Pub Date : 2011-12-28DOI: 10.5822/978-1-61091-226-6
D. Palazzo, F. Steiner
could be no more than meliorative because there was no clear temporal boundary there between wilderness and civilization: landscape change occurred so gradually, they argue, that “the historic image they provided was a dim and incomplete picture of a series of gentle plateaus receding into the distant past.” (p.39) Restorationists in Europe who are seeking answers in archaeology and palaeontology as well as the historical record may beg to differ. From Leopold, Jordan and Lubick then trace the development of ecocentric restoration from the 1930s to the 1970s, when it fully emerged as a distinct philosophy and practice. They detail a number of case studies as well as insider accounts of the roles of such agencies as the National Park Service, the Nature Conservancy, and the Forest Service. Bill Jordan turns up as a subject in his own book as a major player in the development of the field of restoration ecology in the 1970s and 80s. The reader’s appreciation for this book will, I believe, come largely from these on-the-ground narratives of the birth of the field. As a historian, I found Jordan and Lubick’s use of history as a concept to be problematic. They continually talk about ecocentric restoration as restoring to historic conditions without ever defining those conditions, or crucially, how we know them. In their introduction, they refer to reference ecosystems as “value-neutral . . . as historic” (p. 6). But history is not value-neutral, and there is no single state or period that we can simply refer to as “historic” and be done with it, despite the longtime American boundary linethat Jordan and Lubick seem to accept—of 1492 with “pristine” nature. We only get hints that this boundary has in fact been hotly disputed over the past two decades. Moreover, they seldom mention the sources and methods associated with the practice of history, and spend only two pages on current discussions on the value of historical fidelity as a model. In sum, this well-written and well-produced book offers a fascinating look at the origins of the discipline of ecological restoration by one of its foremost theorists and practitioners. As such, it will be essential reading for restorationists seeking inspiration and validation.
{"title":"Urban Ecological Design: A Process for Regenerative Places","authors":"D. Palazzo, F. Steiner","doi":"10.5822/978-1-61091-226-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-226-6","url":null,"abstract":"could be no more than meliorative because there was no clear temporal boundary there between wilderness and civilization: landscape change occurred so gradually, they argue, that “the historic image they provided was a dim and incomplete picture of a series of gentle plateaus receding into the distant past.” (p.39) Restorationists in Europe who are seeking answers in archaeology and palaeontology as well as the historical record may beg to differ. From Leopold, Jordan and Lubick then trace the development of ecocentric restoration from the 1930s to the 1970s, when it fully emerged as a distinct philosophy and practice. They detail a number of case studies as well as insider accounts of the roles of such agencies as the National Park Service, the Nature Conservancy, and the Forest Service. Bill Jordan turns up as a subject in his own book as a major player in the development of the field of restoration ecology in the 1970s and 80s. The reader’s appreciation for this book will, I believe, come largely from these on-the-ground narratives of the birth of the field. As a historian, I found Jordan and Lubick’s use of history as a concept to be problematic. They continually talk about ecocentric restoration as restoring to historic conditions without ever defining those conditions, or crucially, how we know them. In their introduction, they refer to reference ecosystems as “value-neutral . . . as historic” (p. 6). But history is not value-neutral, and there is no single state or period that we can simply refer to as “historic” and be done with it, despite the longtime American boundary linethat Jordan and Lubick seem to accept—of 1492 with “pristine” nature. We only get hints that this boundary has in fact been hotly disputed over the past two decades. Moreover, they seldom mention the sources and methods associated with the practice of history, and spend only two pages on current discussions on the value of historical fidelity as a model. In sum, this well-written and well-produced book offers a fascinating look at the origins of the discipline of ecological restoration by one of its foremost theorists and practitioners. As such, it will be essential reading for restorationists seeking inspiration and validation.","PeriodicalId":448440,"journal":{"name":"Urban Ecological Design","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114566365","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：