Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, Tein
dc.contributor.authorAronson, J.
dc.contributor.authorEisenberg, C.
dc.contributor.authorGann, G.
dc.contributor.authorDixon, Kingsley
dc.contributor.authorHallett, J.
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-19T04:14:41Z
dc.date.available2019-02-19T04:14:41Z
dc.date.created2019-02-19T03:58:38Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationMcDonald, T. and Aronson, J. and Eisenberg, C. and Gann, G. and Dixon, K. and Hallett, J. 2019. The SER Standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature-culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis. Restoration Ecology.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/73765
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/rec.12913
dc.description.abstract

© 2019 Society for Ecological Restoration Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social-ecological restoration.

dc.publisherBlackwell Science Inc.
dc.titleThe SER Standards, cultural ecosystems, and the nature-culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis
dc.typeJournal Article
dcterms.source.issn1061-2971
dcterms.source.titleRestoration Ecology
curtin.departmentSchool of Molecular and Life Sciences (MLS)
curtin.accessStatusFulltext not available


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record