Hobbs, R J, Harris, J A. 2001. Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth’s Ecosystems in the New Millennium. Restoration Ecology 9(2): 239-246
Introduces the idea of restoration ecology and highlights the importance of using criteria to develop a restoration plan and the use of post restoration studies to judge success.
Hobbs, RJ; Higgs, E; Harris, JA. 2009. Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 24( 11): 599-605.
Important in that it questions the logic of restoring back to a previous state, which we think is illogical in many instances, but dangerous in that it might be seen by designers as a green light to create new landscapes not based on ecology.
Palmer, M. A. (2009). Reforming watershed restoration: science in need of application and applications in need of science. Estuaries and Coasts, 32, 1–17.
Critiques a number of practices being used today that are ineffective and calls for the incorporation of informed ecology into restoration.
Jackson, S. T., and R. J. Hobbs. 2009. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 325:567-569.
Highlights the need for restoration practitioners to consider restoration goals through multiple lenses. The idea that restoration must consider history, but must also be grounded in a forward-looking approach that considers variability and climate change is extremely important.
Palmer, MA; Filoso, S. 2009. Restoration of Ecosystem Services for Environmental Markets SCIENCE, 325 (5940): 575-576.
Since designers are often brought into projects that have received funding through environmental markets, it’s imperative that we understand the inherent risks and limitations associated with restoration. Without this understanding, we run the risk of “restoring ecosystem services” only on paper, with no real-world benefit, after millions of dollars have been spent.
Nadasdy, P. 2007. Adaptive Co-Management and the Gospel of Resilience. In Adaptive Co-Mangement: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance, eds. D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N. Doubleday. Toronto, Ontario: University of British Columbia Press.
An important paper that questions the socio-political context in which adaptive co-management (or restoration) occurs. Informed designers need to be aware of who they are restoring for, and how this affects marginalized populations.
Kosoy, N. and Corbera, E. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological Economics 69: 1228-1236.
An important perspective from outside the paradigm of capitalism. Viewing ecological and social problems from all viewpoints is essential for a complete understanding of the issues.Lundholm, J.T. and P.J. Richardson. 2010. Habitat analogues for reconciliation ecology in urban and industrial environments. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47 (5): 966-975.
This article encourages restoration practitioners to enhance ecological function in a degraded urban or industrial environment by drawing on the ecologies of analagous sites rather than looking to local and/or historical models that no longer fit. Since much design and planning addresses these degraded post-industrial sites, this model is well adapted to site-specific design solutions. Complex ecological issues are put forth in an enlightening and readable manner.
Peter W. Dunwiddie, Sonia A. Hall, et al. 2009. Rethinking Conservation Practice in Light of Climate Change. Ecological Restoration 27:3
This is an on-the-ground look at what some agencies are doing to restore ecosystems in the specter of climate change. Case studies and the logic behind the projects offer new ways of looking at such problems.
Groot, R.S. de; Alkemade, J.R.M.; Braat, L.; Hein, L.G.; Willemen, L.L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7: 260-272.
This is an excellent introduction to the idea of restoring landscapes based on the concept of ecosystem services that also cautions designers about the complexity of ecosystem services. It’s important in that it provides a possible framework to guide future restoration projects, but also discusses the potential pitfalls associated with this landscape valuation.
Funk, JL; Cleland, EE; Suding, KN; Zavaleta, ES. 2008. Restoration through reassembly: plant traits and invasion resistance. TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION 23 (12):695-703.
This paper gives readers an idea about the truly complex nature of the invasive-native relationship, while also introducing ecological theory in an accessible way. It also highlights a method for preventing the spread of invasive species through a designed landscape.