Focusing on the Southwest but raising questions that are more broadly applicable, we compare ecological restoration with conventional management regimes—multiple-use management, ecosystem management, and managing for specific resource objectives. That restoration assumes a holistic perspective and active intervention does not distinguish it from other approaches to achieving ecosystem health. We find that foresters and restorationists both use ecology, but restorationists use a reference condition as a substitute for specific objectives We believe that restorationists who advocate substituting a reference condition for meeting a priori objectives must demonstrate the advantage of this approach. We identify the conceptual limitations to ecological restoration and question the uses of restoration.
Document Type: Miscellaneous
School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86001, email@example.com 2:
USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff 3:
Society of American Foresters, Tappahannock, Virginia
Publication date: October 1, 2000
More about this publication?
The Journal of Forestry is the most widely circulated scholarly forestry journal in the world. In print since 1902, the Journal has received several national awards for excellence. The mission of the Journal of Forestry is to advance the profession of forestry by keeping forest management professionals informed about significant developments and ideas in the many facets of forestry: economics, education and communication, entomology and pathology, fire, forest ecology, geospatial technologies, history, international forestry, measurements, policy, recreation, silviculture, social sciences, soils and hydrology, urban and community forestry, utilization and engineering, and wildlife management. The Journal is published bimonthly: January, March, May, July, September, and November.