Restorashyn: Ecofeminist restoration
Environmental Ethics 28 (3):285-301 (2006)
| Abstract | Most restoration projects are designed to approximate the species composition and ecotypes ecologists and historians determine were present in an area at some point in the historical past. In most cases, although somewhat arbitrary, the specific time chosen (usually immediately before European settlement) is based on an understanding of historic species composition and anthropogenic disturbances.Although restoring an area to the estimated, historical vegetation types is widely accepted, the exclusory nature of the restoration process often actively eliminates not just invasive species, but also non-invasive, nonnative species as well as displaced native species. These exclusory activities echo patterns of domination and degradation that led to a need for restoration in the first place. Although the domination present in restoration stems from an earnest desire to repair harms inflicted by human carelessness, it at the same time enforces a human conception of the ideal landscape. Attending to ecofeminist concepts such as inclusivism and pluralism, and embracing their rejection of dualistic thinking and the logic of domination demands an expanded tolerance within the practice of ecological restoration. An expanded ecofeminist conceptualization of restoration, a restorashyn, attempts to reduce the presence of overt human domination of the land. Doing so may ultimately mean that the species composition of an ecofeminist restorashyn will not be purely native, but may instead include a diverse mix of both native and non-invasive, nonnative species | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesNathaniel F. Barrett (2011). The Promise and Peril of Ecological Restoration: Why Ritual Can Make a Difference 1. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 32 (2).
Mark Cowell (1993). Ecological Restoration and Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):19-32.
Andrew Light & Eric Higgs (1996). The Politics of Ecological Restoration. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):227-247.
Sheila Lintott (2011). Preservation, Passivity, and Pessimism. Ethics and the Environment 16 (2):95-114.
Eric S. Higgs (1996). The Politics of Ecological Restoration. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):227-247.
Michael Vincent McGinnis (1996). Deep Ecology and the Foundations of Restoration. Inquiry 39 (2):203 – 217.
William O.’Brien (2006). Exotic Invasions, Nativism, and Ecological Restoration: On the Persistence of a Contentious Debate. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):63 – 77.
William O'Brien (2006). Exotic Invasions, Nativism, and Ecological Restoration: On the Persistence of a Contentious Debate. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1):63 – 77.
Alastair S. Gunn (1991). The Restoration of Species and Natural Environments. Environmental Ethics 13 (4):291-310.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads0Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
