Moral-Material Ontologies of Nature Conservation: Exploring the Discord between Ecological Restoration and Novel Ecosystems

Lennon, Mick

doi:10.3197/096327117x14809634978474

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 88 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Type 2 adjustment among stakeholders based on project management may reflect a discussion about how much attention should be given to historical fidelity, as discussed by Higgs et al (), and how frequent interventions should be. Essentially, the question is whether restoration activities should be seen as projects delivering a return to something historical or as the creation of something new, so‐called “novel ecosystems” (Hobbs et al ; Lennon ). In concert with this discussion, restoration monitoring needs to ask how these views will resonate with stakeholder values and their potential shifts over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Gamborg

Morsing

Raulund‐Rasmussen

2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Gamborg

Morsing

Raulund‐Rasmussen

2019

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authors question the effectiveness of native species in providing an optimum habitat for biodiversity, their ability to thrive in urban areas, and their effectiveness and efficiency in terms of maintenance, risk, and economics [36]. These debates, arguably underpinned by value-laden conceptions of nature [37] that go beyond the scope of this paper, are kindled by diverse ecological research narratives and findings [13].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Could Purposefully Engineered Native Grassland Gardens Enhance Urban Insect Biodiversity?

Breed

Morelli

Pirk

et al. 2022

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Progress is required in response to how cities can support greater biodiversity. This calls for more research on how landscape designers can actively shape urban ecologies to deliver context-specific empirical bases for green space intervention decisions. Design experiments offer opportunities for implemented projects within real-world settings to serve as learning sites. This paper explores preliminary ecological outcomes from a multidisciplinary team on whether purposefully engineered native grassland gardens provide more habitat functions for insects than mainstream gardens in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. Six different sites were sampled: two recently installed native grassland garden interventions (young native), two contemporary non-native control gardens (young non-native) on the same premises and of the same ages as the interventions, one remnant of a more pristine native grassland reference area (old native), and one long-established, non-native reference garden (old non-native). Plant and insect diversity were sampled over one year. The short-term findings suggest that higher plant beta diversity (species turnover indicating heterogeneity in a site) supports greater insect richness and evenness in richness. Garden size, age, and connectivity were not clear factors mediating urban habitat enhancement. Based on the preliminary results, the researchers recommend high native grassland species composition and diversity, avoiding individual species dominance, but increasing beta diversity and functional types when selecting garden plants for urban insect biodiversity conservation in grassland biomes.

show abstract

“…This prompts the question as to how the contending and ethically profiled categories of wilderness evidenced in this case can be resolved in the politics of planning that govern the management of landscapes? It is conceivable that the diverging 'moral-material ontologies' (Lennon, 2017) held by different stakeholders in the Wild Nephin project may be reconciled through compromise (Boltanski and Thévenot, 2006) or involve the re-forging of participant viewpoints as they adapt to changing circumstances (Arts et al, 2017). However, it is also possible that the perspective of one configuration becomes institutionalised through the machinery of formal policy, such that it dilutes or even silences notions of the common good held by others.…”

Section: The (Un)common Good Of Wildernessmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (un)common good: diverging justifications for wilderness making in a modified landscape

Lennon

Duvall

O’Neill

2019

Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wilderness is most often conceived as comprising large remote areas where evidence of human influence is slight. Little attention has been afforded to the study of wilderness 'making' in smaller landscapes that have been heavily modified by human activity. This paper addresses this knowledge deficit by employing the pragmatic sociology of Boltanski and Thévenot to analyse a case study of wilderness making in the west of Ireland. The application of this framework illustrates how contending positions on 'why' wilderness making should occur and 'how' it should be conducted reflect ethical frameworks rooted in different conceptions of the 'common good' presented by the idea of wilderness. The paper demonstrates the difficulties with developing such a new nature-based concept in the absence of conventional (received) ideas of wilderness by revealing how the diverging justifications used suggest incommensurability in the competing notions of wilderness that are formulated and advanced.

show abstract

Moral-Material Ontologies of Nature Conservation: Exploring the Discord between Ecological Restoration and Novel Ecosystems

Cited by 7 publications

References 88 publications

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement: a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

Could Purposefully Engineered Native Grassland Gardens Enhance Urban Insect Biodiversity?

The (un)common good: diverging justifications for wilderness making in a modified landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About