ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 ■ DECEMBER 2006 223

Ecological Restoration, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2006 ISSN 1522-4740 E-ISSN 1543-4079
© 2006 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. 

E D I T O R I A L

In July, I participated in a two-day meeting dubbed “Restoring or
Renaturing? The Presence of the Past in Ecological Restoration:
A Transatlantic Workshop.” The meeting, which was held at the
Zurich Botanical Garden in Switzerland, was hosted by environ-
mental historian Marcus Hall and featured speakers from Europe,
Canada, the United States, and Japan. The group included many
environmental historians and a smaller contingent of ecological
restorationists, paleoecologists, anthropologists, and environmen-
tal activists. 

Marcus envisioned the gathering as a discussion that would
lead to a better understanding and implementation of ecological
restoration practice. He suggested that our interdisciplinary dia-
logue would focus on questions such as: 

• Which conditions should be brought back, and do such condi-
tions represent new natures or betters pasts?

• What historical assumptions do we hold when we set out to
restore, and what are the political and social implications?

• What can the historical record tell us about the nature of
degradation?

• Can rewilding be a legitimate goal in Europe, or is this a Holy
Grail better pursued in the New World?

• How can restoration history improve our current efforts to
restore?

Answers to, or at least discussions of, these and other questions,
he reasoned, would help ecological restorationists on both sides
of the Atlantic understand the commonalities and differences of
their practices.

I guess we can all have great hopes for conferences, work-
shops, meetings, and the like. I know that both Marcus and I did
for this one. In my estimation, however, a meaningful interdisci-
plinary discussion didn’t occur at this meeting. We spent too
much time simply trying to stay on schedule with our appointed
presentations. That isn’t to say that there weren’t some excellent
presentations—those by David Lowenthal, Daniel McCool, and
Eric Higgs come quickly to mind. 

Eric spoke after I did, and a comment he made during our
subsequent panel discussion especially hit home with me. He said
that he felt that too many ecological restorationists, including
many of the current leading thinkers and opinion makers, had
forgotten that a certain level of historical fidelity (a term Eric uses
to mean “a loyalty to predisturbance conditions”) is necessary in
ecological restoration projects. Like Eric, I have seen ecological

restoration move solely from a practice intended to care for the
land and its other-than-human beings to a practice that involves
a large element of social activism and human-centered concerns.
I suggest you read Keith Bowers’ SER International column in
this issue to see my point. This shift, or additional emphasis on
human-centered goals, is a significant one. It raises questions
about the practice and activities we call ecological restoration. 

Reflecting back on the Zurich workshop, I’ve come to realize
that the “elephant in the room” was the lack of attention that we
all paid to the idea of historical fidelity (what I will refer to here as
authenticity or genuineness) and its relation to ecological restora-
tion, renaturing, or whatever re- activity you want to name. 

The dictionary definition of “authentic” indicates that the
word describes some thing or some one “conforming to fact and
therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief; having an undis-
puted origin, genuine; bona fide, unquestionable, veritable.” In
common vernacular, an authentic person or thing is “the real
deal.” The word “genuine” is similar and has even closer etymo-
logical roots to our subject. It comes from Latin word, “genuinus,”
which means “native, natural,” which itself is from the word
“gignere” or “beget” (which is also the root word for genus). In
this same vein, the Latin word “genu,” which means knee, rec-
ognizes the ancient custom of a father acknowledging paternity
of a newborn by placing the child on his knee. So, take your
pick—authentic or genuine—they both indicate a sense of
known origin and, perhaps more importantly, a badge of legiti-
macy and credibility.

So, why did we avoid this discussion at the workshop? We
had our opportunities—Nicki Whitehouse’s excellent talk about
the value of paleoecological studies of Irish peatlands and their
value to biological and cultural conservation was one. Nothing.
Daniel McCool’s report on his work for a new book, The River
Commons, gave us an opening when he emphatically stated,
“eco-authenticity fails in the face of political will.” No takers.
Similarly, when activist Josh Donlan gave his pitch for rewilding
North America with Pleistocene megafauna. Eileen Crist’s pre-
sentation about the use of cloned extinct and/or endangered ani-
mals brought no response, either.

This lack of reaction leads me to believe that either we were
all so happy to be in an air-conditioned auditorium and out of
Zurich’s heat wave that we weren’t thinking or that creating or
attempting to create an authentic or genuine ecosystem is no
longer what people consider as ecological restoration. There
were, in fact, many talks about ecological restoration solely or

Authentic Ecological Restoration



largely with a focus on human goals. Perhaps, the question at the
end of Mark Bain’s abstract about his work restoring the Hudson
River Park after the 9/11 attack summed it up best: “What
restoration strategy is appropriate for a humanized system?”

When I first began my studies in ecological restoration at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison, we made a field trip to the
UW Arboretum’s Greene Prairie, which the botanist/mycologist
Henry Greene had planted by himself over the course of about 15
years, beginning shortly after World War II. Upon its completion,
Greene Prairie was a beautiful example of authentic ecological
restoration—a project that was loyal to the ecology of the wet-
mesic prairie ecosystem that Greene made every effort to repli-
cate and restore. Much of the magic of that restored prairie
remains today, despite encroaching stands of invasive reed
canarygrass, and, like an Alfonso Ponticelli cover of a classic
Django Reinhart jazz guitar solo, it swings through the seasons
with a powerful yet nuanced sense of beauty and faithfulness to
itself and Greene’s reference sites. 

Now, it may be that Greene Prairie is an exception to the
rule (although it is certainly not alone in terms of projects that
have been wedded to an authentic baseline), and it’s certainly
true that Greene was meticulous in his work and generally
unburdened by outside influences. Nevertheless, this type of
approach serves as an ideal that every ecological restoration pro-
ject should aspire to—a strong attention to detail, a use of exist-
ing sites and/or historical reference information to determine the
predisturbance conditions, and a conviction that this approach
will be the best way to restore ecosystems that are in danger of
being lost or otherwise compromised. Yes, we can argue about
whether the restoration of processes or structure or both are
needed, but what we cannot fall prey to is the seemingly inces-
sant need to put humans and human values first and foremost.
As Dennis Martinez has pointed out, we must reestablish a kin-
centric relationship with the rest of Nature; we must become, as
Aldo Leopold wrote, “citizens of the land community.” Paying
attention to the historical fidelity or genuineness of our projects
can help greatly to move us in that direction by forcing us to
look deeply into those beings and forces we seek to unleash so
that they may pursue their way of life. Otherwise, we are likely to
fall prey to the mass consumerism that surrounds us—creating
gardens where we maintain beings as “things” strictly for our use
and admiration. 

I recognize that some will criticize me for being stuck in the
past; that I am failing to see the potential of ecological restora-
tion and the future. They may be right. However, I feel it is nec-
essary for some people, like Eric and myself, to stand up and say
that, in terms of ecological restoration, the past is important,
that it does makes a difference, and that a study of past condi-
tions serves as one of the most important foundations of an eco-
logical restoration project. I certainly recognize that possibility
is always more tantalizing than actuality or the past, and that we
shouldn’t feel that we are captives of our past. But rather than
simply denying that the past matters, I strongly encourage prac-
titioners to engage in a dialogue that includes both actuality and
possibility, both past and future. By doing so, we will ourselves

become more authentic and, likewise, produce more genuine
restoration projects. 

***
This editorial marks the end of my stay as a member of the staff
of Restoration & Management Notes/Ecological Restoration. In gen-
eral, the 20 plus years I was with the journal were an extremely
positive and productive experience. I have many people to thank
for making it so. The first, of course, is Bill Jordan, the journal’s
founder, editor, and guiding light for two decades. Bill played a
huge role in my development as an editor, writer, and thinker
about ecological restoration. The decade of the 1990s that we
spent working together on this journal, I will always think of as
our time and remember it well. Thanks, Bill. I also want to
extend my warmest appreciation to Mary Ann Pels, who began
working with Bill and me in the late 1990s, and began her time
as the journal’s associate editor during my stint as editor. Mary
Ann and I formed a solid friendship that continues to this day.
We encouraged and supported each other through some tough
times and laughed through the good times. I still expect to see her
when I open the door to my new office even though I know full
well that she’s 1,700 miles away. My many other colleagues at the
Arboretum also deserve recognition for their support, and I wish
them well as that institution finds a way to incorporate its glori-
ous heritage with its future possibilities. I also have had a long
and cheerful relationship with the folks at the University of
Wisconsin Press Journals Division—Steve Miller, John Delaine,
Susan Kau, Adrienne Omen, Ken Sullivan, Rita Emmert, and
Judith Choles. Keep up the good work! I want to thank Kevin
Ducey and Bridget Brown for their many hours of work on the
Eco layout—solving all kinds of problems that I threw their way.
A big thanks to Julie Hayward for her tireless efforts proofreading
manuscripts and for providing me a country hideaway when
needed. Thanks go out to many others, especially the various
abstractors I’ve worked with, the members of the Editorial
Advisory Board, and Joy and Paul Zedler for their continuing
help with the journal. I also want to recognize efforts of the staff
and board of the Society for Ecological Restoration International,
with whom the journal has had a long and fruitful relationship.
Thanks most of all to the readers of Restoration & Management
Notes/Ecological Restoration. I trust that you’ll continue to find the
journal a leading source for information about the practice we all
care so deeply about.

So, what am I doing? As of October 2, I took a position as edi-
tor/writer with the Ecological Restoration Institute at Northern
Arizona University. I am working with Wally Covington, Diane
Vosick, and the rest of the ERI staff to help forge a new paradigm
of restorative land care for the frequent-fire forested landscapes of
the southwestern United States. It’s definitely an out-of-bioregion
move for me, but I’m looking forward to learning the ropes here
and enjoying the climb. 

The past endures. The present is. The future beckons.
Dave Egan
Dave.Egan@nau.edu
928/523-5697

224 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 ■ DECEMBER 2006