Boundary Crossings

Geographies of environmental restoration: a humangeography critique of restored nature

Laura Smith

Department of Social Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BPEmail: laura.smith@brookes.ac.uk

Revised manuscript received 5 April 2012

Introduction

Geography has, over the last two decades, increas-ingly been drawn into, and featured within, discus-sions of the theory and practice of environmentalrestoration (as evident in Eden 2002; Eden et al. 19992000; Cowell 1997). Such a presence was formalisedin the two Restoration Geographies sessions at the2008 Association of American Geographers AnnualMeeting in Boston, Massachusetts, and a recent paperby Havlick and Doyle (2009) of the same title. Envi-ronmental restoration refers to ‘the process of assist-ing the recovery of an ecosystem that has beendegraded, damaged or destroyed’ (Society for Ecolog-ical Restoration International [SERI] 2004, 3) withthe idea of recovery further qualified thus: ‘inten-tional activity that initiates or accelerates the recoveryof an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrityand sustainability’ (SERI 2004, 1). While SERI’s(2012) mission statement begins by positioning resto-ration as ‘a means of sustaining the diversity of lifeon Earth’, it is a latter claim in this statement thatreveals a place for human geography: ‘and re-estab-lishing an ecologically healthy relationship betweennature and culture’.

In prioritising a human geography perspective,attention is refocused back on the ways in which soci-ety engages with and experiences (restored) nature,and rationalises ideas thereof (see also Hinchliffe2007; Wylie 2007). For Havlick and Doyle (2009),geography’s anticipated contribution to restoration isthreefold, accommodating concerns of scale, nature–society interplay and interaction and the position ofthe cultural in restoration. Geography thus considersnot only the restoration of nature, but also the resto-ration of society’s relationship with nature (a pointreinforced in Light 2003 2008).

Havlick and Doyle present a call to arms for geog-raphers, arguing that ‘the discipline nicely fits thevocational niche that restoration so often calls for, yet

to date geography has little to show for it’ (2009,240). As a response to the above call to arms, theessay moves beyond Havlick and Doyle’s (2009) pro-posals and empirical examples of such emergent res-toration geographies, to spotlight specifically thegeographies and the geographical in restoration; that is,the tie-up between nature and culture, space andplace, scale, and context. Such examination matters,for it underpins the cultural (human) function inrestoring nature, and moves away from a primaryfocus on the environmental concern. Human geogra-phy has much to offer in tackling the question ofwhat it means to (and, indeed, what to) restore.

In this boundary crossings essay, I present an emer-gent geography of environmental restoration (and,indeed, restoration geographies [after Havlick andDoyle 2009]) as a direct response to a critique of thecore ideas of environmental ethics and philosophyinherent in restoration discourses and practices. Inenvironmental ethics, nature is viewed as that ‘unmodi-fied by human activity’ (Elliot 1997). By this token,environmental restoration is framed as ‘faking nature’(Elliot 1997 2000) or as producing an ‘artifact’ (Katz2000). The value of restored nature is rejected on thegrounds of the ‘wrong kind of genesis’, with the strong-est philosophical rejections of restoration viewing it asa ‘bad act’ that ‘contaminates nature with human inten-tionality’ (Jordan and Turner 2008, 24). This essay putsforward a new geographical critique of environmentalrestoration, for it serves to destabilise this dualism dis-tancing nature from society – a preserve of environmen-tal ethics and philosophy. Such a geographical critiquereinforces the interaction(s) between natural and socie-tal actors. Human geographers are thus interested innot only the restoration of nature by natural processes(restoration of the natural by the natural), but also therestoration of social ties with nature (restoration of thesocial by the natural and the social). Understood in thislight, restoration is reframed as a good act. The socialand the natural are comfortable bedfellows of human

Citation: 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00537.xISSN 0020-2754 � 2012 The Author.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

geography, and thus place the latter in a favourableposition to ‘contribute productively and, at times, pro-vocatively’ to environmental restoration efforts thatseek to integrate the two (see Havlick and Doyle 2009,241).

Nature, geography and environmentalrestoration

Geographies of environmental restorationDiscourses of environmental restoration take as theirfoundation social constructs of nature and natural-ness, alongside the meanings and values attached tospace and place, exploring how such meanings are uti-lised by society (compare with Jones and Cloke[2002] and their study of nature–culture interplaythrough trees). Informed by the social context inwhich they operate, practices of environmental resto-ration are reflective of societal values, meanings, atti-tudes and expectations, and their spatial distribution.They are, however, more than simply reflective, and itis this aspect that gives them power and significance.Restorers bring into play these meanings, attitudesand values to mobilise change, drawing on local con-texts and wider moral arguments about what it is thathuman societies should do. Those discourses used torationalise restoration (that is, to justify landscapechange) are grounded in perception, cognition andinterpretation, alongside an emotional component.Restoration discourses embody and distil beliefs aboutnature, landscape and restoration that draw from geo-spatial, social, cultural, economic, political and legalinfluences (reinforcing Havlick and Doyle’s [2009]role for geography as bringing to the fore the nature–society and cultural interplay in restoration). What isclassified as restoration is subject to change, depen-dent upon ecological, socio-cultural, political and eco-nomic structures. As Havlick and Doyle attest, ‘wemay veer less toward restoring nature, and moretoward restoring geographies, that is, integrated socialand environmental systems’ (2009, 240).

It is for this reason that I employ here the idea ofgeographies of environmental restoration, whichembody both the restoration of the natural and thesocial, to critique the mutability of restoration dis-courses, and their vulnerability to change (also com-pare with Hinchliffe’s [2007] geographies of nature,and Hall’s [2005] restoration myths). Studying restora-tion geographies over a restoration geography allowsfor the plurality of relationships between people andplaces. Restoration discourses are not mutually exclu-sive, and often many are applied to the same context,with their definitions and practices employed inter-changeably (compare, for example, cross-over narra-tives prioritising replication, repair, the removal ofhuman influence, sustainability or the restoring of

natural capital). Such cross-over highlights new geog-raphies of environmental restoration, through theinterplay between cultural, economic and politicalinfluences. Geographies of environmental restorationplace geography (and particularly concerns of spaceand place, and scalar interactions) at the centre ofdiscussions of environmental restoration, and thusrespond to the concern of Murdoch (2004) that dis-courses can appear detached from geography.

A key feature of the geographies of restoration isthe tendency to inhabit and transform environmen-tally degraded spaces. This geography not only hasstraightforward economic dimensions (e.g. cheaperland), but also gives an open-endedness to the prac-tice and representation of restoration (and its bene-fits) that might be less available in obviously valuedspaces. Degraded spaces embody fewer policy ormoral claims on what should become of them, andthus provide a prime test bed for restoration prac-tices. While restoration practices begin by utilisingmarginal land, the catch-22 is that if such practicesare successful, rising land values undercut the cheaperland on which they depend (see Cowell 1997). Geog-raphies of environmental restoration are informed byenvironmental management practices (and the needfor restoration), the wider environmental condition,concerns of manipulation and intervention, and thevalues attached to (restored) nature. Restored landcan have a previously unrecognised cultural value(particularly if the site, prior to restoration, wasneglected or considered as marginal or ‘spare’ land).

Local dialects of natureThe meaning of nature and restored nature in ratio-nales and manifestations of environmental restorationshifts and mutates across sites and regions (boundedby historical, geo-political and socio-cultural contexts),and can be explained through what I characterise aslocal dialects of nature. Geographies of environmen-tal restoration and networks of restored spaces arethus grounded in local dialects of nature. This over-comes a concern raised by Havlick and Doyle that ‘toavoid broader cultural contexts is to limit restoration’sapplicability for the sake of misleading simplicity’(2009, 241). Each restoration scheme has its ownrequirements for restoration and as such, restoredspaces are created that are very much context-embedded. Taking forward Wilson’s (1992) ‘culture ofnature’, local dialects of nature prioritise and producevarious styles of restoration, in turn creating a specificunderstanding within a fixed location, which then at anational or international level assures a mosaic of ter-minology and restored landscapes. The existence of‘new natures’ thus further reinforces the ‘contestednatures’ (Macnaghten and Urry 1998) inherent inrestoration discourses.

2 Boundary Crossings

Citation: 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00537.xISSN 0020-2754 � 2012 The Author.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

A place for human geography in restorationdebatesA geographical critique of environmental restorationbrings to the fore questions of what is nature, along-side the multiple and competing constructs of nature,and spotlights the nature–society interactions andinterplay that lies at the core of environmental resto-ration discourses and practices. Social and naturalparticularities (or, rephrased, cultural norms) influ-ence the meta-narrative of how environmental resto-ration is interpreted and mobilised in space andplace. The socio-nature (indeed ‘third nature’[Kitchen et al. 2006]) produced through environmen-tal restoration practices is very much context-embedded (as Marsden et al. 2003), framed by sitespecificities and particularly social constructions of,and attachments to, the landscape. There is a degreeof both localisation and standardisation inherent inrestoration discourses, evident through the selectiveappropriation of contextual features, and the salienceof context in discourses and practices. Particular con-texts provide a backdrop to, and steer the direction ofrestoration discourse and practice. As a consequence,the concept of site is incredibly important to restora-tion discourses, addressing issues of scale, and thewider landscape context (echoing Havlick and Doyle’s[2009] positioning of scale in restoration geographies).Material, spatial and temporal contexts are consid-ered, with the mobilisation of environmental restora-tion discourses the latest manifestation (or layer) ofthe landscape.

Restoration is a malleable process, drawing uponpast and present (and projecting future) uses of atract of land. It is for this reason that the idea of cul-tural landscape restoration (after Naveh 1994 1998) –of restoring both nature and associated culturalattachments to a site – has particular resonance, for itsynthesises interactions between nature and culture,which can be expanded to encompass society moregenerally. Restoration is not, and cannot be, an insu-lar process, for it requires and derives inspiration andinsight from too many external factors. Discursiverationalisation to relevant audiences is often a keyfacet of practice. Restored spaces are created that arevery much context-embedded, but that is not to saythat the apparently contextually-embedded nature ofpractices and site specificities prevents any widertheorising about what is occurring elsewhere.

By discussing environmental restoration within ageographic framework, with a focus on social nature,restoration can be seen as prioritising socio-naturallives (in the sense of bringing the interplay and inter-actions between nature and society to the fore ofdaily life). In this respect, restoration practices canseek to establish a sense of place, restoring faith andconfidence in an area, for it (re-)establishes a connec-

tion between society and nature – and thus an iden-tity – which in turn can bolster participation in, andstewardship of, the tract of land in question.Acknowledgement of the significance and influence ofa landscape on society is essential in rationalising andplanning for restoration.

An inherent tension can nevertheless be identifiedwithin geographies of environmental restoration, forwhile restoration practices are context-embedded,they are also ‘more than reflective’ of their context.The argument in this essay is that environmental res-toration is often caught in the tension between thetwo – as indeed is geographical thinking more widely.

Restoring nature, and the matter ofnaturalness

In discursive arenas, the epistemology and ontology ofnature is much contested, with particular understand-ings employed to guide and advance certain arguments.However, of particular note here is the oftenunexpected insignificance attributed to the issue of nat-uralness in praxis arenas. Restoration efforts are rarelyabout restoring back to an original or natural condi-tion; the concept of a natural landscape is replacedwith a managed or semi-natural landscape, where theemphasis lies on socio-nature (see Castree 2005; Soper1995 1996). Ideas of social nature predominate, of nat-ure (re)defined within, and represented and manifestedthrough, changing societal expectations and attitudes.

Philosophical arguments about the innate replica-bility of nature exert relatively little leverage overwhat happens on the ground, at least amongst theproducers of restored nature.1 Such producers are notexercised by the issue of nature and naturalness, norare they under pressure to be. The fact that this issue,so dominant in philosophical and other academicwriting (see especially Elliot 1997 2000; Katz 2000),does not translate into restoration practices highlightsthe redundancy and obsolescence of such theoreticalconcerns in action on the ground. By the same token,what it does suggest is a need to refocus attentionaway from the dominant question of naturalnesswithin discourses of environmental restoration, tointerrogate those claims that are actually being made,in more fluid contexts. Such claims centre upon con-cerns of integrity and appropriateness, compatibility,functionality, connectivity and futurity. Attempts togauge the naturalness or artificiality of restored spacesmay prove detrimental to the success of (future) res-toration practices, potentially reducing their power,impact and authority as examples of landscapechange. What emerges is a compromise between natu-ral nature and artificial nature, with significanceawarded to cultural landscapes, socio-natural interac-tions, and ecological function and integrity.

Boundary Crossings 3

Citation: 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00537.xISSN 0020-2754 � 2012 The Author.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

Conclusions

This boundary crossings essay has employed geo-graphic constructs – geographies of environmentalrestoration, local dialects of nature – to critique themeaning of (restored) nature in rationales and mani-festations of environmental restoration. Restorationgeographies, through their concern to restore boththe natural and the social, have destabilised the dual-ism distancing nature from society – repositioning thetwo as interdependent and interreliant; as a positivesymbiosis. In this respect, environmental restorationcan be seen to restore socio-nature (and indeed, cul-tural landscapes). This destabilising is visible in theequal weighting assigned to hybrid, human–environ-ment interactions.

Revealed through geographies of environmentalrestoration and local dialects of nature are the com-plex ways in which restoration discourses are embed-ded in, and interact with, their geographic context.Such a perspective provides a new framework forunderstanding shifts and variation across restorationdiscourses, unpacking the changing nature of environ-mental restoration, and the influences of socio-naturalissues on what is restored, and how restoration takesplace. Geography aids in contextualising discourses ofenvironmental restoration, as well as contributing tounderstanding of the material, spatial and temporaldimensions of restoration.

In critiquing the inter-relationships between geog-raphy and restoration, this essay discusses how resto-ration takes place across the landscape. Throughspotlighting changing socio-cultural values and expec-tations, and ecological, economic, political and legalcontexts, geography opens up new opportunities (andchallenges) for restoring nature. Social practices andcultural traditions (or, rephrased, experiences) informand influence society’s understanding of and connec-tion with nature; definitions of nature and restorationare geographically and culturally embedded. Nature isstrongly (and unavoidably) political, and is insepara-ble from, rather than reducible to, questions ofpower. The cultural, socio-economic and political con-text within which restoration occurs is fundamental indetermining its eventual form.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this essay was presented at theAssociation of American Geographers Annual Meet-ing in Boston, April 2008, in the session RestorationGeographies I. I am grateful for the valuable com-ments of participants at that event, and for the feed-back from Richard Cowell and Paul Cloke. I wouldalso like to thank Alison Blunt, Madeleine Hatfieldand an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions and

advice. This essay emerged from doctoral researchsupported by a Postgraduate Studentship (+3) awardfrom the Economic and Social Research Council(award number PTA-030-2005-00680).

Note

1 The evidence base here is drawn from my doctoralresearch; from discussion with restoration ‘producers’ atthe Eden Project (Cornwall, UK), the National ForestCompany (Derbyshire, UK) and the Walden Woods Pro-ject (Massachusetts, USA).

References

Castree N 2005 Nature Routledge, LondonCowell R 1997 Stretching the limits: environmental compen-

sation, habitat creation and sustainable developmentTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22 292–306

Eden S 2002 Faking it? The multiple meanings of environ-mental restoration near Twyford Down Cultural Geogra-phies 9 313–33

Eden S, Tunstall S M and Tapsell S M 1999 Environmentalrestoration: environmental management or environmentalthreat? Area 31 151–9

Eden S, Tunstall S M and Tapsell S M 2000 Translating nat-ure: river restoration as nature-culture Environment andPlanning D: Society and Space 18 257–73

Elliot R 1997 Faking nature: the ethics of environmental resto-ration Routledge, London

Elliot R 2000 Faking nature in Throop W ed Environmentalrestoration: ethics, theory and practice Humanity Books,Amherst NY 71–82

Hall M 2005 Earth repair: a transatlantic history of environ-mental restoration University of Virginia Press, Charlottes-ville VA

Havlick D G and Doyle M W 2009 Restoration geographiesEcological Restoration 27 240–3

Hinchliffe S 2007 Geographies of nature: societies, environ-ments, economies Sage, London

Jones O and Cloke P 2002 Tree cultures: the place of treesand trees in their place Berg, Oxford

Jordan W R III and Turner A 2008 Ecological restorationand the uncomfortable, beautiful middle ground, in FranceR L ed Healing natures, repairing relationships: new perspec-tives on restoring ecological spaces and consciousness GreenFrigate Books, Sheffield VT 23–32

Katz E 2000 The big lie: human restoration of nature inThroop W ed Environmental restoration: ethics, theory andpractice Humanity Books, Amherst NY 83–93

Kitchen L, Marsden T and Milbourne P 2006 Communityforests and regeneration in post-industrial landscapesGeoforum 37 831–43

Light A 2003 Ecological restoration and the culture of nat-ure: a pragmatic perspective in Light A and Rolston H IIIeds Environmental ethics: an anthology Blackwell, Oxford398–411

Light A 2008 Restorative relationships: from artifacts to ‘nat-ural’ systems in France R L ed Healing natures, repairing

4 Boundary Crossings

Citation: 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00537.xISSN 0020-2754 � 2012 The Author.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)

relationships: new perspectives on restoring ecological spacesand consciousness Green Frigate Books, Sheffield VT 95–115

Macnaghten P and Urry J 1998 Contested natures Sage,London

Marsden T, Milbourne P, Kitchen L and Bishop K 2003Communities in nature: the construction and understand-ing of forest natures Sociologia Ruralis 43 238–56

Murdoch J 2004 Putting discourse in its place: planning, sus-tainability and the urban capacity study Area 36 50–8

Naveh Z 1994 From biodiversity to ecodiversity: a landscape-ecology approach to conservation and restoration Restora-tion Ecology 2 180–9

Naveh Z 1998 Ecological and cultural landscape restorationand the cultural evolution towards a post-industrial symbi-osis between human society and nature Restoration Ecology6 135–43

Society for Ecological Restoration International 2004 TheSER International primer on ecological restoration Science& Policy Working Group Society for Ecological Restora-tion International, Tucson AZ

Society for Ecological Restoration International 2012 AboutSER (http://www.ser.org/about.asp) Accessed 6 March2012

Soper K 1995 What is nature? Culture, politics and the non-human Blackwell, Oxford

Soper K 1996 Nature ⁄ ‘nature’ in Robertson G, Mash M,Tickner L, Bird J, Curtis B and Putnam T eds FutureNatu-ral: nature, science, culture Routledge, London 22–34

Wilson A 1992 The culture of nature: North American land-scape from Disney to the Exxon Valdez Blackwell, Cam-bridge MA

Wylie J 2007 Landscape Routledge, London

Boundary Crossings 5

Citation: 2012 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00537.xISSN 0020-2754 � 2012 The Author.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers � 2012 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)