The language of restoration: How the words we use influence the ethics we choose

The words we use to describe ecological restoration influence the way we do restoration and the goals of our restorations and thus reflect the ethical dimensions of how we relate to nature.  For example, restoration ecologists usually claim that our goal in restoration is to return an ecosystem to some previously existing condition that no longer is present at that site.  We often make the assumption that the site’s current condition is degraded or less desirable than the previous condition and that we need to improve the degraded condition of the site. The crux of the problem is that restoration depends upon human choices about what constitutes good restoration practices and goals.  Humans define the benchmarks for ecological restoration, usually identified as ecosystem integrity and historical fidelity of the restored ecosystem, and those definitions influence how we interact with ecosystems and what we value about ecosystems.  It is my contention that we must think explicitly about how we discuss ecological restoration and the ethical positions implied by our language in order to ensure that we are actually conducting restorations beneficial to nature and humans.  Our definitions of integrity and fidelity ultimately define our restoration goals and methods and thus need to be selected with care.