsequent influences in other regions of the world. Much sociations. CLC focusses on sustaining place-specific interactions be- of the philosophy that drove early heritage conservation emerged in tween humans and non-human nature for purposes of upholding sig- response to rapid and large-scale environmental changes brought about nificant cultural meanings, often involving a sense of identity, memory, by industrialization and other global processes. The movement largely and delight. Conservation practices encompass a range of strategies, focused on works of architecture, in which the goal was to return a including stabilizing and preserving landscape resources in their ex- monument to a faithful semblance of its past condition and thereafter isting state, to more intensive restoration or reconstruction of lost fea- maintain it in a perpetual state of preservation (Aaroz, 2013; Lennon, tures, depending on factors such as the character and integrity of the 2006).

149 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries a number distinct forms of professional practice. A number of nations im- of ambitious projects broadened the concept of “monument” to en- plemented legislation and developed systems for identifying and pro- compass landscape-scale environments. Such efforts were little influ- tecting valued environments. At the international level, the cultural enced by the concept of “cultural landscape” (Sauer, 1925), however, value of historic built environments was formally recognized through which was gaining currency within the academic discipline of geo- the World Heritage Convention, adopted by the United Nations graphy (Milton & Holly, 1981; Wylie, 2007). Practitioners primarily Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1972. conceptualized landscapes as assemblages of buildings, rather than as These developments institutionalized earlier approaches to heritage expressions of the historical interactions between humans and nature, conservation, including a focus on preserving architectural environ- or as dynamic, living systems. Indeed, the professionalized, govern- ments, reflecting an assumption that value primarily inhered in an ment-sponsored projects that became more numerous during the early environment’s material and spatial features, and that these in turn and middle decades of the twentieth century have been characterized as furnished a basis for assessing its historical “authenticity” and “in- “a building-by-building” approach to the conservation of historic en- tegrity.” Accordingly, stewardship was conceived chiefly in terms vironments (Watt, Raymond, & Eschen, 2004, p. 622). maintaining the material qualities of a historic environment in a more While many people mourned the loss of cherished buildings and or less static condition (Aaroz, 2013; Lennon, 2006). townscapes during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, others ER followed a similar path toward institutionalization during the voiced concerns about environmental catastrophes such as extensive post-World War II decades, impelled by post-war legislative enactments flooding and soil erosion that followed deforestation (Hall, 2005; and government policy. Utilitarian perspectives dominated meliorative Whited, 1996). Motivated largely by economic and health concerns, a restoration thinking and practice to restore productivity to forests, number of efforts aimed to revitalize forest and agricultural lands, and rangelands, wildlife populations, and agricultural landscapes, rather restore hydrologic function in urbanized watersheds in both Europe and than accurately recreating past vegetation communities. In the U.S., North America (Egan, 1990; Halliday, 1999). These ameliorative in- parks and wilderness areas were the primary loci for conservation of terventions began before the rise of ecological science during the historic natural landscapes, where managers believed historic condi- twentieth century, which subsequently furnished a number of im- tions still existed or could be passively restored by removing human portant concepts that influenced restoration practice. Perhaps foremost impacts (Hays, 1987). In both working landscapes and “natural areas,” among these was American botanist Frederic Clements’s conception of equilibrial notions of succession and disturbance continued to govern ecological succession as a process involving a series of development strategies for achieving stewardship goals. Echoing European ecological stages that eventually culminated in a stable, equilibrial assemblage of perspectives, wildlife and ecosystem management used equilibrial species, the “climax community.” He and other leading ecologists as- principles to maintain productivity rather than facilitate succession to a sumed it represented the “natural” condition that prevailed at a site single climax (Margalef, 1968; Schnitzler, Génot, Wintz, & Hale, 2008). prior to human or natural disturbance, and posited that a climax Hence, as with the conservation of historic built environments, the community would naturally reestablish itself if the process of succes- expansion and consolidation of ER during the middle decades of the sion remained uninterrupted (Tobey, 1981; Trepl & Voigt, 2011). Early twentieth century tended to reinforce assumptions that had coalesced twentieth-century vegetation ecology in Europe was likewise strongly earlier. oriented toward equilibrial concepts, although it did not embrace the idea that communities progressed unidirectionally toward a single 2.3. Consolidation and conflict (1980s–2000s) climax. Instead, ecologists such as Arthur Tansley suggested that, de- pending on human influence, multiple equilibria were possible (Anker, During the 1980s and 1990s, both CLC and ER acquired attributes 2001; Hall, 2005; Worster, 1994). Nonetheless, the assumptions of that signified their maturation as modern professions, including the determinism, equilibrium, and stability—along with negative norma- establishment of professional associations, academic and technical tive views of disturbance—permeated ecological thinking for decades training programs, and codes of practice. During the 1980s, for ex- and became the initial theoretical basis for ER. ample, practitioners of ER established common principles for practice These ideas were clearly enfolded within the early development of and founded SER as an international organization. Concurrently, a ecocentric restoration as a self-conscious scientific enterprise, which is number of organizations began advocating professional management of typically traced to a number of efforts that began during the 1920s and cultural landscapes, and the concept of cultural landscapes was in- 1930s in North America and Australia (Allison, 2012; Egan, 1990; creasingly institutionalized in heritage management regimes. One sig- Jordan & Lubick, 2011). Ecocentric restoration projects aimed to re- nificant milestone in this direction occurred in 1992, when cultural instate examples of climax communities by erasing a century of past landscapes were officially recognized as a category of protected areas human influences. Although European restoration efforts tended to by both the World Heritage Convention and the International Union for focus less on recreating a particular climax community, they similarly the Conservation of Nature (Lennon, 2013; Lucas, 1992). sought to enhance “naturalness” by removing or limiting human im- As each field expanded and became ensconced in professional and pacts (Anker, 2001; Bowler, 1993; Hall, 2005; Margalef, 1968). In the governmental institutions, however, they increasingly clashed. In the context of forestry, for example, a paradigm of “close-to-nature” silvi- U.S., for example, efforts to conserve and restore habitat for endangered culture developed (Larsen, 2012; Otto, 1993; Schütz, 1999; Spathelf, species occurred just as the National Park Service and other federal 1997), which aimed to mimic the mixed species composition and un- agencies began to step up efforts to identify and manage historic cul- even age structure of “natural” forests (e.g., Gayer, 1886), and sought to tural landscapes. Initiatives to preserve cultural landscapes thus in- regulate human interventions in ways that could sustain both timber creasingly encountered parallel efforts to conserve and restore ecosys- production and ecological equilibrium (e.g., Möller, 1922). In both Old tems, which often called for the removal of cultural features and other World and New World settings, early restorationists used historical human-caused “disturbances” as a necessary precondition for re-es- knowledge to assess how ecological communities had deteriorated over tablishing and maintaining ecological integrity (Feldman, 2013; time, and assumed a state of equilibrium to be the desired and most Krumenaker, 1998). Conflicts between natural versus cultural heritage “natural” end result of their interventions. conservation also escalated in the developing world – where the ma- jority of the world’s biodiversity and non-industrial cultures are co-lo- 2.2. Early development and preconditions for expansion (ca. 1940s–1970s) cated. Responding to global concerns for biodiversity loss and en- dangered species, international conservation organizations stimulated Following World War II, several developments contributed to the and in many cases funded the creation of protected natural areas, often emergence of both landscape-scale heritage conservation and ER as displacing indigenous people from their cultural landscapes and

150 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159 livelihoods as part of the process (Agrawal & Redford, 2009; Reyes, representing “mixed” cultural and natural heritage (Rössler, 2015). 2011; West, Igoe, & Brockington, 2006). For instance, in India, rural The nature/culture dichotomy was also challenged in restoration villages were displaced to form numerous protected areas for tigers, ecology, wherein human activities were increasingly acknowledged as with no empirical evidence that rural livelihood pursuits were con- not necessarily “unnatural” or detrimental to ecosystem function. While tributing to tiger declines, or that people would be able to maintain restorationists in Europe had long accepted that many historic “natural” their livelihoods after loss of access to protected areas (Rangarajan & landscapes were in fact anthropogenic, by the late twentieth-century Sahabuddin, 2006). In Peru, communities on the shores of Lake Titicaca there was mounting evidence that landscapes around the world simi- successfully resisted attempts to create a national reserve that would larly arose from long timelines of anthropogenic interactions, including have excluded them from using reedbeds, which were in fact cultural North American woodlands and prairies, neotropical forests, and landscapes that were created and maintained to support their tradi- Australian and African savannas (Balée, 2013; Bowman et al., 2011; tional livelihoods (Orlove, 2002). Butz, 2009; Cronon, 1983; Denevan, 1992). Many restorationists also recognized that traditional ecological knowledge and management 3. From conflict to consilience practices were sometimes critical to achieving restoration goals (Anderson, 2005; Lee, Schaaf, & Wauchope, 2003). Such awareness From their initiation as distinct fields of practice during the last coincided with the emergence of indigenous rights movements, which century, the fields of CLC and ER exhibited striking conceptual simi- bolstered arguments for engaging indigenous populations in the re- larities in how they approached their work. Practitioners in both fields, storation process (Martinez, 2003). This perspective resonated with the for example, often sought to recreate accurate facsimiles of past land- writings of other restorationists who drew attention to the ethical and scapes, though precise meaning of authenticity was often debated. Once aesthetic dimensions of ER, positing that ecological restoration was it- restored, both fields accepted stasis or equilibrium as the principal self a significant form of cultural expression (Higgs, 2003; Jordan, management goal. Early practitioners in both fields also assumed that 2003). This more nuanced and complex view of human-nature re- success depended largely upon the application of specialized, technical lationships has become mainstreamed in restoration and conservation knowledge. Despite these similarities, however, conflicts eventually literature, and is now a foundational premise for the Intergovernmental arose in settings where humans and nature were profoundly entangled, Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Díaz et al., 2015). and where restoring nature entailed erasing culture, or vice versa. Ecological restorationists have joined CLC practitioners in accepting In recent decades, notable shifts in thinking have occurred in both that their work centers on understanding the complex ways in which fields with respect to many of the key issues that contributed to both the humans and non-human nature are entwined, and they increasingly parallelism and the clashes that we noted above. As a result, we argue recognize that this demands approaches that bridge disparate realms of that the two fields have been drawn into closer alignment, particularly knowledge (Egan, Hjerpe, & Abrams, 2011; Ives et al., 2017; Naveh, with respect to four key themes of consilience: the conceptual divide 2007; Wehi & Lord, 2017). between humans and nature, the dynamism of landscapes and ecosys- tems, how the past informs conservation and restoration goals, and the 3.2. Characterizing landscapes: from stasis to dynamism respective roles of experts and other stakeholders. CLC and ER scholars and practitioners also began to question an- 3.1. Human-nature relations: from dualism to interdependence other tenet inherited from their early twentieth-century predecessors: the notion that restored landscapes or ecosystems could be, and should CLC and ER formed around paradigms that conceptually separated be, maintained in a static state. In the realm of heritage management, humans from non-human nature—a habit of thought that has long in- the “Florence Charter” on historic gardens (ICOMOS, 1982) represented fluenced how Western civilizations view the world (Latour, 1993; a significant step away from upholding stasis as a core conservation Soper, 1995). At the international level, for example, such dualism was goal by emphasizing the extent to which the historic “materials” of a reflected in the initial formulation of the UNESCO Convention Con- landscape were biological entities that depended upon ongoing, in- cerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in 1972, tensive management of dynamic processes (Aaroz, 2013; Goetcheus & which established two separate sets of criteria for recognizing places Mitchell 2014). As the field progressed, it became clear that both the that possessed outstanding universal value as either Natural Heritage or “nature” and the “culture” of cultural landscapes needed to be under- as Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2005). As practitioners in both fields stood as mutable, living systems. Rehabilitating woodlands New York increasingly found themselves working in environments that could not City’s Central Park, for example, required not just apprehending the be neatly classified as either “cultural” or “natural,” however, the ecological dynamics in play, but also park users’ perceptions of what is perceived clash between the values of “natural resources” and “cultural “natural” and what is not (Firth & Cramer, 1999). Moreover, as the resources” became a prominent theme in environmental conservation Western paradigm of heritage conservation spread, it encountered literature during the 1990s and 2000s (Conard, 2001). cultures for whom change itself was embraced as a form of con- A number of writers rejected the nature/culture dichotomy in favor tinuity—for example, in the traditional approach to conserving Japa- of conceptualizing landscapes as complex imbroglios of nature and nese Shinto shrines, which ritualizes periodic dismantling, repair, and culture (Whatmore, 2002), or as exhibiting degrees of “naturalness” reconstruction (Cameron & Inaba, 2015; Stovel, 2008). With acknowl- along a spectrum (Cook, 1995; Melnick, 2000). This seemingly abstruse edgement that pervasive, dynamic change was an essential character- philosophical problem tangibly affected on-the-ground practice in istic of cultural landscapes—and perhaps also integral to stewardship landscapes that remained integral to non-Western cultures, which often itself—the notion of stasis as an overarching management goal became did not recognize any sharp division between humankind and the rest untenable (Cook, 1995). of the natural world (Harrison & Rose, 2010; Jain, 2008; Rose, 1996; In ER, a similar shift was impelled by the abandonment of uni- Roth, 2004). A noteworthy symbolic shift away from nature/culture directional notions of succession, with greater acknowledgement that dualism occurred in 2005, when the Operational Guidelines for the Im- ecosystems are dynamic and continually evolving, and disturbance re- plementation of the World Heritage Convention abandoned separate sets of gimes are important and ubiquitous factors that contribute to ecosystem criteria for assessing cultural and natural heritage in favor of a single set structure and function (Barbour, 1995). Prominent ecosystem scientists of ten criteria to apply to all prospective properties of outstanding like Buzz Holling and Howard T. Odum built upon these insights, universal value (Taylor, 2013; UNESCO, 2008). This change has been conceptualizing ecosystems as self-organizing networks of interactions accompanied by growth in the number of UNESCO-recognized cultural and feedbacks among biotic and abiotic components (Golley, 1993). landscapes, and an increase in the number of landscapes nominated as Studies of feedback dynamics showed how some ecosystems adapt

151 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159 gradually to changing conditions, while others undergo dramatic shifts 3.4. Practice: from expert-driven to participatory into new, different ecosystem states that become self-reinforcing (Folke et al., 2004). These so-called regime shifts have garnered considerable The developments sketched above are entailed in a final important attention because they may be difficult or impossible to reverse, de- shift: from expert-driven approaches to increasing social participation pending on the environmental changes and strengths of new feedbacks and diversity. Both fields historically viewed their work as technical that emerge (Scheffer & Carpenter, 2003). Ecologists thus came to view challenges in the purview of specially trained professionals, adopting ecosystems as changing in response to different drivers at multiple top-down and expert-driven approaches with limited stakeholder in- temporal and spatial scales, and acknowledged that structural and volvement. By the end of the twentieth century, however, both CLA and functional changes were not deterministic, linear, or easily predicted ER came to see landscapes as entangled in social dynamics that often (Levin, 2000). Additionally, it was increasingly recognized that even significantly influenced the viability of a project, particularly in land- relatively pristine natural areas were open to influence from outside scapes where both human and non-human historical conditions are factors, forcing greater attention to landscape contexts and histories in deemed significant, and where seemingly irreconcilable values were order to understand dynamics (Pickett & Cadenasso, 1995). By the early advocated by ecological restorationists versus cultural landscape con- 1990s it was clear that a “New Ecology” (Botkin, 1990) had emerged—a servationists (Gobster, 2001; Wehi & Lord, 2017). The expansion of eco- paradigm metaphorically characterized as the “flux of nature,” in and cultural tourism during the late twentieth and early twenty-first contrast to the earlier equilibrial “balance of nature” paradigm (Pickett, centuries further highlighted how landscape conservation and restora- Parker, & Fiedler, 1992). As the New Ecology took hold, it challenged tion must be attuned to economic and social justice issues (Aaroz, 2013; the assumption that a single historic equilibrium was always an Lennon, 2013; Watkins & Beaver, 2008). Practitioners in both fields achievable or desirable goal in ER (Hobbs & Norton, 1996). have increasingly recognize that the sustainability of landscape man- agement hinges on the extent to which goal-setting involves the people who will be directly responsible for implementing and monitoring in- 3.3. Authenticity: from historical to multivalent terventions, as well as those who will be affected now and in the future (Brown, 2014; Egan et al., 2011; Light, 2002). They also increasingly The shift toward viewing landscapes and ecosystems as imbroglios acknowledged that their own expertise sometimes hindered their ability of humans and non-human nature, combined with the acceptance of to understand and accommodate the values of community stakeholders their fundamentally dynamic essence, influenced a third shared premise (Reed, 2008; Reyers, Nel, O’Farrell, Sitas, & Nel, 2015; Taylor & of both early twentieth-century heritage management and ER: the use Lennon, 2011). Recent decades have generated many effective tools to of a single historical period as a benchmark for assessing the integrity of integrate community engagement into professional practice in both existing landscapes and judging the “authenticity” of restoration and fields (de Vente, Reed, Stringer, Valente, & Newig, 2016; Subramanian, conservation efforts. Acceptance of cultural landscapes as complex, Chakraborty, & Ichikawa, 2017). dynamic, continually evolving systems challenged the assumption that they could be returned to a particular moment in time and held there 3.5. Consilience indefinitely. Scholars noted that most landscapes were experienced as assemblages of elements that had accreted over a broad continuum of In the previous subsections, we argue that during the last two time, and many were recognized as having multiple “layers” of meaning decades, scholars and practitioners of both CLC and ER have arrived at and significance (Ingold, 1993). Hence, traditional notions of authen- increasingly similar viewpoints about the complex relations between ticity, which hinged on privileging a single time period in the past, humans and non-human actors in landscapes (3.1), the fundamentally became problematic (Howett, 2000; Mitchell, 2008). Moreover, it was dynamic nature of ecosystems (3.2), the vexing plurality of values that increasingly recognized that the meanings and associations that inhered inhere in them and the contingencies involved in concepts such as in landscapes often varied considerably across different social groups, “authenticity” (3.3) and the need for broader social engagement (3.4). and that significant values were not always embodied in an environ- Indeed, recent changes in theory and praxis within both fields have ment ’s material components (Andrews & Buggey, 2008; Buggey, 2000). been characterized as paradigm shifts (Aaroz 2013; Mitchell & Melnick, Such differences were brought to the foreground in 1994 when ICOMOS 2013; Temperton, 2007). These changes in thinking have by no means issued the “Nara Document on Authenticity,” which affirmed the im- been monolithic, nor have they been embraced by all, or accepted portance of intangible heritage, acknowledged that values accumulate uniformly throughout the world. Nonetheless, their ascendance signals across a continuum of time, and recognized that notions of “authenti- a growing consilience, wherein different disciplines generate similar city” vary from culture to culture (ICOMOS 1994). conclusions and viewpoints regarding common questions, which we A strikingly similar perspective emerged in ER, wherein “authenti- contend offers a promising basis for stronger interdisciplinary ap- city” has been reframed as a context-dependent value that may take proaches to restoring and conserving valued landscapes. Below, we historical factors into account, but does not hinge solely on them suggest that the emerging concept of “novel ecosystems” embraces (Dudley, 2011). Echoing practitioners of CLC, proponents of ER have many of the perspectives that have recently converged in each field, advocated approaches that recognize multiple “layers” of meaning and and we propose that it may provide a coherent bridging concept upon value in landscapes (Hourdequin & Havlick, 2016). The conundrum of which to continue building knowledge, consensus, and consilience. choosing among numerous possible historic reference states likewise surfaced in the field of ER (Callicott, 2002; Clewell & Aronson 2013). In 4. Novel ecosystems: an umbrella concept for consilience response, SER updated its guidance documents to clarify that ER seeks to return ecosystems to their historic trajectories, rather than historic 4.1. The novel ecosystems concept in ecological restoration states (McDonald, Gann, Jonson, & Dixon, 2016, p. 12). The guidelines do not address the challenge of which historic trajectory—e.g., 100, There is now general recognition among ecologists that humans 300, or 14000 years ago—should be selected as a reference; rather, they have measurably affected ecological dynamics nearly everywhere on advocate expert and stakeholder collaboration as the most appropriate Earth, through our effects on climate, by facilitating the translocation of route to determine that. The choice may be seen as arbitrary (Moreira, species, and through activities that directly or indirectly restructure the Queiroz, & Aronson, 2006), but it is often highly normative, and even components or functioning of ecosystems (Ellis, 2011; Foley et al., political, as it privileges one perspective of the “right” historic state 2005). As a result, we increasingly encounter ecological systems for over others (Baker & Eckerberg, 2013; Hull & Robertson, 2000). which there is no historical analog (Hobbs, Higgs, & Harris, 2009). Novel ecosystems have been defined as systems whose altered

152 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159 composition, structure, or functioning has no precedent, which have arisen as a result of direct or indirect human activity, and which are ecologically self-reinforcing — meaning that the new ecosystem has formed interactions and dynamics that maintain the new configuration in the absence of human interventions (Perring, Standish, & Hobbs, 2013). The notion of self-reinforcing feedbacks is key. As an illustration, consider the transformation of desert ecosystems in Mexico by an in- vading exotic grass (Búrquez-Montijo, Miller, & Martinez-Yrizar, 2002). The deserts’ historically sparse, diverse vegetation did not sustain fre- quent, widespread fires. When an introduced African grass proliferated to form continuous ground cover, the landscape became capable of sustaining frequent lightning-ignited fires, which killed native fire-in- tolerant vegetation but further promoted the growth of the introduced grass. The resulting novel system is self-reinforcing because of the po- sitive feedback that exists between the invading grass creating fuel for fire, and the positive effect of fire on the invader. Other examples in- clude numerous other “invader-fire” transformations (Brooks et al., 2004), coastal ecosystems transformed as a result of complex interac- tions between multiple anthropogenic stressors and sea level rise (Cloern et al., 2016), North American and European lake ecosystems transformed by cascading ecological effects of introduced mussel spe- Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of changing states of ecosystem or landscape, along cies (Strayer, 2010), tropical forests where dominant exotic tree species two axes of alteration. The horizontal axis represents alteration in the en- vironmental context, which includes abiotic conditions such as climate regime have profoundly altered ecological dynamics and now exclude native or hydrology, disturbance regimes such as flooding or fire intervals, and al- species (Baider & Florens, 2011; Kueffer, Schumacher, Dietz, terations in the broader landscape context such as fragmentation, urbanization, Fleischmann, & Edwards, 2010; Mascaro, Hughes, & Schnitzer, 2012), or increasing sources of invasive species influx. The vertical axis represents and abandoned surface mines around the world with novel soil chem- conditions within the system, including the components, structures, processes istry that no longer supports native species assemblages (Doley & and functions that characterize the system. Because the conditions in the system Audet, 2013; Laarmann et al., 2015; Tizado & Núñez-Pérez, 2016). In respond to, and also shape, the environmental context, change on one axis is each case, the ecosystem is considered to have crossed a threshold of typically coupled to change on the other axis. The shifts between different change, either in environmental conditions (e.g., modified fire regime, system states can be analogized to a ball rolling on a topographic surface soil chemistry or climate change) or interactions within the system (Scheffer & Carpenter, 2003). Thresholds can be thought of as a ridge or cliff (e.g., the effects of some introduced organisms), which elicits new sets (represented by the transition and small arrows from the white to the shaded of interactions that take hold, dominate, and override the interactions region), such that when a system reaches a threshold, it tends to move 'downhill' due to cascading changes, where it stabilizes in a new state. When that characterized the previous state (Fig. 1). historic conditions or environmental context (hexagon 1) are altered beyond a In the applied science of restoration ecology, the degree to which a threshold, it becomes difficult or impossible to return to the historical state, novel system is ecologically self-reinforcing, and how to assess that, has either because the historic environmental context cannot be re-established received considerable attention because it determines whether the (hexagon 2), or because the new state brought a cascade of altered interactions conditions reinforcing the new state are reversible, and if so, the degree that create feedbacks, impelling and reinforcing changes in the system of intervention that may be required to re-establish a former ecosystem (hexagon 3), which persist even if environmental conditions are restored. If the after a threshold is crossed (Suding & Hobbs, 2009). While initial de- system has been more moderately altered (hexagon 4) and has not reached a velopers of the novel ecosystem concept proposed to classify trans- threshold, it can be more easily restored to a historic state. (Modified from formed ecosystems as either reversible or irreversible (Hallett et al., Suding, Gross, & Houseman, 2004). 2013), subsequent contributors have argued that the reversibility of a novel ecosystem is in many cases a matter of degrees with respect to the specific to novel ecosystems; they pose real constraints and potential temporal or spatial scale being considered, or the intensity of human sources of irreversibility that should be considered in all restoration intervention that may be necessary to instigate and support the reversal planning. In practice, ecological restorationists must therefore si- process (Miller & Bestelmeyer, 2016; Morse et al., 2014). When effort multaneously evaluate what is ecologically, economically, and socio- intensity arises as a criterion for irreversibility, the cost of that effort culturally achievable. The novel ecosystems concept impels examina- must be valued in order to assess whether restoration is practically tion of possible irreversibilities that may constrain conventional re- achievable—a consideration that departs from the strictly ecological storation objectives, as well as a broader consideration of what alter- realm of feasibility. Novelty therefore constrains the range of goals that native objectives may instead be achievable and desirable (Standish, may be ecologically or economically achievable through restoration. Hobbs, & Miller, 2013). As practitioners grapple with novel ecosystems, they must consider an additional lens — socio-cultural reversibility and feasibility of re- storation. Social and cultural contexts can also generate self-reinforcing 4.2. Novel ecosystem concept entails points of consilience dynamics that preclude restoration to a previous condition when novel ecosystems experience ongoing human influences (Chapin, Robards, Reflecting back on the four points of consilience discussed above, Johnstone, Lantz, & Kokelj, 2013). Furthermore, novel ecosystems may we can trace their influence and manifestation within the novel eco- deliver significant benefits, or ecosystem services, that were not pro- systems concept (Table 1). The complex interdependent relations be- vided by the historic system (Collier, 2014; Morse et al., 2014). Massive tween humans and non-human actors in landscapes (3.1) are ac- shale mining waste heaps in Scotland, for instance, were once regarded knowledged as the catalysts that set into motion the ecological as a blight on the landscape, but are now considered to have important processes that lead to new, self-reinforcing ecological assemblages. This historical and cultural value. They support unique plant communities is reflected in the novel ecosystems' criterion of direct or indirect an- and rare plant species, and some are protected as historic monuments thropogenic origin. The fundamentally dynamic nature of ecosystems, (Harvie & Hobbs, 2013). Socio-cultural limitations to feasibility are not with multiple possible states emerging as a result of complex

153 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Table 1 Management contexts, goals, and four emerging points of consilience in the fields of cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration. Awareness, research, and ideas surrounding these issues have developed concurrently within each field, shaping recent and current theory and practice in each. The issues are also entailed in the concept of novel ecosystems.

Issue Manifestations in Cultural Landscape Manifestations in Restoration Ecology Premises in the Novel Ecosystems Concept Conservation

Management Contexts and Goals Challenging current Cultural landscapes with novel contexts or Novel ecosystems Due to changes, disturbances, emerging self- condition conditions reinforcing states, and novel contexts, it may Conventional desired Conservation of living traditional cultural Restoration of former trajectories of natural be difficult or impossible to restore former condition landscapes and restoration/preservation of past ecosystem structure and function conditions cultural landscapes

Emerging Points of Consilience 1. Human-nature relations Shift from focus on buildings to include the Shift from focus on species composition to Interactions between humans and ecosystems environmental context as part of a cultural ecosystem functions that include human catalyze the emergence of novel systems and landscape influences and land use influence current states 2. Characterization of Shift from focus on static historic states to Shift from equilibrial thinking to recognition of System configurations are dynamic and shift landscapes recognition of dynamic, layered, historically feedbacks, regime shifts, and irreversibilities in complex, nonlinear ways contingent landscapes 3. Definitions of Growing recognition that meanings of landscapes Growing recognition that restoration to Entrenched feedbacks in novel systems authenticity are dynamic and heterogeneous, and thus cannot previous ecological trajectories is impractical or preclude returning to a previous state, so be faithfully returned to a single “authentic” impossible, necessitating targets other than multiple alternative goals must be evaluated previous condition pure historic referents and negotiated 4. Inclusivity in practice Growing inclusion of meanings and values of Growing inclusion of social and economic Diverse perspectives are needed to promote diverse stakeholders in selecting the attributes of services that ecological restoration can provide fairness, openness, realistic expectations, and a cultural landscape that receive conservation longer-term sustainability of interventions. priority. interactions (3.2), are the ecological basis for the self-organizing in cultural landscapes (Andrews et al., 2016; Beagan, & Dolan, 2015; properties and potential irreversibility of novel ecosystems. The chal- Sargent & Slaton, 2015). Socio-cultural constraints additionally govern lenges of setting restoration targets based on historic referents (3.3) was what is achievable and desirable in CLC, just as they may influence the central motivation for development of the novel ecosystem concept, what is possible in ER (Brabec & Chilton, 2015; Mitchell, 2015). In recognizing that in some circumstances, such goals are simply not short, cultural landscapes can also exist in novel configurations that practical and alternative goals must be defined. The novel ecosystems may be difficult, impractical, or impossible to return to historic con- concept thus expands the normative dimensions of restoration beyond ditions as pursued in conventional CLC approaches. classical restoration's focus on historic authenticity, prompting parallel We are not arguing that all cultural landscapes are novel ecosys- scholarly discussions of its implications on restoration planning (Hulvey tems, or that novel ecosystems are cultural landscapes. Nor are we et al., 2013; Perring et al., 2015; Standish, Thompson, Higgs, & Murphy, suggesting that all landscapes in need of management exhibit irrever- 2013). This has in turn highlighted the need for broader social en- sible novel conditions. Rather, we are arguing that given the accel- gagement (3.4) to include diverse perspectives regarding the goals of erating degree of anthropogenic modification in our world, and our restoration when historic authenticity is not an option. emerging understanding of ecosystem processes and human-environ- ment interactions, we need be vigilant and concerned about the lim- itations that novelty can impose. And when novelty and irreversibility 4.3. A bridging concept for emerging challenges in both fields do present themselves, there is a need for new ways of evaluating a broader range of possible restoration and conservation goals. Both ER Recognizing that novel ecosystems are a possibility — bearing the and CLC have matured and navigated parallel paradigmatic shifts that concept in mind, which we will call “novel ecosystems thinking”— embrace the complexity of today’s dynamic landscapes, and we find holds the potential to bridge ER and CLC as we confront the un- that the novel ecosystem concept entails key premises around which the certainties of practice in the Anthropocene. At the core of “novel eco- two fields have reached consilience. Because of this, the novel ecosys- systems thinking” is the recognition that conventional restoration to a tems concept may offer a common basis for visualizing, commu- past historical ecosystem may not always be an appropriate goal, and nicating, and developing practice around issues that we see coalescing this draws attention to the need for careful, deliberate reflection on the between the two fields (Fig. 2). In the following section, we discuss how nature of ecosystems, human-environment interactions, and the nor- the application of novel ecosystems thinking is already manifest or mative decisions that practitioners must make in order to select among emerging in each field, and the promise we see for further integration. management options (Higgs, 2017). The novel ecosystems concept arose within the context of ER, which has traditionally aimed to restore prior “natural” conditions. In CLC, on the other hand, the objective is 5. Implications for ecological restoration and cultural landscape not to restore an ecosystem to a state unaffected by humans; it is to conservation restore or conserve an environment that embodies the combined works of humankind and nature. Yet the key ideas that underlie “novel eco- Our current time constitutes a unique geologic epoch in the history systems thinking” are fully applicable to current challenges in CLC. of the Earth – the “Anthropocene”— in which humans have become the Complex interactions among social and ecological processes over time dominant influence on the planet’s climate and environments (Waters may also create cultural landscapes that differ significantly from his- et al., 2016). Projected changes in climate, biodiversity, biogeography, torical conditions, and for which traditional approaches to preservation and geomorphology suggest that novel ecosystems will become more or restoration may be difficult or impossible. Large-scale anthropogenic common in the foreseeable future (Williams & Jackson, 2007), with changes such as climate change, regional-scale eutrophication, and implications for the functioning of landscapes and also the cultural hydrological infrastructure may all pose significant constraints on the systems they formerly or currently support (Catford et al., 2013; Chapin range of achievable goals in restoring or conserving ecological elements et al., 2010; Marzeion & Levermann, 2014; Thornton & Herrero, 2015).

154 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Fig. 2. Four themes of consilience (white arrows) between cultural landscape conservation and ecological restoration, which are emerging and shaping each field as scholars and practitioners grapple with the complexities and novelties of landscapes today. Each theme is embodied in the novel ecosystems concept. We argue that novel ecosystems can therefore be useful as a bridging concept to foster interdisciplinary understanding, communication, and decision-making.

When returning an ecological or cultural landscape to a previous state is ecosystems (in ecocentric restoration), to the beneficial services that impossible or impractical, we argue that the novel ecosystems per- ecosystems deliver to people (function-oriented restoration and ecolo- spective will prove useful in illuminating and evaluating future courses gical engineering), to the cultural representation of human-environ- of action. They encourage us to be both realistic and deliberate about ment interactions that landscapes may represent (CLC). If included in the normative decisions in our interventions (Perring et al., 2013). We goal-setting for either ER or CLC, these perspectives may each perceive identify four valuable opportunities through which novel ecosystems important ecological, economic, and cultural barriers and irreversi- thinking may help us negotiate greater sustainability for our societal bilities, which any single community of practice may not fully ap- and ecological heritage and future: setting goals, reframing how our preciate. This means engaging across conventional communities of understanding of the past affects our thinking about the future, prior- practice, to include stakeholders and practitioners who do not ne- itizing system functions, and fostering broadly participatory processes. cessarily share the same preconceptions and priorities (Cairns, 2000; Higgs, 1997; Weinstein, 2008).

5.1. Setting goals 5.2. Reconceptualizing how the past informs the future In ER and CLC, defining the problem and setting goals for inter- vention are key early steps in any project, involving rigorous assess- In novel systems, it may be possible to recreate only some, but not ments of past, present and desired future conditions. Goals are typically all, attributes of past conditions, yet this does not mean that historical influenced by the forms of degradation at a site, and the motivation for knowledge is less relevant to the task of achieving a desired future state. conducting restoration. All of those factors have normative dimensions Indeed, historical inquiry may instead become even more critical rather that will vary depending on the expertise, attitudes, and values of the than diminished in importance, although it may less often inform persons who evaluate them (Baker & Eckerberg, 2013; Hull & practice by providing a fixed template for restoration, as in conven- Robertson, 2000), and the way a problem is conceptualized will guide tional practice (Higgs et al., 2014). Instead, historical knowledge may the focus of assessments and shape the goals and solutions they devise aid in identifying the ways that landscapes have been restructured by (Biggs et al., 2011; Jones, Ross, Lynam, Perez, & Leitch, 2011). As environmental processes and human activities. Persistent legacies of practitioners become specialized and form regular partnerships as a past changes can generate ecological irreversibilities, so building matter of efficiency, the range of perspectives likewise constricts, which knowledge of historical change can help in subsequent evaluations of results in a narrowing of potential restoration goals (Guerrero et al., potential barriers to restoration. Understanding meanings associated 2017; Hobbs, 2007). While this is pragmatic for highly replicable with past landscapes can be useful in developing innovative proposals landscape conservation activities, it can also be limiting and proble- for how the past should and could be represented in ecological and/or matic for novel problems and diverse contexts. cultural landscapes of the future (Antrop, 2005), even when structural For example, in estuarine restoration, some communities of practi- restorations may not be possible. Novel ecosystem thinking encourages tioners are strongly oriented toward full ecological restoration of biotic philosophical exploration of such alternate forms of “historicity” to community structure, while others are oriented toward ecological en- restore or conserve (Higgs, 2012). gineering to restore desired social and economic functions (Weinstein, Also, any restored past structural configurations will continue to 2008). Faced with an ecologically degraded estuary that is now failing interact dynamically with their broader contemporary contexts. Given to support a suite of human livelihood activities, they may arrive at the novelty of future global environmental change in the Anthropocene, non-overlapping goals because each community’s approach to goal- they may continue to change and reorganize in ways that we may not setting relied on a narrow perception of the problem and highly skewed be able to predict. Historical knowledge can be used to understand what weighting of ecological versus social priorities and limitations we might expect to happen under different scenarios in the future, and (Ehrenfeld, 2000). CLC practitioners would likely bring additional sets thus may help us identify multiple possible paths for conservation or of potential goals through evaluation of the estuary as a cultural restoration, and anticipate their potential outcomes (Higgs, 2010). With landscape. this dynamic view of landscapes, novel ecosystems thinking suggests Novel ecosystems thinking highlights the fundamentally normative that goal-setting may not be a one-time event, but rather an iterative basis of goal-setting. Because 'default' goals of returning to a prior state process. History also reveals that meanings and values change over are not possible, novel ecosystems thinking emphasizes the need for time. Novel ecosystems thinking underscores the usefulness of ongoing, broader assessments of what is ecologically, economically, and cultu- flexible evaluation, including the reassessment of goals themselves, as rally feasible and desirable, potentially generating more deliberate and we navigate dynamic relations and shifting values regarding the past, pluralistic evaluation of goals (Perring et al., 2013). In embracing the present and future of landscapes. interdependency of human and natural dimensions of landscapes, pluralism should span different perspectives on human-environment interactions, from the unintended consequences of human activity on

155 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Fig. 3. Photos reflecting the themes of con- silience as encountered through landscape conservation and restoration activities on an urban university campus. (A) Invasive non- native Chinese yam (Dioscorea polystachya) growing amidst native herbaceous plant species: a novel assemblage of species that reflects not only the entanglement of hu- mans and non-human nature in urban eco- systems, but also within the DNA of the Chinese yam itself, which bears traits that have emerged over thousands of years of interactions with humans who cultivated the plant for culinary and medicinal pur- poses. (B) A native goldenrod (Solidago sp.) thriving among abandoned and decaying construction materials in human-disturbed environments, evoking the fundamentally dynamic nature (and culture) of landscapes and ecosystems. (C) Stream waters flow over fragments rock born millions of years ago, chunks of concrete dating from the last century, and a 1970s-era child’s toy car. The accumulations of materials and information beg the question, which timeframe offers the most meaningful and “authentic” historical benchmark for this landscape’s future? (D) Volunteers – including a minister, a native plant enthusiast, a landscape architect, neighbors, and university students – discuss the past, present, and future of an old growth forest fragment during a volunteer work day. The use of goats in restoration has stimulated curiosity, participation, and a sense of stewardship across a diverse cross- section of the urban community.

5.3. Focus on function 5.4. Social engagement

Novel ecosystems are characterized by new structures, new func- The final implication for practice is the need to respond effectively tions, and novel relationships between the two. Novel ecosystems to the call for engagement with a broad spectrum of actors, whose in- thinking therefore suggests that we should explicitly consider the terests encompass multiple (and at times conflicting) values ranging functions associated with new and desired structural attributes, as well from biodiversity to cultural identity and aesthetic delight. The novel as the functions we wish to restore to whole landscapes (Perring et al., ecosystem concept assumes there are no default, ready-made goals for 2015). For example, it may be appropriate to admit certain non-native restoration projects. Instead, goals must be defined in a purposeful, self- species into a system if they perform key ecological functions, such as conscious way, and practitioners are challenged to accomplish this in a nutrient cycling or wildlife habitat, that cannot otherwise be restored. way that is equitable and just (Keenelyside, Dudley, Cairns, Hall, and Likewise, in a cultural landscape it may be acceptable to replace a shade Stolton, 2012). Also, the motivational benefits of engagement can en- tree with a non-historic species that is better adapted to projected cli- hance the sustainability of landscape management (Egan et al., 2011), mate conditions if such substitution allows the overall visual character as well as increase social meaning and connection to landscapes of the landscape to remain intact. Alternatively, non-native species in a (Antrop, 2005; Higgs et al., 2014; Reyes, 2011). Moreover, novel eco- historic hedgerow might be replaced by native species in order to en- systems thinking may impel a reconceptualization of “social engage- hance biodiversity within the landscape and support broader ecological ment” to further accommodate the interests of non-human stakeholders dynamics in the surrounding region. Each of these scenarios calls for (Descola, 2005; Latour, 2004; Latour, 2011), and reconcile the needs of explicit justification of the cultural and ecological functions that are humans with other species (Rosenzweig, 2003) in ways that defy prioritized, and implies that tradeoffs are likely. Even if historic com- nature/culture dichotomies. ponents are restored, some functions may not be enhanced, while others may even be weakened or lost. Novel ecosystems thinking re- cognizes that a plurality of values will inevitably find expression in the 5.5. Collaboration and integration functions of the landscapes that most interest us. This highlights the need for deliberative and inclusive practices to determine which func- Because the novel ecosystems concept embodies many of the points tions should be prioritized. of emerging consilience between ER and CLC, it may provide a basis for practitioners to recognize that their goals, philosophies, and challenges are increasingly shared, rather than antagonistic or cross-purposed. The concept provides an impetus for practitioners of both fields to engage in

156 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159 dialog as they make decisions regarding the future (and past) of places Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Cochrane, M. A., D’Antonio, C. M., that have both ecological and cultural value. et al. (2011). The human dimension of fire regimes on Earth. Journal of Biogeography, – ff 38(12), 2223 2236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02595.x. We o er our own experience as a case in point. Approaching our Brabec, E., & Chilton, E. (2015). Toward an ecology of cultural heritage. Change Over campus landscapes as novel systems has generated possibilities for Time, 5(2), 266–285. stewardship that, we suspect, would not readily arise from traditional Brooks, M. L., D'Antonio, C. M., Richardson, D. M., Grace, J. B., Keeley, J. E., DiTomaso, J. “ ” M., et al. (2004). Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience, 54(7), paradigms of either CLC or ER. Consider, for example, the restoration 677–688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2004) 054[0677:EOIAPO]2.0. of domesticated goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) to an urban landscape CO;2. from which they have long been absent (Fig. 3). Goats are ecologically Brown, J. (2014). Stewardship of protected landscapes by communities: Diverse land- non-native but were common in urban landscapes in the Southeastern scapes, diverse governance models. In K. Taylor, A. St. Clair, & N. J. Mitchell (Eds.). Conserving cultural landscapes: Challenges and new directions(pp. 93–108). New York: U.S. during the 1800s and early 1900s, and have gained substantial Routledge. popularity in ER. Goats became part of our project as a way to: revive Buggey, S. (1998). Historic landscape conservation in North America: Roaming the field – historic cultural functions (e.g., settings for meaningful human-animal over the past thirty years. APT Bulletin, 29(3/4), 37 42. Buggey, S. (2000). Associative values: Exploring nonmaterial qualities in cultural land- interactions, storytelling); enhance ecological conditions (e.g., re- scapes. APT Bulletin, 31(4), 21–27. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ moving non-native species and creating opportunities for re-estab- 1504673. lishing native plants); and engage broad participation (via goats’ Búrquez-Montijo, A., Miller, M., & Martinez-Yrizar, A. (2002). Mexican grasslands, thornscrub, and the transformation of the Sonoran Desert by invasive exotic buffel- charismatic appeal to children, university students, and neighborhood grass (Pennisetum ciliare). In B. Tellman (Ed.). Invasive exotic species in the sonoran residents). In our view, such efforts retain ER’s traditional intent of region (pp. 126–146). Tucson, Arizona: The University of Arizona Press and the restoring lost ecological function while upholding values of “histori- Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum. fi fi ” Butz, R. J. (2009). Traditional re management: Historical re regimes and land use city as articulated by restoration ecologists such as Higgs (2012). They change in pastoral East Africa. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(4), 442–450. also resonate with contemporary trends toward prioritizing the reten- http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF07067. tion of ecological and cultural functions in cultural landscapes rather Cairns, J. (2000). Setting ecological restoration goals for technical feasibility and scien- ti fic validity. Ecological Engineering, 15(3), 171–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ than material components (e.g., Melnick 2009), and attending to the S0925-8574(00)00068-9. importance of intangible heritage. We hope these efforts will strengthen Callicott, J. B. (2002). Choosing appropriate temporal and spatial scales for ecological systems that are anchored in historical knowledge and tradition, even restoration. Journal of Biosciences, 27(4, Suppl. 2), 409–420. as they are themselves “novel” assemblages of nature and culture. Cameron, C., & Inaba, N. (2015). The making of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT Bulletin, 46(4), 30–37. While we expect practitioners of CLC and ER to maintain distinct Catford, J. A., Naiman, R. J., Chambers, L. E., Roberts, J., Douglas, M., & Davies, P. bodies of knowledge, ways of interpreting landscapes, and methodol- (2013). Predicting novel riparian ecosystems in a changing climate. Ecosystems, – ogies, these may converge to open new avenues for more holistic, 16(3), 382 400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9566-7. Chapin, F. S., McGuire, A. D., Ruess, R. W., Hollingsworth, T. N., Mack, M. C., Johnstone, pluralistic, and innovative visions for environmental stewardship. J. F., et al. (2010). Resilience of Alaska’s boreal forest to climatic change. Canadian Ultimately, the increasing prevalence of novel ecosystems may help Journal of Forest Research, 40(7), 1360–1370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/X10-074. bridge these two distinct but allied fields of theory and practice, further Chapin, F. S., Robards, M. D., Johnstone, J. F., Lantz, T. C., & Kokelj, S. V. (2013). Case study: Novel socio-ecological systems in the north: Potential pathways toward ecological consolidating points of consilience, and facilitating interdisciplinary and societal resilience Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological world order. and transdisciplinary collaborations to affirm, restore, and conserve our Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell pp. 334-344. cultural and natural heritage. Clewell, A. F., & Aronson, J. (2013). Ecological restoration: Principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession. Washington, DC: Island Press. Cloern, J. E., Abreu, P. C., Carstensen, J., Chauvaud, L., Elmgren, R., Grall, J., et al. References (2016). Human activities and climate variability drive fast-paced change across the world's estuarine–coastal ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 22(2), 513–529. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13059. Aaroz, G. (2013). Conservation philosophy and its development: Changing under- Collier, M. J. (2014). Novel ecosystems and the emergence of cultural ecosystem services. standings of authenticity and significance. Heritage and Society, 6(2), 144–154. Ecosystem services, 9, 166–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.06.002. Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2009). Conservation and displacement: An overview. Conard, R. (2001). Applied environmentalism, or reconciliation among “the bios” and Conservation and Society, 7(1), 1–10. “the culturals”. The Public Historian, 23(2), 9–18. Allison, S. K. (2012). Ecological restoration and environmental change: Renewing damaged Cook, R. E. (1995). Is landscape preservation an oxymoron? George Wright Forum, 13(1), ecosystems. New York, NY: Routledge. 42–53. Anderson, M. K. (2005). Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the management Cronon, W. (1983). Changes in the land: Indians, colonists, and the ecology of new England of California’s natural resources. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (1st ed.). New York, NY: Hill and Wang. Andrews, T. D., & Buggey, S. (2008). Authenticity in aboriginal cultural landscapes. APT de Vente, J., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Valente, S., & Newig, J. (2016). How does the Bulletin, 39(2/3), 63–71. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433954. context and design of participatory decision making processes affect their outcomes? Andrews, T. D., Kokelji, S. V., MacKay, G., Buysee, J., Kritsch, I., Andre, A., et al. (2016). Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands. Ecology and Society, Permafrost thaw and aboriginal cultural landscapes in the Gwich’in region, Canada. 21(2), 24. APT Bulletin, 47(1), 15–22. Denevan, W. M. (1992). The pristine myth: The landscape of the Americas in 1492. Annals Anker, P. (2001). Imperial ecology: Environmental order in the british empire, 1895–1945. of the Association of American Geographers, 82(3), 369–385. http://dx.doi.org/10. Cambrindge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1111/j.1467-8306.1992.tb01965.x. Antrop, M. (2005). Why landscapes of the past are important for the future. Landscape and Descola, P. (2005). Beyond nature and culture (Janet Lloyd, Trans.). Chicago: University of Urban Planning, 70(1), 21–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10. Chicago Press. 002. Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., et al. (2015). The Baider, C., & Florens, F. B. V. (2011). Control of invasive alien weeds averts imminent IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in plant extinction. Biological Invasions, 13(12), 2641–2646. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Environmental Sustainability, 14,1–16. s10530-011-9980-3. Doley, D., & Audet, P. (2013). Adopting novel ecosystems as suitable rehabilitation al- Baker, S., & Eckerberg, K. (2013). A policy analysis perspective on ecological restoration. ternatives for former mine sites. Ecological Processes, 2(1), 22. http://dx.doi.org/10. Ecology and Society, 18(2), http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05476-180217. 1186/2192-1709-2-22. Balée, W. L. (2013). Cultural forests of the amazon: A historical ecology of people and their Dudley, N. (2011). Authenticity in nature: Making choices about the naturalness of ecosystems. landscapes. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. New York: Earthscan. Barbour, M. G. (1995). Ecological fragmentation in the fifties. In W. Cronon (Ed.). Dudley, N., Mansourian, S., & Vallauri, D. (2005). Forest landscape restoration in context. Uncommon ground: Rethinking the human place in nature (pp. 233–255). New York, NY: In S. Mansourian, D. Vallauri, & N. Dudley (Eds.). Forest restoration in landscapes: W. W. Norton. Beyond planting trees (pp. 3–7). New York, NY: Springer. Beagan, C., & Dolan, S. (2015). Integrating components of resilient systems into cultural Egan, D. (1990). Historic initiatives in ecological restoration. Restoration and Management landscape management practices. Change Over Time, 5(2), 180–199. Notes, 8(2), 83–90. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43439831. Biggs, D., Abel, N., Knight, A. T., Leitch, A., Langston, A., & Ban, N. C. (2011). The im- Egan, D., Hjerpe, E. E., & Abrams, J. (2011). Why people matter in ecological restoration. plementation crisis in conservation planning: Could “mental models” help? In D. Egan, E. E. Hjerpe, & J. Abrams (Eds.). Human dimensions of ecological restora- Conservation Letters, 4(3), 169–183. tion: Integrating science, nature, and culture (pp. 1–20). Washington, DC: Island Press. Botkin, D. B. (1990). Discordant harmonies: A new ecology for the 21st century. New York, Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2000). Defining the limits of restoration: The need for realistic goals. NY: Oxford University Press. Restoration Ecology, 8(1), 2–9. Bowler, P. J. (1993). The Norton history of the environmental sciences. New York: W. W. Ellis, E. C. (2011). Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere. Philosophical Norton. Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering

157 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Sciences, 369, 1010–1035. Landscape Preservation. Feldman, J. W. (2013). A storied wilderness: Rewilding the apostle Islands. Seattle: Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: An in- University of Washington Press. terdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46. Firth, I., & Cramer, M. (1999). A case study in ecosystems and preservation: Lessons Jordan, W. R., & III. (2003). The sunflower forest: Ecological restoration and the new com- learned from New York’s Central Park. APT Bulletin, 30(1), 15–20. munion with nature. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., et al. (2005). Jordan, W. R., III, & Lubick, G. M. (2011). Making nature whole: A history of ecological Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574. restoration. Washington, DC: Island Press. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., et al. Keenelyside, K., Dudley, N., Cairns, S., Hall, C., & Stolton, S. (2012). Ecological restoration (2004). Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management. Annual for protected areas: Principles, guidelines and best practices. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics, 35, 557–581. Krumenaker, B. (1998). Cultural resource management at Shenandoah: It didn’t come Gayer, K. (1886). Der gemischte wald. Berlin: Verlag von Paul Parey. naturally. Cultural Resource Management, 21(1), 4–6. Gobster, P. H. (2001). Visions of nature: Conflict and compatibility in urban park re- Kueffer, C., Schumacher, E., Dietz, H., Fleischmann, K., & Edwards, P. J. (2010). storation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 56(1), 35–51. Managing successional trajectories in alien-dominated, novel ecosystems by facil- Goetcheus, C., Karson, R., & Carr, E. (2017). Designing living landscapes: Cultural itating seedling regeneration: A case study. Biological Conservation, 143(7), landscapes as landscape architecture. Landscape Journal, 35(2), v–xv. 1792–1802. Goetcheus, C., & Mitchell, N. (2014). The Venice Charter and cultural landscapes: Laarmann, D., Korjus, H., Sims, A., Kangur, A., Kiviste, A., & Stanturf, J. A. (2015). Evolution of heritage concepts and conservation over time. Change Over Time, 4(2), Evaluation of afforestation development and natural colonization on a reclaimed 338–357. mine site. Restoration Ecology, 23(3), 301–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12187. Golley, F. (1993). History of the ecosystem concept in ecology. New Haven, CT: Yale Larsen, J. B. (2012). Close-to-nature forest management: The Danish approach to sus- University Press. tainable forestry. In J. J. Diez (Ed.). Sustainable forest management—current research Guerrero, A. M., Shoo, L., Iacona, G., Standish, R. J., Catterall, C. P., Rumpff, L., et al. (pp. 199–218). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Europe. (2017). Using structured decision-making to set restoration objectives when multiple Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern (C. Porter, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard values and preferences exist. Restoration Ecology, 25(6), 858–865. http://dx.doi.org/ University Press. 10.1111/rec.12591. Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy (C. Porter, Hall, M. (2005). Earth repair: A transatlantic history of environmental restoration. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Latour, B. (2011). From multiculturalism to multinaturalism: What rules of method for Hallett, L. M., Diver, S., Eitzel, M. V., Olson, J. J., Ramage, B. S., Sardinas, H., et al. the new socio-scientific experiments? Nature and Culture, 6(1), 1–17. http://dx.doi. (2013). Do we practice what we preach? Goal setting for ecological restoration. org/10.3167/nc.2011.060101. Restoration Ecology, 21(3), 312–319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12007. Lee, C., Schaaf, T., & Wauchope, S. (Eds.). (2003). International workshop on the importance Halliday, S. (1999). The great stink of London: Sir joseph bazalgette and the cleansing of the of scared natural sites for biodiversity conservation: Proceedings. Paris: UNESCO. victorian metropolis. New York, NY: Sutton Press. Lennon, J. L. (2006). Cultural heritage management. In M. Lockwood, G. L. Worboys, & A. Harrison, R., & Rose, D. (2010). Intangible heritage. In T. Benton (Ed.). Understanding Kothari (Eds.). Managing protected areas: A global guide (pp. 448–473). London, UK: heritage and memory (pp. 238–276). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press in Earthscan Publications. association with the Open University, Manchester and Milton Keynes. Lennon, J. L. (2013). Cultural landscape management: International influences. In K. Harvie, B. A., & Hobbs, R. J. (2013). Case study: Shale bings in Central Scotland: From ugly Taylor, & J. Lennon (Eds.). Managing cultural landscapes (pp. 45–70). New York, NY: blots on the landscape to cultural and biological heritage Novel Ecosystems: Intervening in Routledge. the new ecological world order. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell pp. 286-289. Levin, S. A. (2000). Multiple scales and the maintenance of biodiversity. Ecosystems, 3(6), Hays, S. P. (1987). Beauty, health, and permanence: Environmental politics in the United 498–506. States 1955–1985. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Light, A. (2002). Restoring ecological citizenship. In B. Minteer, & P. Taylor (Eds.). Higgs, E. S. (1997). What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology, 11(2), Democracy and the claims of nature (pp. 153–172). Lanham, MD: Rowman and 338–348. Littlefield. Higgs, E. (2003). Nature by design: People, natural process, and ecological restoration. Lister, N. (2006). Trashed space: Reclaiming urban junkscape. In J. Knechtel (Ed.). Trash. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Higgs, E. (2017). Novel and designed ecosystems. Restoration Ecology, 25(1), 8–13. http:// Lucas, P. H. C. (1992). Guide on protected landscapes for policy-makers and planners. Gland, dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12410. Switzerland: International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Higgs, E., Falk, D. A., Guerrini, A., Hall, M., Harris, J., Hobbs, R. J., et al. (2014). The Margalef, R. (1968). Perspectives in ecological theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. changing role of history in restoration ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, Martinez, D. (2003). Protected areas, indigenous peoples, and the Western idea of nature. 12(9), 499–506. Ecological Restoration, 21(4), 247–250. Higgs, E. (2010). Restoring dirt under the fingernails. In M. Hall (Ed.). Restoration and Marzeion, B., & Levermann, A. (2014). Loss of cultural world heritage and currently in- history: The search for a usable environmental past (pp. 309–312). New York, NY: Taylor habited places to sea-level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 034001. & Francis. Mascaro, J., Hughes, R. F., & Schnitzer, S. A. (2012). Novel forests maintain ecosystem Higgs, E. (2012). History, novelty, and virtue in ecological restoration. In A. Thompson, & processes after the decline of native tree species. Ecological Monographs, 82(2), J. Bendik-Keymer (Eds.). Ethical adaptation to climate change: Human virtues of the 221–228. future (pp. 81–101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McDonald, T., Gann, G. D., Jonson, J., & Dixon, K. W. (2016). International standards for Hobbs, R. J. (2007). Setting effective and realistic restoration goals: Key directions for the practice of ecological restoration – Including principles and key concepts (1st ed.). research. Restoration Ecology, 15(2), 354–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526- Washington, DC: Society for Ecological Restoration. 100X.2007.00225.x. Melnick, R. Z. (2009). Climate change and landscape preservation: A twenty-first century Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., & Harris, J. A. (2009). Novel ecosystems: Implications for con- conundrum. APT Bulletin, 40(3/4), 35–42. servation and restoration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24, 599–605. Melnick, R. Z. (2000). Considering nature and culture in historic landscape preservation. Hobbs, R. J., & Norton, D. A. (1996). Towards a conceptual framework for restoration In A. R. Alanen, & R. Z. Melnick (Eds.). Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp. ecology. Restoration Ecology, 4(2), 93–110. 22–43). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hourdequin, M., & Havlick, D. G. (Eds.). (2016). Restoring layered landscapes: History, Miller, J. R., & Bestelmeyer, B. T. (2016). What's wrong with novel ecosystems, really? ecology, and culture. New York: Oxford University Press. Restoration Ecology, 24(5), 577–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12378. Howett, C. (2000). Integrity as a value in cultural landscape preservation. In A. R. Alanen, Milton, H., & Holly, B. P. (1981). Themes in geographic thought. New York: St. Martin’s & R. Z. Melnick (Eds.). Preserving cultural landscapes in America (pp. 186–207). Press. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mitchell, N. J. (2008). Considering the authenticity of cultural landscapes. APT Bulletin, Hull, B. R., & Robertson, D. P. (2000). The language of nature matters: We need a more 39(2/3), 25–31. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25433948. public ecology. Mitchell, J. (2015). The conservation of human responses to natural hazards and dis- Hulvey, K. B., Standish, R. J., Hallett, L. M., Starzomski, B. M., Murphy, S. D., Nelson, C. asters. In K. Taylor, A. St Clair, & N. Mitchell (Eds.). Conserving cultural landscapes: R., et al. (2013). Incorporating novel ecosystems into management frameworks. In R. Challenges and new directions(pp. 341–357). New York: Routledge. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, & C. Hall (Eds.). Novel ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological Mitchell, N. J. (2016). Pioneers on the shared terrain of culture and nature. APT Bulletin, world order (pp. 157–171). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. 47(2/3), 11–16. Ingold, T. (1993). The temporality of landscape. World Archaeology, 25(2), 152–174. Mitchell, N., & Melnick, R. Z. (2013). Shifting paradigms: New directions in cultural International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). (1982). Historic Gardens (The landscape conservation for a twenty-first-century America. In K. Taylor, & J. Lennon Florence Charter 1981). Paris, France: ICOMOS. (Eds.). Managing cultural landscapes (pp. 232–251). New York, NY: Routledge. International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) (1994). The nara document on Mitchell, N., Rössler, M., & Tricaud, P. M. (2009). World heritage cultural landscapes: A authenticity (1994). Paris, France: ICOMOS. handbook for conservation and management. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Ives, C. D., Giusti, M., Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Klaniecki, K., Dorninger, C., et al. (2017). Centre. Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion in Möller, A. (1922). Der dauerwaldgedanke: Sein sinn und seine bedeutung. Berlin: Berlag von Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 106–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust. Julius Springer. 2017.05.005. Moreira, F., Queiroz, A. I., & Aronson, J. (2006). Restoration principles applied to cultural Jackson, S. T., & Hobbs, R. J. (2009). Ecological restoration in light of ecological history. landscapes. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14(3), 217–224. http://dx.doi.org/10. Science, 325(5940), 567–569. 1016/j.jnc.2006.05.007. Jain, P. (2008). Preserving cultural landscapes: A cross-cultural analysis. In C. Goetcheus, Morse, N. B., Pellissier, P. A., Cianciola, E. N., Brereton, R. L., Sullivan, M. M., Shonka, N. & E. MacDonald (Eds.). Exploring the boundaries of historic landscape preservation (pp. K., et al. (2014). Novel ecosystems in the Anthropocene: A revision of the novel 15–29). Clemson, SC: Clemson University Digital Press/Alliance for Historic ecosystem concept for pragmatic applications. Ecology and Society, 19(2).

158 E. Macdonald, E.G. King Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 148–159

Naveh, Z. (2007). The transformation of landscape ecology and restoration ecology into Stovel, H. (2008). Origins and influence of the Nara Document on Authenticity. APT transdisciplinary sciences of holistic landscape study, management and planning, Bulletin, 39(2/3), 9–17. conservation and restoration. In Z. Naveh (Ed.). Transdisciplinary challenges in land- Strayer, D. L. (2010). Alien species in fresh waters: Ecological effects, interactions with scape ecology and restoration ecology: An anthology (pp. 353–401). Dordrecht: Springer, other stressors, and prospects for the future. Freshwater Biology, 55, 152–174. http:// Netherlands. dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02380.x. O’Donnell, P. (2017). Cultural landscape preservation: An evolving field. Landscape Subramanian, S. M., Chakraborty, S., & Ichikawa, K. (2017). Policy Brief No. 8: Journal, 35(2), 203–217. Mainstreaming socio-ecological production landscape management approaches. Orlove, B. (2002). Lines in the water: Nature and culture in lake titicaca. Berkeley: University Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Institute for the Advanced Study of of California Press. Sustainability. Otto, H.-J. (1993). Waldbau in Europa: Seine schwaechen und vorzuege in historischer Suding, K. N., Gross, K. L., & Houseman, G. R. (2004). Alternative states and positive perspektive. Forst und Holz, 48, 235–237. feedbacks in restoration ecology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 19(1), 46–53. Perring, M. P., Standish, R. J., & Hobbs, R. J. (2013). Incorporating novelty and novel Suding, K. N., & Hobbs, R. J. (2009). Threshold models in restoration and conservation: A ecosystems into restoration planning and practice in the 21st century. Ecological developing framework. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(5), 271–279. Processes, 2(1), 1–8. Taylor, K., & Lennon, J. (2011). Cultural landscapes: A bridge between culture and Perring, M. P., Standish, R. J., Price, J. N., Craig, M. D., Erickson, T. E., Ruthrof, K. X., nature? International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17(6), 537–554. http://dx.doi.org/ et al. (2015). Advances in restoration ecology: Rising to the challenges of the coming 10.1080/13527258.2011.618246. decades. Ecosphere, 6(8), 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES15-00121.1. Taylor, K. (2013). Landscape and meaning: Context for a global discourse on cultural Pickett, S. T. A., & Cadenasso, M. L. (1995). Landscape ecology: Spatial heterogeneity in landscape values. In K. Taylor, & J. Lennon (Eds.). Managing cultural landscapes (pp. ecological systems. Science, 269(5222), 331–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science. 21–44). New York, NY: Routledge. 269.5222.331. Temperton, V. M. (2007). The recent double paradigm shift in restoration ecology. Pickett, S. T. A., Parker, V. T., & Fiedler, P. L. (1992). The new paradigm in ecology: Restoration Ecology, 15(2), 344–347. Implications for conservation biology above the species level. In P. L. Fiedler, & S. K. Thornton, P. K., & Herrero, M. (2015). Adapting to climate change in the mixed crop and Jain (Eds.). Conservation Biology (pp. 65–88). Boston, MA: Springer. livestock farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), Rangarajan, M., & Shahabuddin, G. (2006). Displacement and relocation from protected 830–836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2754. areas: Towards a biological and historical synthesis. Conservation and Society, 4(3), Tizado, E. J., & Núñez-Pérez, E. (2016). Terrestrial arthropods in the initial restoration 359–378. stages of anthracite coal mine spoil heaps in northwestern Spain: Potential usefulness Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A litera- of higher taxa as restoration indicators. Land Degradation and Development, 27(4), ture review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. 1131–1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2280. Reyers, B., Nel, J. L., O’Farrell, P. J., Sitas, N., & Nel, D. C. (2015). Navigating complexity Tobey, R. (1981). Saving the prairies: The life cycle of the founding school of American plant through knowledge coproduction: Mainstreaming ecosystem services into disaster ecology, 1895–1955. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. risk reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(24), 7362–7368. Trepl, L., & Voigt, A. (2011). The classical holism-reductionism debate in ecology. In A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1414374112. Schwartz, & K. Jax (Eds.). Ecology revisited: Reflecting on concepts, advancing science Reyes, J. E. (2011). Public participation and socioecological resilience. In D. Egan, E. E. (pp. 45–85). New York, NY: Springer. Hjerpe, & J. Abrams (Eds.). Human dimensions of ecological restoration: Integrating United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2005). science, nature, and culture (pp. 79–92). Washington, DC: Island Press. Basic texts of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Rose, D. (1996). Nourishing terrains: Australian aboriginal views of landscape and wilderness. Heritage Centre. Canberra: Australian Heritage Commission. United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2016). Rosenzweig, M. L. (2003). Reconciliation ecology and the future of species diversity. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Oryx, 37(2), 194–205. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Rössler, M. (2015). World heritage cultural landscapes: 1992–2012. In K. Taylor, A. St United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Clair, & N. Mitchell (Eds.). Conserving cultural landscapes: Challenges and new directions Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural (pp. 75–89). New York: Routledge. Heritage. (2008). Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Roth, R. (2004). On the colonial margins and in the global hotspot: Park-people conflicts Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. in highland Thailand. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 45(1), 13–32. Waters, C. N., Zalasiewicz, J., Summerhayes, C., Barnosky, A. D., Poirier, C., Galuszka, A., Sargent, L., & Slaton, D. (2015). Heading into the wind: Climate change and the im- et al. (2016). The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the plications for managing our cultural landscape legacy. Change Over Time, 5(2), Holocene. Science, 351(6269), http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2622. 200–224. Watkins, J. E., & Beaver, J. (2008). What do we mean by “heritage”? And whose heritage Sauer, C. (1925). The morphology of landscape. University of California Publications in do we manage, and what rights do we have to do so? Heritage Management, 1(1), Geography, 2(2), 19–53. 9–35. Scheffer, M., & Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: Linking Watt, L. A., Raymond, L., & Eschen, M. L. (2004). Reflections: On preserving ecological theory to observation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(12), 648–656. and cultural landscapes. Environmental History, 9(4), 620–647. Stable URL: http:// Schnitzler, A., Génot, J.-C., Wintz, M., & Hale, B. (2008). Naturalness and conservation in www.jstor.org/stable/3986263. France. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 423–436. Wehi, P. M., & Lord, J. M. (2017). Importance of including cultural practices in ecological Schütz, J.-P. (1999). Naturnaher waldbau: Gestern, heute, morgen. Schweizerische restoration. Conservation Biology, 31(5), 1109–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi. Zeitschrift für Forstwesen, 150(12), 478–483. 12915. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. (2004). Weinstein, M. P. (2008). Ecological restoration and estuarine management: Placing The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration (Version 2). Tucson, AZ: people in the coastal landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(1), 296–304. http://dx. Society for Ecological Restoration International. doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01355.x. Soper, K. (1995). What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human. Malden, MA: West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of Blackwell. protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, 251–277. Spathelf, P. (1997). Seminatural silviculture in southwest Germany. The Forestry Whatmore, S. (2002). Hybrid geographies: Natures cultures spaces. London, UK: Sage. Chronicle, 73(6), 715–722. Whited, T. L. (1996). Alpine myths and metaphors: The debate over restoration in Standish, R. J., Hobbs, R. J., & Miller, J. R. (2013). Improving city life: Options for nineteenth century France. Restoration and Management Notes, 14(1), 53–56. ecological restoration in urban landscapes and how these might influence interac- Williams, J. W., & Jackson, S. T. (2007). Novel climates, no-analog communities, and tions between people and nature. Landscape Ecology, 28(6), 1213–1221. ecological surprises. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(9), 475–482. Standish, R. J., Thompson, A., Higgs, E. S., & Murphy, S. D. (2013). Concerns about novel Worster, D. (1994). Nature’s economy: A history of ecological ideas (2nd ed). New York: ecosystems. In R. J. Hobbs, E. Higgs, & C. Hall (Eds.). Novel ecosystems: Intervening in Cambridge University Press. the new ecological world order (pp. 296–309). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Wylie, J. (2007). Landscape. New York: Routledge.

159