The SER Standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Abstract

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a "pure naturalness" model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both "natural" ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and "similar" cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits "good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems" as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social-ecological restoration.

Theorizing human impacts into ecological restoration is not a slippery slope, but a toehold for reaching social‐ecological resilience: a counter‐response to McDonald et al. (2019)

“…Though the science and practice of ecological restoration are necessarily normative, McDonald et al () critiqued our paper as bringing norms into restoration. To be clear, normative means that humans have determined some actions as good and others as bad.…”

“…To demonstrate the implicit persistence of such ideology, we highlight two places where the ecological Indian myth was woven into McDonald et al's () own paper. First, they cite Kimmerer and Lake () while stating that fire and other practices are intended to function within the range of natural variability for an ecosystem.…”

“…Second, McDonald et al () justify the importance of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) on the grounds that it includes values such as reciprocity and kinship with the rest of nature. There is an implicit assumption here and in the Standards that indigenous environmental values and ecologically oriented behaviors are directly linked.…”

“…In their response to our (Evans & Davis ) paper on this topic, McDonald et al () misrepresent our primary concerns. Our paper was leveled at ideological underpinnings and practical implications of policies in the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER's) “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration” (Standards, hereafter).…”

“…Our paper was leveled at ideological underpinnings and practical implications of policies in the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER's) “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration” (Standards, hereafter). We were heartened to read that McDonald et al () agree that (1) ecosystems are dynamic, (2) humans have longstanding, pervasive agency in nature, and (3) socio‐cultural goals are important. Furthermore, we are aware that the Standards address ecological dynamism by invoking the concept of natural variation, and human agency by positioning preindustrial indigenous ecosystems existing within the range of natural variation.…”