Restoration

An Introduction

in Environment and Society
Author:
Annet P. Pauwelussen Assistant Professor, Wageningen University, Netherlands annet.pauwelussen@wur.nl

Search for other papers by Annet P. Pauwelussen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Jessica M. Vandenberg Researcher, Harvard University, USA jvandenberg@seas.harvard.edu

Search for other papers by Jessica M. Vandenberg in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

Abstract

Ecological restoration practices and technologies are emerging as a dominant tool for addressing global environmental crises. This shift in conservation from a protectionist paradigm to a more hands-on approach signifies a new era of active intervention to the repair of ecosystems. Such approaches demand novel forms of human participation, fostering new kinds of relations, practices, values, and assumptions of what is “natural.” This special issue brings together reviews reflecting the diversity of perspectives and questions raised by social scientists on the practice of ecological restoration, restoration technologies, and restoration logics. Together they reveal three interconnected themes: (1) Politics are inherent to restoration practices of care and repair, raising questions about the logics and values that drive restoration, and the kinds of natures these generate. (2) Restoration is embedded in historical and social-political contexts, reflecting ongoing discussions on the implications of restoration in terms of environmental justice and equity. (3) Restoration is a relational practice that engages human–ecological entanglement and responsibility as central for the repair of social ecologies.

The Rise of Environmental Restoration

Ecological and environmental restoration practices and technologies are emerging as a dominant tool for addressing global crises of changing climates, biodiversity loss, and food security (Duarte et al. 2020; He et al. 2024; IPBES 2019; IPCC 2019). This increased popularity is evident in the growing calls to prioritize and legitimize restoration as a practice, not only for preventing ongoing ecological degradation but also for reversing it. For instance, the United Nations’ Decade on Ecosystem Restoration was declared in 2021, establishing ambitious goals to “heal the planet” in 10 years through environmental restoration, focusing on rehabilitating ecosystems globally to counteract climate change impacts (Waltham et al. 2020). Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals have highlighted both terrestrial and marine restoration as important tools to tackle global environmental and social challenges and secure a sustainable future for all people. And just this year, the EU passed a nature restoration law, setting a target to restore 20 percent of the EU's land and sea by the end of the decade (European Union 2024).

The rising attention to environmental restoration marks a shift in thinking about nature conservation from a hands-off protectionist paradigm to a more hands-on approach of repairing nature by human intervention. Following increasing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss at a planetary scale, there is now a growing movement toward active intervention—at increasing speed and scale—to repair and rehabilitate what is considered almost or already lost (Duarte et al. 2020; Strassburg et al. 2020). This interventionist approach requires novel forms of human participation that come with new kinds of relations and practices of repair in different places. The shift to more explicit intervention is situated within a broader debate about nature rehabilitation and restoration in the Anthropocene, in times of planetary environmental changes and degradation. Irus Braverman (2018) has characterized this debate by the poles of hope and despair, where environmental conservationists sit at a crossroads between carrying on attempts to return the environment to a prior nature or adopting a new environmentalism that views nature as a space to continually manage. While the former can be associated with the idea of nature as a domain separate from the human, the latter plays with the thought of what Jamie Lorimer (2015) has called “After Nature”—in which the idea of nature as a pristine place characterized by human absence has come to an end.

Nature restoration is multifaceted, both as a concept and as a phenomenon. It involves diverging definitions, goals, and priorities by different actors. Restoration approaches may range from “hands-off” approaches of “letting nature run its course” to the design and engineering of new ecosystems. Yet even approaches that ideologically preclude human interference assume—even if implicitly—practices of human design and choices to enable certain ecological interactions and constrain others (e.g., removing invasive species) (Higgs 2003; Martin 2022). This is why critical restorationists have adopted a broad definition of restoration that includes a range of practices and approaches that assume human agency can have a positive role in repairing ecologies that face degradation (Sides, this issue; Higgs 2003; Tomblin 2009). They have made increasing calls to integrate notions of healing, care, and repair into restoration practice that center relational dynamics between humans and nature and build upon plural knowledge systems (Clare 2014; Elias et al. 2021; Kimmerer 2013; Parreñas 2018; Puig de la Bellacasa 2017). The authors of this issue broadly agree on the importance of relationality and care but present cases that demonstrate diversity in the ways these notions are practiced and conceptualized. We unpack some of these varied concepts later in this introduction and briefly consider their stakes.

Coalescing around restoration in this broad sense are emergent networks of collaboration between and across sectors, often enabled by private or philanthropic funding. Repairing ecologies usually requires considerable investment of labor and capital (Bayraktarov et al. 2015; Löfqvist et al. 2023). While large-scale restoration programs backed by state, philanthropic, or corporate funding are rolled out on land and at sea (e.g. Law and Goldstein, this issue; Moore 2021; Sasmito et al. 2023; Wakefield 2020), networks of grassroots, volunteer, and community-based forms of restoration have also been on the rise, for example around oyster reefs (DeAngelis et al. 2019), coral reefs (Frey and Berkes 2014) seals (Hörst 2021) or trees in cities (Watkins et al. 2018). Across the globe, people organize to take restoration into their own hands when they see governments are failing to do so (Dickson-Hoylet et al. 2022; Hutchings et al. 2018). The multifaceted and intersectoral nature of restoration brings into interaction the different definitions, goals, and priorities that different actors have (Floor et al. 2018; Hertog and Turnhout 2018). Nature restoration comes with different ways in which certain kinds of nature are valued across communities, sectors, and regions, and with different assumptions of what is “natural” (Hertog and Turnhout 2018; Swart et al. 2001).

While the knowledge shaping ecological restoration is dominated by Western technical and natural science, assumed to be apolitical and devoid of norms and values (Bayraktarov et al. 2020), the practice of restoration is an innately social and political endeavor. This is because the repairing of “nature” through restoration requires the ongoing engagement of people at multiple scales (Higgs 2003). As an intervention, restoration can also alter human relations to the ecologies they value, live with, or depend on. Critical restoration scholarship has pointed out the risk of restoration becoming a new form of ecological imperialism that perpetuates rather than combats exploitation as the root cause of ecological degradation (Gibbs et al. 2021; Morrison et al. 2022; Osborne et al. 2021). Particularly with the current push to scale up and accelerate restoration efforts driven by growing threats of global environmental crises, there is a tendency to reshape ecologies in the Global South and (formerly) colonized places according to Western values and technical expertise, sidelining situated knowledge and practices of care (Gibbs et al. 2021). While most critical scholarship has focused on Western approaches, other dominant knowledge systems are also gaining influence on restoration practice globally. For instance, China-backed nature restoration interventions are rolled out at scale across continents, in alignment with Chinese values of nature, logics, and geopolitical interests (Zhu et al. 2024). In all of the geopolitical contexts in which restoration is embedded, the practice of restoration itself involves inherently political questions of who decides what is worth restoring, into what, and for whom.

Across the social sciences and humanities, scholars have described, theorized, and critically reflected on nature restoration, aiding our understanding of restoration as a social-political phenomenon but also providing essential insights into the restoration conditions that enhance social sustainability and justice. In this special issue, we bring together scholarly literature reviews and real-world examples reflecting the diversity of perspectives and questions raised by social scientists on the practice of ecological restoration, restoration technologies, and restoration logics. In this introduction, we weave together the contributions and debates that emerge from these articles, revealing three overarching and interconnected themes: (1) Politics are inherent in restoration as a practice of care and repair. This theme raises epistemic, ontological and ethical questions about the logics and values that drive restoration, as well as the kinds of natures and ecologies they generate. (2) Restoration is embedded in historical and social-political contexts, reflecting ongoing discussions on the conditions and implications of restoration in terms of environmental justice. (3) Restoration is a relational practice that engages human–ecological entanglement and responsibility as central for the repair of social ecologies.

Restoration and the Politics of Care and Repair

Many of the reviews included in this issue reflect on the political processes embedded in the logics and values driving restoration practices. Restoration has a common connotation of repairing or bringing back into being an ecological state that is assumed to be lost or degraded. Yet by its interventionist nature, such restoration also produces new kinds of nature(s) that may be inherently unstable, malleable, and capable of serving different purposes. Critical social science has pointed out how the practice of environmental restoration can challenge persistent ideas of nature as a neutral and pristine domain devoid of human intervention (Higgs 2003; Lorimer 2015; Martin 2022). Perhaps even more than environmental conservation, restoration has the potential to destabilize modernity's nature–culture divide (Latour 1993; Plumwood 1993) as nature becomes a more explicitly cultural—and political—product of active repairing and caring practices.

The critical examination of assumptions about and logics within restoration reveals ontological, epistemological, and ethical questions of what is “natural,” what is a “good ecological state,” for whom, to what end, and what knowledge is included or excluded to steer intervention (Hertog and Turnhout 2018; Higgs 2003; Keulartz 2009). As restoration typically involves collaboration across different sectors, communities, cultures, and disciplines, it often brings together diverging ways in which such questions are raised and answered. Yet in the way restoration is designed, planned, and practiced, certain worldviews, knowledge, and ways of valuing nature may prevail over others. Nature restoration, as a form of environmental care and repair, is therefore inherently political. Taking a cue from science and technology studies and affiliated scholarship (Law and Joks 2019; Mol 1999), such “politics” go beyond the power play between different interests, to include the politics of what and whose ways of knowing and relating to nature take precedence in steering the goals and priorities of restoration interventions, thereby also shaping what “restored nature” comes to be (Elias et al. 2021; Higgs 2005; Leach 2015).

Throughout this issue, and from different angles, the reviews shed light on the politics that are embedded in the ways restoration programs and practices are designed, justified, and enacted. They do so by questioning basic underlying assumptions in how restoration is defined, organized, and put into practice. While some scrutinize the very definition of restoration, others uncover different philosophies toward the human relationship to nature that influence what restoration is expected to do. We organize these arguments within the overarching questions raised across this collection of articles.

What Is Restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration has defined restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (Allison and Murphy 2017: 1), which also shows the ecological science roots of mainstream restoration approaches (Higgs et al. 2014; Martin 2022). Social scientists and Indigenous thinkers have critiqued the framing of restoration through an ecological lens, as it tends to exclude humans from being part of those ecologies (Robinson et al. 2021). As Tamar Law and Jenny Goldstein point out (this issue), the term “nature” itself as the focus of restoration reinforces nature–culture binaries in restoration that tend to exclude the complex relations that exist between humans and nature in the environments to be restored. Articles in this issue (e.g., Barra and Jessee; France and Braiden; Greenleaf; Kanoi et al.; Law and Goldstein) show that restoration ecologies are generated through historical connections between humans and non-humans that have led to both the degradation and proliferation of ecosystems in different social and cultural contexts. Madeline Sides (this issue) refers to ecological restoration as an assemblage of practices that have emerged from multiple places, cultures, and knowledge systems (Kimmerer 2011; Tomblin 2009), with a shared focus on seeing humans as agents of positive change to reverse ecosystem degradation. This expands the definition of restoration to include a range of material and cultural practices beyond and also preceding Western restoration science (idem). Additionally, Kyle Bush and Erich Wolff contend that the term “restoration” has become an umbrella term to describe many different approaches to landscape transformation and improvement, which may range from “nature-based solutions” (Law and Goldstein, this issue) to “rewilding” or “urban renewal” (Kanoi et al., this issue). This conflation blurs the distinctions between different practices, motivated by different ambitions “predicated on assumptions about what constitutes desirable transformation and how best to achieve it” (Bush and Wolff, this issue).

To accommodate this diversity of practices and their social embeddedness, several contributions to this special issue propose to think of restoration through the conceptual lens of “repair” and “care” (e.g., Barra and Jessee; Greenleaf; Kanoi et al.; Law and Goldstein). Theorizing restoration as care and repair frames it as a social practice of healing what is broken without assuming such repair brings back an original state or only pertains to the natural world (Kanoi et al., this issue). Maron Greenleaf (this issue) stresses the inherently social nature of restoration by showing how the practice of tree planting requires the ongoing care and engagement of people. Law and Goldstein (this issue) use the concept of “repair” to unpack the political dimension of wetland restoration in Southeast Asia, where the practice is framed as the repair of blue-green infrastructures that hold instrumental value, potentially serving economic interests. Monica Patrice Barra and Nathan Jessee (this issue) also mobilize the concept of repair to point out how restoration, as a means of repairing past damages, involves reparative practices aimed at undoing social harms, notably those experienced by Black and Indigenous communities. These examples illustrate how the concept of repair has been mobilized in restoration scholarship to better account for the variety of human–ecological entanglements in which restoration is enmeshed, and to unpack how restoration is an inherently relational, social, and political process.

What Is Worth Restoring?

The social and political aspect of restoration is also apparent through the prioritization of certain habitats, species, and ecological processes over others, which can shift over time following changing perspectives of what is worth restoring. For example, Lav Kanoi and colleagues (this issue) point out how in South Asia forested areas have long been prioritized in restoration programs over other plant covers such as the brushlands that local people have lived with since pre-colonial times. Cynthia Boyer and colleagues (this issue) demonstrate how Western environmental values dominate restoration practice by describing the ways that desert landscapes in the United States are often regarded as “wastelands” under the dominant restoration paradigm, rendering their ecological roles less valuable than other ecological systems, despite local Diné people holding these lands and ecosystems as culturally vital to their ways of life.

In contrast, coral reefs have come to stand in the center of restoration attention worldwide. They figure prominently in discussions on climate change, as “canary in the coal mine” indicators of ongoing deterioration of planetary health in the Anthropocene (Braverman 2018), with their deaths evoking feelings of climate dystopia and dread (Schuster 2019). Heather O'Leary and colleagues (this issue) show how corals have reached this symbolic status through the wide circulation of coral reef life and death imagery on social media, affecting public perceptions on the value of coral reef ecosystems and the importance of restoring them. This shows the substantial influence of visualization technologies in shaping the public imaginary of what is worth restoring and what is not by showcasing certain species and ecosystems over others. Coral reefs demonstrate the temporality and precarity of restoration priorities, in which particular lifeforms can transform from killable to grievable creatures (Braverman 2018: 9) through certain representational rhetorics.

The temporality and geography of restoration priorities also appears in the long-term debate in restoration science around the role of introduced or ‘alien’ species in relation to those considered ‘native’ to places in certain time frames (Helmreich 2005; Keularz 2009; Moore 2012). As Kanoi and colleagues (this issue) contend, native species are often assumed to improve ecosystem functioning, while introduced or “alien” species are assumed to be a cause of ecological degradation. However, the latter may provide both benefits and harms to ecological processes (idem), especially in times of climate changes and related alteration of species migration patterns. For example, oyster reef restoration in the European North Sea prioritizes the native European flat oyster species that once populated European coasts. However, the invasive pacific oyster crassostrea gigas actually shows more resilience in building reefs that withstand predators, diseases, and climate impacts. While their alien status officially still precludes them as agents in nature restoration, pacific oysters can support the re-population of native ones in hybrid multispecies reefs in changing marine environments (Christianen et al. 2018; Zwerschke et al. 2018). This distinction between natives and aliens resonates with the common valuation of purity over hybridity in restoration science (Keularz 2009). Christine Biermann and David Havlik (this issue) explore the role of genetics in ecological restoration and how similar native and alien categories emerge. In genetic trout restoration projects, the more genetically distinct a population is, the more it is deemed worthy of protection. Under this logic, distinctions are made between pure and hybridized species, where genetically pure individuals are considered worthy of protection, while hybridized individuals are targeted for eradication (Biermann and Mansfield 2014; Fredriksen 2015).

What Is Being Restored?

While restoration assumes a certain object (species, habitat, ecology) in need of repair, some scholars have pointed out how the nature of these objects may be ambiguous and ontologically multiple. For example, Law and Goldstein (this issue) show that while a crucial focus of restoration in Southeast Asia revolves around wetlands such as deltas, mangroves, and marshes, these amphibious ecosystems defy typical categorization of either marine or terrestrial systems. Animals such as corals and sea turtles have also been described as ontologically ambiguous. Both are amphibious creatures that move not only in a land–water interface but also between different ways of understanding the world. Corals are simultaneously living and dead, and both animal and plant. To reef-dependent communities, corals also serve as a home, a garden, and a site of spirituality and customary ritual (Pauwelussen and Verschoor 2017). Instead of a passive object, corals behave as “a powerful agent and participant in the creation of a “political ecology” in which humans and nonhumans are today entangled and not separate” (Elias 2019: 319). Eduardo Romero Dianderas (this issue) likewise shows how Shihuahuaco trees take on multiple roles, as they shift and adapt to different political contexts—economic commodity, species of endangered status, high-value timber flooring in North America and Europe.

As it is increasingly recognized that restoration must move beyond Western science as the sole knowledge system (Gann et al. 2019) and build upon diverse voices and worldviews, including Indigenous ontologies (Pereira et al. 2020), it becomes evident that the nature of what is restored is not pre-given. So, the question of “what is being restored” here refers to what in anthropology and science and technology studies (STS) has been referred to as the “politics of what” (Mol 1999; Regalado and Verschoor 2020): the ontological politics involved in establishing the nature of the object or body to be cared for. Uncovering such politics assumes an openness to the multiple ways in which people understand, define, and relate to the lifeforms and ecologies they care for and repair (Blaser 2009; Koban 2019; Thompson 2002). This also brings into perspective the role of more-than-human agency in what restored nature comes to be (Brooks and Hubbard 2021; Woelfle-Erskine 2019).

Restoration to What?

A recurring question in restoration debate—across the sciences—revolves around the question of what is the reference model for restoration. As noted, restoration interventions are primarily guided by Western science frameworks rooted in ecology and biology (Higgs 2003). Yet if restoration involves social relations just as much as other arrangements of living and non-living material, such scientific frameworks fail to account for the cultural, relational, and aesthetic dimensions of restoration (Sides, this issue). As many of the contributions to this special issue point out, the gap between natural science expertise and the actual ways in which humans and ecologies are interconnected reflects and perpetuates the nature–culture binary in Western science (e.g., Bush and Wolff; France and Braiden; Greenleaf; Kanoi et al.; Law and Goldstein). This binary thinking, as Sides (this issue) argues “leads restorationists to think that it is possible to restore a natural place without restoring the human relationships within that place.” This way of thinking is rooted in the colonial wilderness ideal that has long dominated conservation and restoration approaches, particularly in North America, which has erased the ways people have been part of and have supported thriving ecosystems (Cronon 1996; Kimmerer 2011). However, restoration does not always occur in “natural” spaces. The restoration of post-industrial sites, for example, is a process where “sterile space becomes humanized and transformed into a value-laden place” (France and Braiden, this issue).

Besides the notion of nature itself, scholars have critically reflected on the dimensions of time and space that figure as references for what to restore back to, where, and at what scale (Higgs et al. 2014). Greenleaf (this issue) thinks about the dimension of time within the context of planting trees. While restoration success is usually measured by the number of trees planted, it does not take into account the process of after-care required to keep these trees alive. Through the case of tree planting, she reflects critically on the question of when restoration ends, and at what point restoration counts. The reference to time is also apparent in the very connotation of restoration as a practice of bringing back or going back to a past state. This has raised questions in ecology and beyond about what time should be used as a benchmark of the state to be brought back and backed by what logic (Higgs et al. 2014). Ecologists may refer to a past state in which an ecosystem was pristine, not yet disturbed by humans. But as Indigenous scholars have long shown, landscapes assumed to be wild and pristine in actuality have been managed by people for millennia (Donlan 2005; Miller et al. 2005). Disturbance may also occur slowly, leaving baselines that are difficult to detect. These complexities among other disturbance factors like planetary changes in climate and species or the mobility of human and non-human organisms brings into question the feasibility and desirability of going back to a past baseline. They also challenge the notion of pristineness as something to aspire to in the first place. For instance, Kanoi and colleagues (this issue) challenge rewilding as restoration through the re-introduction of native animal species, a practice which often operates under the assumptions that invasive species contribute to ecosystem degradation. As they point out, there are cases where this assumption has held true (Jones et al. 2021), but there are other cases where ecosystems have flourished despite the presence of non-native species (Lundgren et al. 2021). Biermann and Havlik (this issue) similarly discuss the re-introduction of “pure” native cutthroat trout. They demonstrate how single-species restoration focused on achieving genetic “purity” of a population can lead to significant ecological tradeoffs where restoring the genetic purity of native trout does not necessarily result in broader ecological improvements and instead can hurt overall ecosystem health.

Within restoration ecology itself, historical references for nature restoration have been critiqued by those who argue for a future-focused approach to revitalize ecological processes in new and anticipated environmental and climatic circumstances. Such future-oriented restoration embraces design as an inherent part of any restoration approach (Higgs 2003; Higgs and Hobbs 2010; Sides this issue). The uncertain and often experimental act of repairing ecosystems—whether to restore the past or anticipate the future—inevitably produces and re-designs something new. While this has led to discomfort with the idea of creating “designer natures,” as fake and artificial, Sides (this issue) unpacks the concept of design to show how it is inherently part of both social and ecological processes. Thinking of restoration through the lens of design destabilizes the claim of restoration to reach what is “natural,” as the very concept of natural in opposition to artificial does not hold up.

What Is the Purpose of Restoration?

If restoration is a process and practice of repairing and designing natures and ecologies, this also begs the questions: to what end are such new and repaired natures built, and to whose benefit and loss? Social science and humanities scholars have shown the different visions and values that can underlie restoration approaches, shaping what restored ecologies are supposed to do and look like (Floor et al. 2018; Swart et al. 2001). While much of the nature restoration is promoted under the banner of intrinsic ecological or bio-centric values (notably in rewilding approaches), instrumental values (nature for society) have become prominent in driving the more future-oriented approaches of nature-inclusive design. The latter is apparent in the popularity of ecosystem services, for example, in urban greening projects (Kanoi et al., this issue). If restoration is at its core a design practice (Higgs 2003; Sides, this issue), it matters what the restored ecological functions are supposed to be and do.

Restoring ecological functions goes beyond safeguarding ecosystem services for current needs; restoration is also increasingly seen as a nature-based solution to anticipated climate impacts (Law and Goldstein, this issue; Bush and Wolff, this issue). For example, by restoring wetlands as ecological infrastructures, governmental and nongovernmental agencies aim not only to restore past hydrological flows but also to mitigate and anticipate future flooding (Law and Goldstein, this issue). Thereby, restoration projects are celebrated as reparations of what is already damaged by climate change and anthropogenic impacts, but—more than that—these repaired ecosystems are also promoted as a “climate solution” by themselves—for example, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., wetlands, forests) or providing breakwaters for intensifying coastal waves (e.g., oyster reefs, mangroves). Restoration as a nature-based solution is thus mobilized as a tool to support pluralistic visions of nature where both ecological and social challenges can be simultaneously addressed (Bush and Wolff, this issue).

Restoration projects are therefore increasingly promoted as win-win investments, as they combine eco-centric (good for nature) with instrumental (good for people) goals. For example, there is currently a proliferation of offshore windmill farms in the North Sea (Europe), where energy companies can win tenders by promising to combine their windmill infrastructures with nature enhancement (Pardo et al. 2023; Steins et al. 2021). Oyster reef restoration and kelp farming infrastructures are installed in the waters between wind turbines as a synergistic coexistence between nature and a new blue economy. However, scholars have demonstrated that this rhetoric of win-win does not always translate into restoration realities. In practice, competing agendas can lead to tradeoffs that undermine the underlying principles of ecological restoration or existing naturecultural relations with the environment. For instance, Greenleaf (this issue) describes the ecological and social consequences that emerge when restoration is designed and implemented to achieve a particular agenda. Drawing on an example of tree planting, she highlights how initiatives motivated by carbon capture agendas are designed in ways that may indeed mitigate greenhouse gas emissions but simultaneously undermine local biodiversity and ecological functioning.

Romero Dianderas (this issue) also discusses how win-win rhetoric for restoration are used to justify the resource-extractive processes that have led to environmental degradation to begin with. In this case, commercial timber operators frame themselves as forest “gardeners” sustaining the population of Shihuahuaco trees and preventing the lands from being used for even more destructive industrial practices. Restoration, in this case, is posed as a tool in sustainable forestry enabling the maintenance of both the local timber economy and the survival of the endangered Shihuahuaco. O'Leary et al. (this issue) discuss how visual imagery mediates the public's relationship with reef restoration projects, noting that images are often the public's only link to these broadly inaccessible environmental systems (Braverman 2018; Elias 2019). They underscore the power of visual imaginary as it plays a crucial role in garnering public support and shaping the focus of restoration agendas. Specific visual tropes are mobilized to highlight particular human-reef interactions while rendering others invisible, echoing other studies that demonstrate how local human-coral relations are relegated to the background through coral reef restoration interventions (Moore 2021; Vandenberg 2020). These examples illustrate the critical importance of acknowledging the political and social implications of contemporary restoration narratives and discourses. Understanding how these narratives frame current debates about restoration and its future, and how these framings align with restoration realities, is essential to ensure that restoration projects are fair and context-appropriate (Bush and Wolff, this issue).

Restoration and Environmental Justice

As we have demonstrated in the previous section, environmental restoration is an inherently political process despite it frequently operating as an assumed apolitical project (Bayraktarov et al. 2020; Elias et al. 2021; Higgs 2005; Leach 2015). Restoration is deeply embedded in existing power structures and often reproduces historical patterns of dominance and exploitation, particularly affecting marginalized communities (Barra 2020; Gibbs et al. 2021; Vandenberg 2020). As Barra and Jessee (this issue) point out, ecological restoration has continued to be a “site for confronting colonial and racial capitalist displacement and dispossession.” Thus, as we consider this reality, we are prompted to ask: Who holds the power to legitimize particular restoration logics and expand certain practices? At whose expense are these restoration outcomes made? How do past and present political, economic, and social systems shape restoration practices and outcomes? Restoration practices create new dynamics in human–nature relations through networks of collaboration and new domains of environmental governance (Higgs 2005). They can introduce new actors into human-environmental systems while simultaneously excluding others, particularly those who historically held relations with these ecosystems. Restoration initiatives can reconfigure nature into new forms of capital, leading to land or sea conflicts, human–wildlife conflicts, displacement, and dispossession (Huff and Brock 2023). So while restoration may produce positive outcomes for some, it can also be operationalized in ways that lead to environmental injustices that resemble practices of “ecological imperialism” (Gibbs et al. 2021) and “blue” or “green” gentrification (Brooks and Hubbard 2021; Donovan 2021; Safransky 2017). These are questions and themes that many of the reviews in this special issue explore.

Powerful actors can exercise significant influence over the kinds of solutions and interventions that are considered appropriate by controlling the dominant flows of finance and knowledge that shape ecological restoration science and practice. For example, the United States is a major actor in knowledge production around restoration practice in Southeast Asia, shaping the ways wetlands are re-framed as nature-based solutions, a practice that renders wetlands technical (Law and Goldstein, this issue). These normative Western restoration approaches reinforce human supremacy over nature by treating ecological harm as a technical problem to be solved by experts. Critical restorationists have pointed out how ecological expertise alone is insufficient to reach outcomes that are inclusive and equitable; therefore, other ways of knowing and relating to nature needs to be incorporated into the practice and science of ecological restoration (Anderson and Woelfle-Hazard 2022; Boyer et al., this issue; France and Braiden, this issue; Reeder-Myers et al. 2022; Sides, this issue). By prioritizing techno-scientific solutions, restoration risks sidelining or even displacing situated ways of knowing and environmental care. Scholarship across the social sciences and humanities has emphasized the need for restoration practices to build on plural knowledge and value systems not only as a condition for epistemic justice (Mabon et al. 2022; Pereira et al. 2020) but also to enhance the legitimacy and accountability of conservation and restoration interventions (Meesters et al. 2024; Pascual et al. 2021).

Non-state actors, such as multinational corporations, impact investors, and private philanthropists have also become increasingly prominent in supporting ecosystem restoration, with the intention of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss, sustainably managing natural resources, and offsetting the impacts of development (Ferse et al. 2021). These private actors, commonly originating from the major global economies, like the European Union, the United States, and China, enable new opportunities for supporting critical conservation agendas and the implementation of restoration programs at a global scale (Iyer et al. 2018; Jacob et al. 2020). However, the interests of these private actors are also oriented toward accumulation and the distribution of capital that can conflict with the social and ecological sustainability necessary for effective restoration practice. Conflicting economic and ecological agendas can lead to “placebo” restoration projects or “greenwashing” that can have the optics of successful environmental management but in reality may be non-transformative and deflect attention away from root causes driving environmental degradation (Gibbs et al. 2021; Morrison et al. 2022; Osborne et al. 2021. A better understanding of how these actors influence restoration can potentially contribute to more socially equitable and ecologically effective ways of integrating private sector actors into this space.

While natural habitats and certain species may be in the spotlight as worthy of environmental care and repair, the human communities and their relationships to those habitats and species are often disregarded as irrelevant or even criminalized, posing harm to human and animal communities. For instance, tree-planting initiatives have repeatedly displaced marginalized communities from lands they historically depended on for their food and livelihoods (Adams et al. 2016; Asselin 2022; Fleischman et al. 2020; Kanoi et al., this issue; Lewis et al. 2019). Tree planting can also pose water access inequities because planted trees take water away from existing users (Greenleaf, this issue; Law and Goldstein, this issue). Displacement from tree planting has also occurred within urban contexts where environmental improvements can price out existing communities in the future (Donovan 2021; Safransky 2014. Greenleaf (this issue) points out that this process exemplifies how tree planting can be used as a potential tool of “green gentrification.” Vandenberg (2020) illustrates how dispossession can also occur at sea. Through corporate-led coral reef restoration in Indonesia, local island communities experienced dispossession from fishing grounds, anchorage sites, and reciprocal relations with neighboring islands. Kanoi et al. (this issue) discuss how rewilding efforts can pose adverse effects on local communities. It is often assumed that local communities and wildlife coexist and that therefore wildlife re-introduction is inherently beneficial. But this assumption does not always hold true. For example, rewilding landscapes may just as readily escalate human–wildlife conflicts. The protective status placed on individual species for restoration can also negatively impact those who hold historical ties to those species. For instance, sea turtles have become celebrated in restoration programs as charismatic flagship species that have garnered global attention and funding for their protection and rehabilitation. Through such restoration programs, the collecting and eating of sea turtle eggs is usually banned. However, in Southeast Asia, eating sea turtle eggs has been part of Indigenous sea people's ways of acknowledging their spiritually and materially entangled world with turtles. Criminalizing such consumption and use has led to human–turtle alienation and erosion of local people's practices of caring for sea turtles (Pauwelussen and Switzer-Swanson 2022. In such cases, global conservation values are prioritized over local nature–cultural relations, which can have harmful effects for both human and animal communities (idem; Campbell 2007; Lorimer 2015; Thompson 2002).

The involvement of local communities and stakeholders is repeatedly emphasized as crucial for the success and sustainability of restoration efforts across the contributions of this special issue (Kanoi et al.; Greenleaf; Law and Goldstein; O'Leary et al.). For instance, Greenleaf highlights several cases where community involvement was key to the survival of trees in forest restoration initiatives (i.e., Brancalion and Holl 2020; Davies and Santo-Tomás Muro 2023; Erbaugh et al. 2020; Rana et al. 2022). As Kanoi et al. (this issue) point out, well-designed community-based restoration initiatives can also be a source of sociocultural benefits, such as enhancing community resilience and improving recreational experiences (Child 1996; Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008; Leigh 2005). O'Leary et al. (this issue) similarly point out that local participation in coral reef restoration can revitalize traditional practices, strengthen community belonging, and enhance eco-tourism and volunteering experiences (Hein et al. 2021; Hesley et al. 2017; Kittinger et al. 2016). However, participation on its own does not ensure restoration success. Effective community-based restoration necessitates a deep understanding of the local context and ongoing institutional support (i.e., funding, education, training, and monitoring) to ensure sustainable management.

Understanding existing and past relations to land is thus critical to understanding the social impacts of ecological restoration, how local people can engage in restoration practice, and the sustainability of these initiatives. Both Greenleaf (this issue) and Kanoi et al. (this issue) challenge conventional ecological restoration models that narrowly focus on the symptoms of ecological degradation without addressing broader historical and sociocultural contexts. O'Leary and colleagues (this issue) also highlight critiques in the field of coral reef restoration that despite reefs needing protection “active restoration is an ‘expensive distraction’ from combatting the underlying causes of coral decline” (see also, Suggett et al. 2024). For these authors, restoration operates as a symptomatic treatment that continues to neglect the root causes of environmental degradation and inequity. Introducing a socio-historical perspective that considers relations to land, cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and situated practices of care allows the recognition of root causes, often linked to histories of colonialism and racial capitalism. This perspective may also highlight actions beyond restoration necessary for long-term environmental repair and identify actors who should be held accountable.

Turning to the past also brings to light historical systems of oppression that are enmeshed within ecological restoration practices. These are often the same structures of colonial and capitalist exploitation at the root of ecological degradation and social injustice that restoration aims to address. As demonstrated earlier, ecological restoration can operate as a tool for ecological imperialism where histories of colonialism and racial injustice continue to shape the uneven distribution of environmental burdens and benefits that stem from restoration. Boyer and colleagues (this issue) discuss how neocolonial dynamics enacted through Western ecological restoration science and policy continue to undermine Diné control and access to land, ultimately resulting in ineffective restoration outcomes. They argue that fully understanding the consequences of Western restoration on Diné communities requires understanding the guiding principles of Diné culture and the histories of colonialism that have compromised Diné cultural values and relations to land. Greenleaf (this issue) argues that temporality is important when assessing the outcomes of restoration practice. As time unfolds, the social burdens and benefits of restoration come to the surface. Returning to the example of tree-planting initiatives, she discusses how local people are expected to take on the financial and physical burdens of maintenance once trees have been planted (idem). She points to the work of Mariya Shcheglovitova (2020) who demonstrates this reality in Baltimore. In already neglected neighborhoods, dead trees result from short-sighted tree-planting initiatives where funding only covers the initial planting. Dead trees in these communities remain as “another piece of decaying infrastructure akin to vacant buildings and broken pavement” (idem: 239). This pattern of neglect reflects how urban tree-planting initiatives are folded into the broader dynamics of racial capitalism and uneven development (Greenleaf, this issue).

Other articles in this issue (i.e., Biermann and Havlick; Law and Goldstein; and Romero Dianderas) explore the current financial institutions that are increasingly entangled with some restoration practices, posing further risks of “accumulation by restoration” (Huff and Brock 2023) that perpetuate experiences of neocolonial displacement and dispossession. Through these frameworks of financialization, restoration is utilized as a tool to expand “economies of repair” (Knuth 2019), thereby transforming nature into new forms of capital. For instance, Law and Goldstein reflect on the political and discursive processes of restoration that organize wetlands into blue/green infrastructures in ways that maintain capitalist socio-natural relations, enabling their valuation and commodification (i.e., Carse 2012; Finewood 2016; Dempsey and Robertson 2012; Kull et al. 2015)—a process they characterize as “a socio-ecological fix under capitalism” that maintains existing socio-political systems and relations of power. Biermann and Havlik (this issue) also examine how genetic technologies used in ecological restoration similarly open up new financial opportunities through the commodification of genetic information. They raise concerns that this process of commodification and marketization can have significant influence over conservation agendas and create new sites for neoliberal entrainment or market capture within natural systems. In his article, Romero Dianderas explores how ecological restoration is implemented alongside commercial Shihuahuaco logging as a form of sustainable management of an existing economically important commercial industry. In this case, Shihuahuaco already holds economic value, but he illustrates how “sustainability becomes a political demand to envision species as objects of calculation and care” (Romero Dianderas, this issue).

Across these articles, it is apparent that restoration can become embedded into existing and ongoing struggles over nature. They highlight that despite moving away from the hands-off preservation past of nature conservation, the logics of nature-culture binaries and human supremacy persist, while past and present relations to nature of marginalized groups are often ignored. Moreover, the recent developments to commodify nature through restoration-driven environmental economies raise questions around environmental governance priorities and whether restoration as a technical cure-all may delay or distract from the more transformative and critical environmental governance actions needed to address global environmental problems in an effective and equitable way. We therefore sit, as Barra and Jesse (this issue) put it, “at a crossroads for either internalizing or confronting the injustices perpetrated by ongoing colonization” that are embedded into ecological restoration.

Restoration as Relational Healing

The frequency of inequitable social and ecological outcomes that have stemmed from restoration practices has sparked discussions about alternative approaches to ecological restoration that can be more equitable and just and that can center naturecultural relations, relational values, and reorient restoration from a technological fix to a mutual practice of care and repair. In many instances, “relationality” can serve as a form of resistance to the binary nature–culture approach in Western restoration science by stressing the radical interdependence of nature and culture and between human and more-than-human agencies (Escobar 2021; this issue: Bush and Wolff; France and Braiden; Greenleaf; Kanoi et al.; Sides). If the conservation paradigm has kept humans and nature apart—conceptually and practically—what could restoration's potential be in bringing them together, building on their interconnections? In the same spirit, if restoration engages collaboration and engagement across sectors and communities, how could restoration build on plural ways of knowing, valuing, and caring for nature—beyond Western scientific frames and expertise? The growing interest in these questions reflects recent calls to do environmental care otherwise, based on conviviality (Büsher and Fletcher 2019), reciprocity (Kimmerer 2013) and plural knowledge practices (Elias et al. 2021; Pascual et al. 2021). These calls have also been reflected in international policy circles (Allison et al. 2023; Pereira et al. 2020). Running through these recommendations is the acknowledgment of Indigenous, Black, feminist, and queer scholarship as frameworks for centering relationality and healing in restoration.

While relationality is key to restoration for many of the contributions to this special issue, the articles gathered here reveal a diverse array in the conceptualization of relationality. The concept of relational repair emerges as a way to link people back into restoration and to center human–nature entanglements, acknowledging the inseparability of humans and nature and the reality that restoration is an ongoing process that necessitates human engagement (this issue: Greenleaf; Kanoi et al.). For example, Greenleaf illustrates relational repair by underscoring the temporal distinction between tree planting and tree growing. Ailing bodies and natures are not fixed with the planting of trees alone, they also need after-care throughout the process of growing. Thus, “when tree planting is understood as an ongoing process, rather than a singular act, it comes into view as a relational practice” (idem; see also Duguma et al., 2020). In this sense, tree growing is an active process where past, present, and future human–nature relations are necessary for trees “to survive and thrive beyond the moment of planting” (Greenleaf, this issue). This perspective also stresses the importance of embedding restoration in existing situated practices and relations that can support such after-care for repaired land- and seascapes.

Kanoi et al. argue that neglecting existing and historically grown power relations will likely undermine the longevity of restoration initiatives. They mobilize the concept of “healing” to stress the need to go beyond curing symptoms to also address root causes to ecological ailments, and they draw from Clare's critique of the notion of a cure in the context of ecological restoration (Clare 2014). They argue that conventional ecological restoration follows a model of cure that localizes ecological harm without taking a broader historical and sociocultural context into account. Instead, a healing approach goes beyond a technical fix to repair the process of meaning-making based on local environmental values and experience related to ecological health and harm, and that acknowledges the past, present, and future relations of communities with their “to-be-repaired” environment. Romero Dianderas (this issue) suggests that thinking with Shihuahuaco (or other non-human entities centered in restoration) may bring to light the socio-political and other ethical questions that might emerge when considering the contexts in which restoration practice occurs. Bush and Wolff (this issue) similarly assert that unpacking the narratives behind restoration agendas can illuminate these underlying factors.

In this issue, Law and Goldstein as well as Barra and Jessee look toward notions of reparations and reparative forms of restoration as a lens to design approaches to the labor of repair that value and nourish socio-natural relations and address histories of injustice. Bringing in social–natural relationality in restoration also brings into focus the meaning of repair as an undoing of not only ecological but also social harms. This reorientation upsets current frameworks of financialization that have entered into restoration practice, enabling both the healing of ecosystems and the damaged relations between humans and nature caused by histories of colonialism and racial capitalism (Barra and Jessee, this issue). Barra and Jessee propose that “critical reflections on reparations can inform ways of thinking about ecological restoration as a reparative practice rooted in the histories, traditional ecological knowledges (TEK), values, and material conditions of oppressed communities.” This stresses the interconnectedness of both ecological and social repair, and the need to center relationality (reciprocity, kinship), knowledge diversity, and solidarity as an anchoring ethos and praxis of restoration. From the angle of design studies, Sides (this issue) argues for “wild” design as a relational design practice that restores relationships to heal the webs of life (Escobar 2021). Rather than a managerial and technical approach to design, wild designing centers interdependence and practices of care to rekindle relations between people and nature as well as between different groups of marginalized people. This may include human mimicry on non-human ecological restoration processes, thinking with the “work” of beavers in river restoration (Woelfle-Erskine 2019) or fire in caring for trees.

Shared among many of the contributions to the special issue are arguments for the inclusion of plural knowledge systems in the way that we know and do ecological restoration. One major aspect of this reorientation is the acknowledgment of Indigenous knowledge and care practices as foundational guidance toward more relational and equitable forms of restoration. Boyer et al. (this issue) emphasize that incorporating local Indigenous people into restoration planning and design processes is critical to avoid policies that obstruct Diné cultural values and relations to land. TEK is an invaluable resource in restoration to ensure sustainable and equitable restoration outcomes. Centering Indigenous knowledge reaffirms the importance of relationality to restoration practice, further breaking down Western logics of nature–cultural binaries. Biermann and Havlik (this issue) argue that we also need to break down binaries within traditional science systems by integrating critical social science research on restoration practice with natural science research for restoration practice. Allowing critical reflection on the values and logics that guide ecological restoration to enter the broader discussion of the field is a necessary first step in undoing the environmental and social injustices that persist through dominant restoration design.

Returning to the notion of “healing,” Robert France and Heather Braiden (this issue) discuss how healing is a necessary part of restoration practice to avoid restoration becoming a cognitive extension of processes that led to the initial damage (Kidner 2007). To do that, both thinking about and feeling restoration is necessary. They propose embodied methodologies as a way of better understanding restoration processes and practices in ways that acknowledge and integrate human–nature entanglements as reciprocal relations. They point to the works of Stephanie Mills (1995, 2007) and the notion of “re-storying,” suggesting that incorporating personal stories of engagement from local people through the planning process can help in understanding how people are intimately connected to the landscape, both in the past and the present (France and Braiden, this issue).

Conclusion

In this special issue, the authors explore the multifaceted and inherently social and political nature of environmental restoration. The diverse contributions from social scientists and critical scholars illuminate several key themes and questions that challenge conventional paradigms of restoration logics and practice while proposing alternative ways of knowing and doing restoration that centers diverse ways of knowing, relationality, and equity.

Firstly, the politics of care and repair in restoration highlight the epistemic, ontological, and ethical dimensions of this practice. Restoration is not merely a technical and apolitical process of ecological recovery but also a deeply social and political act that involves choices about what is restored, how, and for whom. The interventionist nature of restoration brings into question traditional notions of nature as a pristine and separate entity from human influence. Instead, restoration practices often create new kinds of ecologies and networks of collaboration that reflect the values and priorities of those involved in the process. Restoration is therefore a social practice that can involve naturecultural relations of care and repair but also a space of potential exploitation where dominant powerful actors can lead to the prioritization of certain species, habitats, and ecosystem services, enabling novel assemblages of nature as well as new social and ecological tradeoffs. By examining the underlying assumptions and logics within restoration, we can better understand the power dynamics and knowledge systems that inform these practices, and shape what ecologies come to be in different contexts.

Secondly, restoration is embedded in historical and socio-political contexts, raising important considerations for environmental justice. Restoration efforts can reproduce historical patterns of dominance and exploitation, particularly affecting marginalized communities. The interplay of restoration with existing power structures and economic interests can lead to inequitable outcomes, as restoration initiatives are often driven by Western scientific frameworks and financial imperatives. As such, restoration can emulate practices of ecological imperialism and green gentrification, producing consequences of displacement and dispossession. As private sector actors continue to engage restoration in ways that re-define ecologies and their services as commodifiable resources, we must continue to scrutinize the impacts of these practices and determine whether these actions can produce effective and sustainable change or are mere distractions from the root causes of environmental degradation. Recognizing the socio-political dimensions of restoration thus calls for a more inclusive approach that integrates diverse knowledge systems and addresses the socio-political underpinnings of root causes of ecological degradation. It also may point to other more transformative actions that can produce lasting restorative outcomes.

Thirdly, restoration is fundamentally a relational practice that engages human–ecological entanglements and responsibilities. The notion of relational repair emphasizes the need to go beyond technical fixes to consider restoration as a mutual practice of care and repair that acknowledges the interdependence between humans and nature. Engaging restoration as a relation practice recognizes that restoration is an ongoing process that involves continuous human engagement. A relational approach centering local and Indigenous knowledge, while fostering collaborative and community-based approaches, can enhance the sustainability and equity of restoration efforts. This relational perspective highlights the importance of addressing social harms and building back ecologies of care that recognize the interconnectedness of ecological and social well-being and the linked histories of exploitation and oppression that may have damaged both social and ecological systems.

As we move forward, it is crucial to reframe restoration away from a cure-all solution toward an ongoing process that requires critical reflection and adaptive management. By centering relationality, care, and plural knowledge systems, we can create more just and effective restoration practices that are responsive to local contexts and diverse perspectives. This special issue showcases the richness of critical social science perspectives on ecological restoration, offering valuable insights and directions for future research and practice. Ultimately, the work of ecological restoration in the Anthropocene demands a rethinking of our relationship with nature. It calls for a shift from viewing nature as a passive recipient of human intervention to recognizing it as an active participant in the process of repair. By embracing the complexity and diversity of restoration practices, we can move toward a more holistic and inclusive approach that addresses both ecological and social dimensions of environmental repair. The contributions in this special issue provide a foundation for such a transformative vision, encouraging ongoing dialogue and collaboration across disciplines and communities.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the helpful guidance and feedback from the editors of this journal, Amelia Moore, Jerry Jacka, and Chilton Tippin. We also thank the Dutch Research Council (NWO) for grant VI.Veni.221S.163 and the Nippon Foundation Ocean Nexus Center, which contributed to making this publication possible.

References

  • Adams, Cristina, Sidney T. Rodrigues, Miguel Calmon, and Chetan Kumar. 2016. “Impacts of Large-Scale Forest Restoration on Socioeconomic Status and Local Livelihoods: What We Know and Do Not Know.” Biotropica 48 (6): 731744.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allison, Edward H., John Kurien, Yoshitaka Ota, Dedi S. Adhuri, J. Maarten Bavinck, Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor, Michael Fabinyi, Svein Jentoft, Sallie Lau, Tabitha Grace Mallory, et al. 2023. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” In The Blue Compendium, ed. J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan, 393443. Cham: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allison, Stuart K. and Stephen D. Murphy. 2017. Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration. London: Routledge.

  • Anderson, Robert M., and Cleo Woelfle-Hazard. 2021. “Toward Pedagogies of Critical Restoration.” Antipode 4.

  • Asselin, Jodie. 2022. “Plantation Politics and Discourse: Forests and Property in Upland Ireland.” Economic Anthropology 9 (2): 336348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barra, Monica P. 2020. “Good Sediment: Race and Restoration in Coastal Louisiana.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (1): 266282.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayraktarov, Elisa M. I. Saunders, Sabah Abdullah, Morena Mills, Jutta Beher, Hugh P. Possingham, Peter J. Mumby, and Catherine E. Lovelock. 2015. “The Cost and Feasibility of Marine Restoration.” Ecological Applications 26 (4): 10551074.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayraktarov, Elisa, Shantala Brisbane, Valerie Hagger, Carter S. Smith, Kerrie A. Wilson, Catherine E. Lovelock, Chris Gillies, Andrew D. L. Steven, and Megan I. Saunders. 2020. “Priorities and Motivations of Marine Coastal Restoration Research.” Frontiers in Marine Science 7 (484).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Biermann, Christine, and Becky Mansfield. 2014. “Biodiversity, Purity, and Death: Conservation Biology as Biopolitics.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 (2): 257273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blaser, Mario. 2009. “The Threat of the Yrmo: The Political Ontology of a Sustainable Hunting Program.” American Anthropologist 11 (1): 1020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brancalion, Pedro H. S., and Karen D. Holl. 2020. “Guidance for Successful Tree Planting Initiatives.” Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (12): 23492361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braverman, Irus. 2018. Coral Whisperers: Scientists on the Brink. Oakland: University of California Press.

  • Brooks, Andrew, and Phil Hubbard. 2021. “Oysteropolis: Animals in Coastal Gentrification.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5 (3): 14951517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Büscher, Bram, and Robert Fletcher. 2019. “Towards Convivial Conservation.” Conservation and Society 17 (3): 283296.

  • Campbell, Lisa. 2007. “Local Conservation Practice and Global Discourse: A Political Ecology of Sea Turtle Conservation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (2): 313334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carse, Ashley 2012. “Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal watershed.” Social Studies of Science 42(4): 539563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carse, Ashley. 2022. “Mitigation.” Environmental Humanities 14 (3): 579583.

  • Child, Brian. 1996. “The Practice and Principles of Community-based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE Programme.” Biodiversity & Conservation 5: 369398.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christianen, Marjolijn J. A., W. Lengkeek, J. H. Bergsman, Joop W.P. Coolen, Karin Didderen, Martijn Dorenbosch, Floor Driessen, P. Kamermans, E. Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, Hein Sas, et al. 2018. “Return of the Native Facilitated by the Invasive? Population Composition, Substrate Preferences and Epibenthic Species Richness of a Recently Discovered Shellfish Reef with Native European Flat Oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the North Sea.” Marine Biology Research 14 (6): 590597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clare, Eli. 2014. “Meditations on Natural Worlds, Disabled Bodies, and a Politics of Cure.” In Material Ecocriticism, ed. Serenella Iovino and Serpil Oppermann, 204218. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cronon, William. 1996. “The Trouble with Wilderness. Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1 (1): 728.

  • Davies, Clive, and Rocío Santo-Tomás Muro. 2023. “Stewardship and Green Infrastructure in England. Planning Perspectives Informed through an Investigation of Urban Green Infrastructure.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 67 (12): 27482773.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeAngelis, Bryan, Anne Birch, Peter Malinowski, Stephan Abel, Jeff DeQuattro, Betsy Peabody, and Paul Dinnel. 2019. “A Variety of Approaches for Incorporating Community Outreach and Education in Oyster Reef Restoration Projects: Examples from the United States, in Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves,” ed. Øivind Strand, Joao G. Ferreira, Jens K Petersen, 335354. Cham: Springer Open.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dempsey, Jessica, and Morgan M. Robertson. 2012. “Ecosystem Services: Tensions, Impurities, and Points of Engagement within Neoliberalism.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (6): 758779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah, Ronald E. Ignace, Marianne B. Ignace, Shannon M. Hagerman, Lori D. Daniels, and Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz. 2022. “Walking on Two Legs: A Pathway of Indigenous Restoration and Reconciliation in Fire-Adapted Landscapes.” Restoration Ecology 30 (4): e13566.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donlan, Josh. 2005. “Re-wilding North America.” Nature 436 (7053): 913914.

  • Donovan, Geoffrey H., Jeffrey P. Prestemon, David T. Butry, Abigail R. Kaminski, and Vicente J. Monleon. 2021. “The Politics of Urban Trees: Tree Planting Is Associated with Gentrification in Portland, Oregon.” Forest Policy and Economics 124 (March): 102387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Duarte, Carlos M., Susana Agusti, Edward Barbier, Gregory L. Britten, Juan Carlos Castilla, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Robinson W. Fulweiler, Terry P. Hughes, Nancy Knowlton, and Catherine E. Lovelock, et al. 2020. “Rebuilding Marine Life.” Nature 580: 3951.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Duguma, Lalisa, Peter Minang, Ermias Aynekulu, Sammy Carsan, Judith Nzyoka, Alagie Bah, and Ramni Jamnadass. 2020. “From Tree Planting to Tree Growing: Rethinking Ecosystem Restoration through Trees.” ICRAF Working Paper No 304. World Agroforestry.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elias, Ann. 2019. Coral Empire: Underwater Oceans, Colonial Tropics, Visual Modernity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Elias, Marlène, Deepa Joshi, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2021. “Restoration for Whom, by Whom? A Feminist Political Ecology of Restoration.” Ecological Restoration 39 (1–2): 315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erbaugh, James T., Nabin Pradhan, James Adams, Johan A. Oldekop, Arun Agrawal, Dan Brockington, Rose Pritchard, and Ashwini Chhatre. 2020. “Global Forest Restoration and the Importance of Prioritizing Local Communities.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 4 (11): 14721476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Escobar, Arturo. 2021. “Designing as a Futural Praxis for Healing the Web of Life.” In Design in Crisis: New Worlds, Philosophies and Practices, ed. Tony Fry and A. J. Nocek 2542. New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Union. 2024. “Nature Restoration Law: A Regulation Supporting the Restoration of Ecosystems for People, the Climate and the Planet.” European Union official website: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en (accessed 7 July 2024).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., Heidi L. Ballard, and Victoria E. Sturtevant. 2008. “Adaptive Management and Social Learning in Collaborative and Community-Based Monitoring: A Study of Five Community-Based Forestry Organizations in the Western USA.” Ecology and Society 13 (2): 4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferse, Sebastian C.A., Margaux Y Hein, and Lena Rölfer. 2021. “A Survey of Current Trends and Suggested Future Directions in Coral Transplantation for Reef Restoration Editor.” PLOS ONE 16 (5): e0249966.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Finewood, Michael H. 2016. “Green Infrastructure, Grey Epistemologies, and the Urban Political Ecology of Pittsburgh's Water Governance.” Antipode 48 (4): 10001021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fleischman, Forrest, Shishir Basant, Ashwini Chhatre, Eric A. Coleman, Harry W. Fischer, Divya Gupta, Burak Güneralp, Prakash Kashwan, Dil Khatri, and Robert Muscarella, et al. 2020. “Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions.” BioScience 70 (11): 947950.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Floor, Judith R., Kris van Koppen, and Jan P.M. van Tatenhove. 2018. “Science, Uncertainty and Changing Storylines in Nature Restoration: The Case of Seagrass Restoration in the Dutch Wadden Sea.” Ocean & Coastal Management 157: 227236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fredriksen, Aurora. 2015. “Of Wildcats and Wild Cats: Troubling Species-Based Conservation in the Anthropocene.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4): 689705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frey, James B. and Fikret Berkes. 2014. “Can Partnerships and Community-Based Conservation Reverse the Decline of Coral Reef Social-Ecological Systems?International Journal of the Commons 8 (1): 2646.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gann, George D., Tein McDonald, Bethanie Walder, James Aronson, Cara R. Nelson, Justin Jonson, James G. Hallett, Cristina Eisenberg, Manuel R. Guariguata, and Junguo Liu. 2019. “International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology 27 (S1): S1S46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibbs, Mark T., Bridget L. Gibbs, Maxine Newlands, and Jordan Ivey. 2021. “Scaling Up the Global Reef Restoration Activity: Avoiding Ecological Imperialism and Ongoing Colonialism.” PLOS ONE 16 (5): e0250870.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • He, Tiehu, Weixin Ding, Xiaoli Cheng, Yanjiang Cai, Yulong Zhang, Huijuan Xia, Xia Wang, Jiehao Zhang, Kerong Zhang, and Quanfa Zhang. 2024. “Meta-Analysis Shows the Impacts of Ecological Restoration on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Nature Communications 15: 2668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hein, Margaux Y., Tali Vardi, Elizabeth C. Shaver, Sylvain Pioch, Lisa Boström-Einarsson, Mohamed Ahmed, Gabriel Grimsditch, and Ian M. McLeod. 2021. “Perspectives on the Use of Coral Reef Restoration as a Strategy to Support and Improve Reef Ecosystem Services.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 618303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helmreich, Stefan. 2005. “How Scientists Think; about ‘Natives’, for Example. A Problem of Taxonomy among Biologists of Alien Species in Hawaii.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11: 117128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hertog, Iris M., and Esther Turnhout. 2018. “Ideals and Pragmatism in the Justification of Ecological Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 26 (6):12211229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hesley, Dalton, Madeline Kaufman, and Diego Lirman. 2017. “Citizen Science Benefits Coral Reef Restoration Activities.” Journal for Nature Conservation 40 (2017): 9499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric. 2003. Nature By Design: People, Natural Processes, and Ecological Restoration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Higgs, Eric. 2005. “The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge.” Restoration Ecology 13 (1): 159164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric, and Richard Hobbs. 2010. “Wild Design: Principles to Guide Interventions in Protected Areas.” In Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change, ed. David N. Cole and Laury Yung. Washington DC: Island Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric, Donald A Falk, Anita Guerrini, Marcus Hall, Jim Harris, Richard J Hobbs, Stephen T Jackson, Jeanine M Rhemtulla, and William Throop. 2014. “The Changing Role of History in Restoration Ecology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (9): 499506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hörst, Doortje. 2021. “Caring for Seals and the Wadden Sea: Multispecies Entanglements in Seal Rehabilitation.” Maritime Studies 20 (3): 305316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huff, Amber, and Andrea Brock. 2023. “Introduction: Accumulation by Restoration and Political Ecologies of Repair.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 6 (4): 21132133.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hutchings, Jessica, Jo Smith, and Garth Harmsworth. 2018. “Elevating the Mana of Soil through the Hua Parakore Framework.” MAI Journal 7 (1): 92102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IPBES. 2019. “Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Eduardo Brondizio, Sandra Diaz, Josef Settele, and Hien T. Ngo (eds.). IPBES secretariat Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IPCC. 2019. “Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems.” Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Jim Skea, Eduardo Calvo Buendia, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Debra C. Roberts, Panmao Zhai, Raphael Slade, Sarah Connors, and Renée van Diemen, et al. (eds.). In press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Iyer, Venkat, Katy Mathias, David Meyers, Ray Victurine, and Melissa Walsh. 2018. “Finance Tools for Coral Reefs: A Guide.” https://www.icriforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/50+Reefs+Finance+Guide.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacob, Céline, Jan-Willem van Bochove, Suzanne Livingstone, Thomas White, John Pilgrim, and Leon Bennun. 2020. “Marine Biodiversity Offsets: Pragmatic Approaches toward Better Conservation Outcomes.” Conservation Letters 13 (3): 112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jones, Menna E., Glen C. Bain, Rowena P. Hamer, Kirstin M. Proft, Riana Z. Gardiner, Kirsty J. Dixon, Kawinwit Kittipalawattanapol, Ana L. Zepeda de Alba, Claire E. Ranyard, Sarah A. Munks, et al. 2021, “Research Supporting Restoration Aiming to Make a Fragmented Landscape ‘Functional’ for Native Wildlife.” Ecological Management & Restoration 22 (S2): 6574.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keulartz, Jozef. 2009. “Boundary Work in Ecological Restoration.” Environmental Philosophy 6 (1): 3555.

  • Kidner, David W. 2007. “Nature's Memory: Restoration and the Triumph of the Cognitive.” In Healing Natures, Repairing Relationships: New Perspectives on Restoring Ecological Spaces and Consciousness, ed. Robert L. France, 6994. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Green Frigate Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kimmerer, Robin. 2011. “Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” In Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration, ed. Dave Ehan, Evan E. Hjerpe, and Jesse Abrams, 257276. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kimmerer, Robin. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.

  • Kittinger, John N., Trisann M. Bambico, Dwayne Minton, Alyssa Miller, Manuel Mejia, Nahaku Kalei, Bradley Wong, and Edward W. Glazier. 2016. “Restoring Ecosystems, Restoring Community: Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions of a Community-Based Coral Reef Restoration Project.” Regional Environmental Change 16 (2): 301313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knuth, Sarah. 2019. “Cities and Planetary Repair: The Problem with Climate Retrofitting.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 51 (2): 487504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Koban, John. 2019. “Ecological Restoration or Healing?: Conflicting Ontologies and Missed Opportunities in Public Debates Surrounding Mississippi River Gorge Restoration.” Environmental Communication 14 (5): 582596.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kull, Christian A., Xavier Arnauld de Sartre, and Monica Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. “The Political Ecology of Ecosystem Services.” Geoforum 61 (2015): 122134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Law, John, and Solveig Joks. 2019. “Indigeneity, Science, and Difference: Notes on the Politics of How.” Science, Technology, & Human Value 44 (3): 424447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leach, Melissa. 2015. “What Is Green? Transforming Imperatives and Knowledge Politics.” In The Politics of Green Transformations, ed. Ian Scoons, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, 2538. New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leigh, Peter. 2005. “The Ecological Crisis, the Human Condition, and Community-Based Restoration as an Instrument for its Cure.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 9: 315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, Simon L., Charlotte E. Wheeler, Edward T. A. Mitchard, and Alexander Koch. 2019. “Restoring Natural Forests Is the Best Way to Remove Atmospheric Carbon.” Nature 568 (7750): 2528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Löfqvist, Sara, Rachael D. Garrett, and Jaboury Ghazoul. 2023. “Incentives and Barriers to Private Finance for Forest and Landscape Restoration.” Nature and Ecological Evolution 7: 707715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lorimer, Jamie. 2015. Wildlife in the Anthropocene. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Lundgren, Erick J., Daniel Ramp, Juliet C. Stromberg, Jianguo Wu, Nathan C. Nieto, Martin Sluk, Karla T. Moeller, and Adrian D. Wallach. 2021. “Equids Engineer Desert Water Availability.” Science 372 (6541): 491495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mabon, Leslie, Line Barkved, Karianne de Bruin, Wan-Yu Shih. 2022. “Whose Knowledge Counts in Nature-Based Solutions? Understanding Epistemic Justice for Nature-Based Solutions through a Multi-City Comparison across Europe and Asia.” Environmental Science & Policy 136: 652664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Martin, Laura J. 2022. Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Meesters, Marieke, Annet Pauwelussen, and Esther Turnhout. 2024. “The Politics of Amphibiousness: Shifting Coastal Management in the Netherlands.” Science, Technology and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241239768.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, Gifford H., Marilyn L. Fogel, John W. Magee, Michael K. Gagan, Simon J. Clarke, and Beverly J. Johnson. 2005. “Ecosystem Collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a Human Role in Megafaunal Extinction.” Science 309 (5732): 287290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mills, Stephanie. 1995. In Service of the Wild: Restoring and Reinhabiting Damaged Land. Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Mills, Stephanie. 2007. “Restoring and Renewing Whole Ways of Life.” In Healing Natures, Repairing Relationships: New Perspectives on Restoring Ecological Spaces and Consciousness, ed. Robert L. France, 117126. Sheffield, VT: Green Frigate Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mol, Annemarie. 1999. “Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions.” The Sociological Review 47 (1_suppl): 7489.

  • Moore, Amelia. 2012. “The Aquatic Invaders: Marine Management Figuring Fishermen, Fisheries, and Lionfish in The Bahamas.” Cultural Anthropology 27 (4): 667688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, Amelia. 2021. “We've Never Seen Anything Like It: Witnessing Coral Death and Resurrection.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 11 (2): 461474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morrison, Tiffany H., W. Neil Adger, Arun Agrawal, Katrina Brown, Matthew J. Hornsey, Terry P. Hughes, Meha Jain, Maria Carmen Lemos, Lucy Holmes McHugh, Saffron O'Neill, and Derek Van Berkel. 2022. “Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems.” Nature Climate Change 12: 11001106 (2022).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborne, Tracey, Samara Brock, Robin Chazdon, Susan Chomba, Eva Garen, Victoria Gutierrez, Rebecca Lave, Manon Lefevre, and Juanita Sundberg. 2021. “The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes.” Global Environmental Change 70: 102320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pardo, Juan Carlos Farias, Magnus Aune, Christopher Harman, Mats Walday, and Solrun Figenschau Skjellum. 2023. “A Synthesis Review of Nature Positive Approaches and Coexistence in the Offshore Wind Industry.” ICES Journal of Marine Science fsad191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parreñas, Juno. S., 2018. Decolonizing Extinction: The Work of Care in Orangutan Rehabilitation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Pascual, Unai, William M. Adams, Sandra Díaz, Sharachchandra Lele, Georgina M. Mace, and Esther Turnhout. 2021. “Biodiversity and the Challenge of Pluralism.” Nature Sustainability 4 (7): 567572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pauwelussen, Annet, and Gerard Verschoor. 2017. “Amphibious Encounters: Coral and People in Conservation Outreach in Indonesia.” Engaging Science, Technology and Society 3: 292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pauwelussen, Annet, and Shannon Switzer-Swansons. 2022. “Good Human-Turtle Relations in Indonesia: Intersecting Legalities in Sea Turtle Conservation.” In Laws of the Sea: Interdisciplinary Currents, ed. Irus Braverman. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pereira, Laura M., Kathryn K. Davies, Eefje den Belder, Simon Ferrier, Sylvia Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, HyeJin Kim, Jan J. Kuiper, Sana Okayasu, Maria G. Palomo, Henrique M. Pereira, et al. 2020. “Developing Multiscale and Integrative Nature–People Scenarios Using the Nature Futures Framework.” People and Nature 2 (4): 11721195.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. New York: Routledge.

  • Puig de la Bellacasa, Maria. 2017. Matters of Care. Speculative Ethics in More Than Human Worlds. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rana, Pushpendra, Forrest Fleischman, Vijay Ramprasad, and Kangjae Lee. 2022. “Predicting Wasteful Spending in Tree Planting Programs in Indian Himalaya.” World Development 154 (June): 105864.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reeder-Myers, Leslie, Todd J. Braje, Courtney A. Hofman, Emma A. Elliott Smith, Carey J. Garland, Michael Grone, Carla S. Hadden, Marco Hatch, Turner Hunt, and Alice Kelley. 2022. “Indigenous Oyster Fisheries Persisted for Millennia and Should Inform Future Management.” Nature Communications 13 (1): 113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Regalado, Francisca López, and Gerard Verschoor. 2020. “The Pebble in the Shoe: Gods on the Run, the Public, and the Politics of Life on the Nayarit Coast, Mexico.” Journal of Rural Studies 78: 292303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Robinson, James M., Nick Gellie, Danielle MacCarthy, Jacob G. Mills, Kim O'Donnell, and Nicole Redvers. 2021. “Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Ecology: A Call to Listen Deeply, to Engage with, and Respect Indigenous Voices.” Restoration Ecology 29 (4): e13381.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Safransky, Sara. 2014. “Greening the Urban Frontier: Race, Property, and Resettlement in Detroit.” Geoforum 56 (September): 237248.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Safransky, Sara. 2017. “Rethinking Land Struggle in the Postindustrial City.” Antipode 49 (4): 10791100.

  • Sasmito, Sigit D., Mohammad Basyuni, Age Kridalaksana, Meli F. Saragi-Sasmito, Catherine E. Lovelock, and Daniel Murdiyarso. 2023. “Challenges and Opportunities for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals through Restoration of Indonesia's Mangroves.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 7: 6270.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schuster, Joshua. 2019. “Coral Cultures in the Anthropocene.” Cultural Studies Review 25 (1): 85102.

  • Shcheglovitova, Mariya. 2020. “Valuing Plants in Devalued Spaces: Caring for Baltimore's Street Trees.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 3 (1): 228245.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Steins, Nathalie A., Jeroen A. Veraart, Judith E.M. Klostermann, and Marnix Poelman. 2021. “Combining Offshore Wind Farms, Nature Conservation and Seafood: Lessons from a Dutch Community of Practice.” Marine Policy 126: 104371.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strassburg, Bernardo B.N., Alvaro Iribarrem, Hawthorne L. Beyer, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato Crouzeilles, Catarina C. Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Eduardo Lacerda, Agnieszka E. Latawiec, and Andrew Balmford, et al. 2020. “Global Priority Areas for Ecosystem Restoration.” Nature 586: 724729.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Suggett, David J., James Guest, Emma F. Camp, Alasdair Edwards, Liz Goergen, Margaux Hein, Adriana Humanes, Jessica S. Levy, Phanor H. Montoya-Maya, David J. Smith, et al. 2024. Restoration as a meaningful aid to ecological recovery of coral reefs. npj Ocean Sustainability 3(1): 14.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Swart, Jacques A. A., Henny J. Van Der Windt, and Jozef Keulartz. 2001. “Valuation of Nature in Conservation and Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 9 (2): 230238.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thompson, Charis. 2002. “When Elephants Stand for Competing Philosophies of Nature: Amboseli National Park, Kenya.” In Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, ed. John Law and Annemarie Mol, 166190. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tomblin, David. C. 2009. “The Ecological Restoration Movement: Diverse Cultures of Practice and Place.” Organization & Environment 22 (2): 185207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026609338165

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Vandenberg, Jessica. 2020. “The Risk of Dispossession in the Aquapelago: A Coral Reef Restoration Case in the Spermonde Islands.” Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures 14 (2).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wakefield, Stephanie. 2020. “Making Nature into Infrastructure: The Construction of Oysters as a Risk Management Solution in New York City.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 3 (3): 761785.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Waltham, Nathan J, Michael Elliott, Shing Yip Lee, Catherine Lovelock, Carlos M. Duarte, Christine Buelow, Charles Simestad, et al. 2020. “UN Decade on Ecosystem Degradation 2021–2030: What Chance for Success in Restoring Coastal Ecosystems?Frontiers in Marine Science 7: 71.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Watkins, Shannon Lea, Jess Vogt, Sarah K. Mincey, Burnell C. Fischer, Rachael A. Bergmann, Sarah E. Widney, Lynne M. Westphal, and Sean Sweeney. 2018. “Does Collaborative Tree Planting between Nonprofits and Neighborhood Groups Improve Neighborhood Community Capacity?Cities 74: 8399.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Woelfle-Erskine, Cleo. 2019. “Beavers as Commoners? Invitations to River Restoration Work in a Beavery Mode.” Community Development Journal 54 (1): 100118.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhu, Annah Lake, Niklas Weins, Juliet Lu, Tyler Harlan, Jin Qian, Fabiana Barbi Seleguim. 2024. “China's Nature-Based Solutions in the Global South: Evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.” Global Environmental Change 86: 102842.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zwerschke, Nadescha, Henk van Rein, Chris Harrod, Carl Reddin, Mark C. Emmerson, Dai Roberts, and Nessa E. O'Connor. 2018. “Competition between Co-Occurring Invasive and Native Consumers Switches between Habitats.” Functional Ecology 32 (11): 27172729.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Contributor Notes

ANNET PAUWELUSSEN works as assistant professor with the Environmental Policy group at Wageningen University (the Netherlands), and is collaborating professor with the Ocean Nexus Center. She combines anthropology with feminist STS and political ecology to study environmental justice and the role of knowledge and values in marine conservation and restoration in Southeast Asia and Europe. Her current project, The Future of Past Reefs, focuses on plural nature perspectives, the politics of care, and multispecies relations in oyster reef rehabilitation across the North Atlantic. Email: annet.pauwelussen@wur.nl

JESSICA VANDENBERG is a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard University and a research fellow at the Ocean Nexus Center. Drawing on political ecology, critical social sciences, and multi-modal ethnographic methods, her research explores questions of power, knowledge, and equity related to ocean governance. Her current research focuses on the rise of corporate environmental governance in marine restoration and ocean pollution practices, and the paths toward decolonizing these spaces that prioritize diverse ways of knowing, reflexive and relational thinking, and naturecultural relations. Email: jvandenberg@seas.harvard.edu

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Environment and Society

Advances in Research

  • Adams, Cristina, Sidney T. Rodrigues, Miguel Calmon, and Chetan Kumar. 2016. “Impacts of Large-Scale Forest Restoration on Socioeconomic Status and Local Livelihoods: What We Know and Do Not Know.” Biotropica 48 (6): 731744.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allison, Edward H., John Kurien, Yoshitaka Ota, Dedi S. Adhuri, J. Maarten Bavinck, Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor, Michael Fabinyi, Svein Jentoft, Sallie Lau, Tabitha Grace Mallory, et al. 2023. “The Human Relationship with Our Ocean Planet.” In The Blue Compendium, ed. J. Lubchenco and P. M. Haugan, 393443. Cham: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allison, Stuart K. and Stephen D. Murphy. 2017. Routledge Handbook of Ecological and Environmental Restoration. London: Routledge.

  • Anderson, Robert M., and Cleo Woelfle-Hazard. 2021. “Toward Pedagogies of Critical Restoration.” Antipode 4.

  • Asselin, Jodie. 2022. “Plantation Politics and Discourse: Forests and Property in Upland Ireland.” Economic Anthropology 9 (2): 336348.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barra, Monica P. 2020. “Good Sediment: Race and Restoration in Coastal Louisiana.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 111 (1): 266282.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayraktarov, Elisa M. I. Saunders, Sabah Abdullah, Morena Mills, Jutta Beher, Hugh P. Possingham, Peter J. Mumby, and Catherine E. Lovelock. 2015. “The Cost and Feasibility of Marine Restoration.” Ecological Applications 26 (4): 10551074.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bayraktarov, Elisa, Shantala Brisbane, Valerie Hagger, Carter S. Smith, Kerrie A. Wilson, Catherine E. Lovelock, Chris Gillies, Andrew D. L. Steven, and Megan I. Saunders. 2020. “Priorities and Motivations of Marine Coastal Restoration Research.” Frontiers in Marine Science 7 (484).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Biermann, Christine, and Becky Mansfield. 2014. “Biodiversity, Purity, and Death: Conservation Biology as Biopolitics.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32 (2): 257273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blaser, Mario. 2009. “The Threat of the Yrmo: The Political Ontology of a Sustainable Hunting Program.” American Anthropologist 11 (1): 1020.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brancalion, Pedro H. S., and Karen D. Holl. 2020. “Guidance for Successful Tree Planting Initiatives.” Journal of Applied Ecology 57 (12): 23492361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braverman, Irus. 2018. Coral Whisperers: Scientists on the Brink. Oakland: University of California Press.

  • Brooks, Andrew, and Phil Hubbard. 2021. “Oysteropolis: Animals in Coastal Gentrification.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 5 (3): 14951517.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Büscher, Bram, and Robert Fletcher. 2019. “Towards Convivial Conservation.” Conservation and Society 17 (3): 283296.

  • Campbell, Lisa. 2007. “Local Conservation Practice and Global Discourse: A Political Ecology of Sea Turtle Conservation.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 97 (2): 313334.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carse, Ashley 2012. “Nature as infrastructure: Making and managing the Panama Canal watershed.” Social Studies of Science 42(4): 539563.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carse, Ashley. 2022. “Mitigation.” Environmental Humanities 14 (3): 579583.

  • Child, Brian. 1996. “The Practice and Principles of Community-based Wildlife Management in Zimbabwe: The CAMPFIRE Programme.” Biodiversity & Conservation 5: 369398.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Christianen, Marjolijn J. A., W. Lengkeek, J. H. Bergsman, Joop W.P. Coolen, Karin Didderen, Martijn Dorenbosch, Floor Driessen, P. Kamermans, E. Reuchlin-Hugenholtz, Hein Sas, et al. 2018. “Return of the Native Facilitated by the Invasive? Population Composition, Substrate Preferences and Epibenthic Species Richness of a Recently Discovered Shellfish Reef with Native European Flat Oysters (Ostrea edulis) in the North Sea.” Marine Biology Research 14 (6): 590597.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Clare, Eli. 2014. “Meditations on Natural Worlds, Disabled Bodies, and a Politics of Cure.” In Material Ecocriticism, ed. Serenella Iovino and Serpil Oppermann, 204218. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cronon, William. 1996. “The Trouble with Wilderness. Or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature.” Environmental History 1 (1): 728.

  • Davies, Clive, and Rocío Santo-Tomás Muro. 2023. “Stewardship and Green Infrastructure in England. Planning Perspectives Informed through an Investigation of Urban Green Infrastructure.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 67 (12): 27482773.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeAngelis, Bryan, Anne Birch, Peter Malinowski, Stephan Abel, Jeff DeQuattro, Betsy Peabody, and Paul Dinnel. 2019. “A Variety of Approaches for Incorporating Community Outreach and Education in Oyster Reef Restoration Projects: Examples from the United States, in Goods and Services of Marine Bivalves,” ed. Øivind Strand, Joao G. Ferreira, Jens K Petersen, 335354. Cham: Springer Open.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dempsey, Jessica, and Morgan M. Robertson. 2012. “Ecosystem Services: Tensions, Impurities, and Points of Engagement within Neoliberalism.” Progress in Human Geography 36 (6): 758779.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dickson-Hoyle, Sarah, Ronald E. Ignace, Marianne B. Ignace, Shannon M. Hagerman, Lori D. Daniels, and Kelsey Copes-Gerbitz. 2022. “Walking on Two Legs: A Pathway of Indigenous Restoration and Reconciliation in Fire-Adapted Landscapes.” Restoration Ecology 30 (4): e13566.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Donlan, Josh. 2005. “Re-wilding North America.” Nature 436 (7053): 913914.

  • Donovan, Geoffrey H., Jeffrey P. Prestemon, David T. Butry, Abigail R. Kaminski, and Vicente J. Monleon. 2021. “The Politics of Urban Trees: Tree Planting Is Associated with Gentrification in Portland, Oregon.” Forest Policy and Economics 124 (March): 102387.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Duarte, Carlos M., Susana Agusti, Edward Barbier, Gregory L. Britten, Juan Carlos Castilla, Jean-Pierre Gattuso, Robinson W. Fulweiler, Terry P. Hughes, Nancy Knowlton, and Catherine E. Lovelock, et al. 2020. “Rebuilding Marine Life.” Nature 580: 3951.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Duguma, Lalisa, Peter Minang, Ermias Aynekulu, Sammy Carsan, Judith Nzyoka, Alagie Bah, and Ramni Jamnadass. 2020. “From Tree Planting to Tree Growing: Rethinking Ecosystem Restoration through Trees.” ICRAF Working Paper No 304. World Agroforestry.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elias, Ann. 2019. Coral Empire: Underwater Oceans, Colonial Tropics, Visual Modernity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Elias, Marlène, Deepa Joshi, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2021. “Restoration for Whom, by Whom? A Feminist Political Ecology of Restoration.” Ecological Restoration 39 (1–2): 315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erbaugh, James T., Nabin Pradhan, James Adams, Johan A. Oldekop, Arun Agrawal, Dan Brockington, Rose Pritchard, and Ashwini Chhatre. 2020. “Global Forest Restoration and the Importance of Prioritizing Local Communities.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 4 (11): 14721476.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Escobar, Arturo. 2021. “Designing as a Futural Praxis for Healing the Web of Life.” In Design in Crisis: New Worlds, Philosophies and Practices, ed. Tony Fry and A. J. Nocek 2542. New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • European Union. 2024. “Nature Restoration Law: A Regulation Supporting the Restoration of Ecosystems for People, the Climate and the Planet.” European Union official website: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en (accessed 7 July 2024).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fernandez-Gimenez, Maria E., Heidi L. Ballard, and Victoria E. Sturtevant. 2008. “Adaptive Management and Social Learning in Collaborative and Community-Based Monitoring: A Study of Five Community-Based Forestry Organizations in the Western USA.” Ecology and Society 13 (2): 4.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferse, Sebastian C.A., Margaux Y Hein, and Lena Rölfer. 2021. “A Survey of Current Trends and Suggested Future Directions in Coral Transplantation for Reef Restoration Editor.” PLOS ONE 16 (5): e0249966.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Finewood, Michael H. 2016. “Green Infrastructure, Grey Epistemologies, and the Urban Political Ecology of Pittsburgh's Water Governance.” Antipode 48 (4): 10001021.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fleischman, Forrest, Shishir Basant, Ashwini Chhatre, Eric A. Coleman, Harry W. Fischer, Divya Gupta, Burak Güneralp, Prakash Kashwan, Dil Khatri, and Robert Muscarella, et al. 2020. “Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions.” BioScience 70 (11): 947950.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Floor, Judith R., Kris van Koppen, and Jan P.M. van Tatenhove. 2018. “Science, Uncertainty and Changing Storylines in Nature Restoration: The Case of Seagrass Restoration in the Dutch Wadden Sea.” Ocean & Coastal Management 157: 227236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fredriksen, Aurora. 2015. “Of Wildcats and Wild Cats: Troubling Species-Based Conservation in the Anthropocene.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 34 (4): 689705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frey, James B. and Fikret Berkes. 2014. “Can Partnerships and Community-Based Conservation Reverse the Decline of Coral Reef Social-Ecological Systems?International Journal of the Commons 8 (1): 2646.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gann, George D., Tein McDonald, Bethanie Walder, James Aronson, Cara R. Nelson, Justin Jonson, James G. Hallett, Cristina Eisenberg, Manuel R. Guariguata, and Junguo Liu. 2019. “International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology 27 (S1): S1S46.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gibbs, Mark T., Bridget L. Gibbs, Maxine Newlands, and Jordan Ivey. 2021. “Scaling Up the Global Reef Restoration Activity: Avoiding Ecological Imperialism and Ongoing Colonialism.” PLOS ONE 16 (5): e0250870.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • He, Tiehu, Weixin Ding, Xiaoli Cheng, Yanjiang Cai, Yulong Zhang, Huijuan Xia, Xia Wang, Jiehao Zhang, Kerong Zhang, and Quanfa Zhang. 2024. “Meta-Analysis Shows the Impacts of Ecological Restoration on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Nature Communications 15: 2668.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hein, Margaux Y., Tali Vardi, Elizabeth C. Shaver, Sylvain Pioch, Lisa Boström-Einarsson, Mohamed Ahmed, Gabriel Grimsditch, and Ian M. McLeod. 2021. “Perspectives on the Use of Coral Reef Restoration as a Strategy to Support and Improve Reef Ecosystem Services.” Frontiers in Marine Science 8: 618303.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Helmreich, Stefan. 2005. “How Scientists Think; about ‘Natives’, for Example. A Problem of Taxonomy among Biologists of Alien Species in Hawaii.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 11: 117128.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hertog, Iris M., and Esther Turnhout. 2018. “Ideals and Pragmatism in the Justification of Ecological Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 26 (6):12211229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hesley, Dalton, Madeline Kaufman, and Diego Lirman. 2017. “Citizen Science Benefits Coral Reef Restoration Activities.” Journal for Nature Conservation 40 (2017): 9499.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric. 2003. Nature By Design: People, Natural Processes, and Ecological Restoration. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Higgs, Eric. 2005. “The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge.” Restoration Ecology 13 (1): 159164.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric, and Richard Hobbs. 2010. “Wild Design: Principles to Guide Interventions in Protected Areas.” In Beyond Naturalness: Rethinking Park and Wilderness Stewardship in an Era of Rapid Change, ed. David N. Cole and Laury Yung. Washington DC: Island Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Higgs, Eric, Donald A Falk, Anita Guerrini, Marcus Hall, Jim Harris, Richard J Hobbs, Stephen T Jackson, Jeanine M Rhemtulla, and William Throop. 2014. “The Changing Role of History in Restoration Ecology.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 (9): 499506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hörst, Doortje. 2021. “Caring for Seals and the Wadden Sea: Multispecies Entanglements in Seal Rehabilitation.” Maritime Studies 20 (3): 305316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Huff, Amber, and Andrea Brock. 2023. “Introduction: Accumulation by Restoration and Political Ecologies of Repair.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 6 (4): 21132133.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hutchings, Jessica, Jo Smith, and Garth Harmsworth. 2018. “Elevating the Mana of Soil through the Hua Parakore Framework.” MAI Journal 7 (1): 92102.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IPBES. 2019. “Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Eduardo Brondizio, Sandra Diaz, Josef Settele, and Hien T. Ngo (eds.). IPBES secretariat Bonn, Germany. 1148 pages. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IPCC. 2019. “Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems.” Priyadarshi R. Shukla, Jim Skea, Eduardo Calvo Buendia, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Debra C. Roberts, Panmao Zhai, Raphael Slade, Sarah Connors, and Renée van Diemen, et al. (eds.). In press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Iyer, Venkat, Katy Mathias, David Meyers, Ray Victurine, and Melissa Walsh. 2018. “Finance Tools for Coral Reefs: A Guide.” https://www.icriforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/50+Reefs+Finance+Guide.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jacob, Céline, Jan-Willem van Bochove, Suzanne Livingstone, Thomas White, John Pilgrim, and Leon Bennun. 2020. “Marine Biodiversity Offsets: Pragmatic Approaches toward Better Conservation Outcomes.” Conservation Letters 13 (3): 112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jones, Menna E., Glen C. Bain, Rowena P. Hamer, Kirstin M. Proft, Riana Z. Gardiner, Kirsty J. Dixon, Kawinwit Kittipalawattanapol, Ana L. Zepeda de Alba, Claire E. Ranyard, Sarah A. Munks, et al. 2021, “Research Supporting Restoration Aiming to Make a Fragmented Landscape ‘Functional’ for Native Wildlife.” Ecological Management & Restoration 22 (S2): 6574.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Keulartz, Jozef. 2009. “Boundary Work in Ecological Restoration.” Environmental Philosophy 6 (1): 3555.

  • Kidner, David W. 2007. “Nature's Memory: Restoration and the Triumph of the Cognitive.” In Healing Natures, Repairing Relationships: New Perspectives on Restoring Ecological Spaces and Consciousness, ed. Robert L. France, 6994. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Green Frigate Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kimmerer, Robin. 2011. “Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge.” In Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration, ed. Dave Ehan, Evan E. Hjerpe, and Jesse Abrams, 257276. Washington, DC: Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kimmerer, Robin. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.

  • Kittinger, John N., Trisann M. Bambico, Dwayne Minton, Alyssa Miller, Manuel Mejia, Nahaku Kalei, Bradley Wong, and Edward W. Glazier. 2016. “Restoring Ecosystems, Restoring Community: Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions of a Community-Based Coral Reef Restoration Project.” Regional Environmental Change 16 (2): 301313.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knuth, Sarah. 2019. “Cities and Planetary Repair: The Problem with Climate Retrofitting.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 51 (2): 487504.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Koban, John. 2019. “Ecological Restoration or Healing?: Conflicting Ontologies and Missed Opportunities in Public Debates Surrounding Mississippi River Gorge Restoration.” Environmental Communication 14 (5): 582596.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kull, Christian A., Xavier Arnauld de Sartre, and Monica Castro-Larrañaga. 2015. “The Political Ecology of Ecosystem Services.” Geoforum 61 (2015): 122134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Law, John, and Solveig Joks. 2019. “Indigeneity, Science, and Difference: Notes on the Politics of How.” Science, Technology, & Human Value 44 (3): 424447.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leach, Melissa. 2015. “What Is Green? Transforming Imperatives and Knowledge Politics.” In The Politics of Green Transformations, ed. Ian Scoons, Melissa Leach, and Peter Newell, 2538. New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leigh, Peter. 2005. “The Ecological Crisis, the Human Condition, and Community-Based Restoration as an Instrument for its Cure.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 9: 315.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lewis, Simon L., Charlotte E. Wheeler, Edward T. A. Mitchard, and Alexander Koch. 2019. “Restoring Natural Forests Is the Best Way to Remove Atmospheric Carbon.” Nature 568 (7750): 2528.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Löfqvist, Sara, Rachael D. Garrett, and Jaboury Ghazoul. 2023. “Incentives and Barriers to Private Finance for Forest and Landscape Restoration.” Nature and Ecological Evolution 7: 707715.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lorimer, Jamie. 2015. Wildlife in the Anthropocene. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Lundgren, Erick J., Daniel Ramp, Juliet C. Stromberg, Jianguo Wu, Nathan C. Nieto, Martin Sluk, Karla T. Moeller, and Adrian D. Wallach. 2021. “Equids Engineer Desert Water Availability.” Science 372 (6541): 491495.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mabon, Leslie, Line Barkved, Karianne de Bruin, Wan-Yu Shih. 2022. “Whose Knowledge Counts in Nature-Based Solutions? Understanding Epistemic Justice for Nature-Based Solutions through a Multi-City Comparison across Europe and Asia.” Environmental Science & Policy 136: 652664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Martin, Laura J. 2022. Wild by Design: The Rise of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

  • Meesters, Marieke, Annet Pauwelussen, and Esther Turnhout. 2024. “The Politics of Amphibiousness: Shifting Coastal Management in the Netherlands.” Science, Technology and Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/01622439241239768.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Miller, Gifford H., Marilyn L. Fogel, John W. Magee, Michael K. Gagan, Simon J. Clarke, and Beverly J. Johnson. 2005. “Ecosystem Collapse in Pleistocene Australia and a Human Role in Megafaunal Extinction.” Science 309 (5732): 287290.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mills, Stephanie. 1995. In Service of the Wild: Restoring and Reinhabiting Damaged Land. Boston: Beacon Press.

  • Mills, Stephanie. 2007. “Restoring and Renewing Whole Ways of Life.” In Healing Natures, Repairing Relationships: New Perspectives on Restoring Ecological Spaces and Consciousness, ed. Robert L. France, 117126. Sheffield, VT: Green Frigate Books.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mol, Annemarie. 1999. “Ontological Politics. A Word and Some Questions.” The Sociological Review 47 (1_suppl): 7489.

  • Moore, Amelia. 2012. “The Aquatic Invaders: Marine Management Figuring Fishermen, Fisheries, and Lionfish in The Bahamas.” Cultural Anthropology 27 (4): 667688.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, Amelia. 2021. “We've Never Seen Anything Like It: Witnessing Coral Death and Resurrection.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 11 (2): 461474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Morrison, Tiffany H., W. Neil Adger, Arun Agrawal, Katrina Brown, Matthew J. Hornsey, Terry P. Hughes, Meha Jain, Maria Carmen Lemos, Lucy Holmes McHugh, Saffron O'Neill, and Derek Van Berkel. 2022. “Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems.” Nature Climate Change 12: 11001106 (2022).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborne, Tracey, Samara Brock, Robin Chazdon, Susan Chomba, Eva Garen, Victoria Gutierrez, Rebecca Lave, Manon Lefevre, and Juanita Sundberg. 2021. “The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes.” Global Environmental Change 70: 102320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pardo, Juan Carlos Farias, Magnus Aune, Christopher Harman, Mats Walday, and Solrun Figenschau Skjellum. 2023. “A Synthesis Review of Nature Positive Approaches and Coexistence in the Offshore Wind Industry.” ICES Journal of Marine Science fsad191.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parreñas, Juno. S., 2018. Decolonizing Extinction: The Work of Care in Orangutan Rehabilitation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

  • Pascual, Unai, William M. Adams, Sandra Díaz, Sharachchandra Lele, Georgina M. Mace, and Esther Turnhout. 2021. “Biodiversity and the Challenge of Pluralism.” Nature Sustainability 4 (7): 567572.