RESTORATION AS AN ETHNOBIOLOGICAL PURSUIT: AN INTEGRATED RESTORATION PROGRAM FOR TORONTO’S

BLACK OAK SAVANNAHS

MAIS 701: Integrated Project 1

Final project

Submitted By: Zoe Dalton

Submitted To: Dr. Leslie Johnson

Date: January 19, 2004

2

Table of Contents:

Preface:................................................................................................3

Introduction:........................................................................................5

Chapter 1: A Primer on Urban Ecological Restoration.......................10

Chapter 2: Bringing Together Restoration and Ethnobiology: Enrichment through

Integration..................................................................15

Chapter 3: Applying Lessons Learned: Considerations in Developing an Urban

Restoration Program...................................................21

Chapter 4: The Program: Process Establishment and Site Design.....31

Chapter 5: Conclusions: Why Restoration Success is so Rooted in Integrating

Practice with Ethnobiological Understandings..........62

Bibliography:.....................................................................................66

List of Figures:

Figure 1: Summer in the Black Oak Savannah ..…………………..32

Figure 2: Location of High Park in the Greater Toronto Area…….33

Figure 3: High Park Within Its Urban Context…………………….35

Figure 4: Garlic Mustard in Forest Understory……………………38

Figure 5: Distribution of Black Oak Savannahs in High Park……..43

Figure 6: Activity and Recovery Zones Within High Park………..45

Figure 7: The High Park Black Oak Site..………...……………….46

3

Preface:

This research project aims to initiate a dialogue between the hitherto little linked

fields of restoration ecology and ethnobiology. The project focuses on the development

of a best practices restoration program for southern Ontario’s most significant Black Oak

savannahs, the thirty-hectare urban remnant in Toronto’s High Park. The best practices

program is rooted in integrating restoration activities within the context of

ethnobiological understandings. The project aims to illuminate linkages in the

disciplinary focuses of restoration ecology and ethnobiology in an attempt to further the

potential of restoration in its mandate of improving not only the biophysical environment,

but also the relationship between people and the natural world. The paper highlights areas

of overlap in the two fields in an attempt to indicate how restoration may become more

fully developed through integration with ethnobiology.

Restorationists cite the restoration process as important in allowing a reentry of

humans into nature by providing an opportunity for people to participate in the act of

healing degraded ecosystems. However, the process of exploring the relationship between

people and their environment, and between culture and nature, is relatively

underdeveloped in the literature of the discipline. As such, this project focuses on the way

in which restoration ecology, as a process of exploring the culture:nature relationship

through an ethnobiological lens, can become an effective conduit for modern urban

dwellers to establish a cognitive-affective bond with their surrounding natural

environment.

The project involves both a theoretical exploration of the urban restoration

literature, and the development of a practical program plan for restoration in Toronto’s

4

Black Oak savannah system. The program design, highlighted in Chapters 3 and 4,

focuses on guidelines and best practices for a restoration program in this ecosystem. Such

guidelines are firmly rooted in the integrated restoration – ethnobiology insights gained in

the early chapters of this work, and represent an attempt to negotiate the issues involved

in restoring an urban remnant of an endangered ecosystem within the context of

community needs and desires. Through this investigation into what makes a ‘good

restoration’, an attempt is made to illustrate the following: Viewing restoration as an

ethnobiological pursuit, in which the process is understood to be a negotiation of the

human-nature relationship, allows us to design restoration such that this relationship can

be most effectively deepened.

As discussed throughout the paper, the need for developing a deeper human-

nature relationship is most urgently felt in urban areas, in which there is minimal

opportunity for meaningful interaction with the natural environment, and where the

connection between people and the natural world is typically weak. Restoration in urban

areas is thus argued to be of utmost importance if we are to strengthen the human-nature

connection beginning where it is weakest. This project thus focuses on exploring how,

through integrating restoration and ethnobiological understandings, we can begin to

develop a meaningful connection between humans and the natural world in the nature-

limited urban context.

5

Introduction:

This project evolved out of a period of intensive research into the restoration of

urban ecosystems. Such research was based on an ethnobiological interest in

investigating the current status of the human-nature relationship in urban areas. It was felt

that this interest could not be adequately pursued without simultaneously exploring the

ways in which such a relationship, or lack thereof, could be addressed so as to aid the

urban majority in developing a consciousness of respect towards the natural world.

Much restoration research and literature focus on the technical tasks involved in

rehabilitating and restoring degraded natural environments (Clewell et al., 2000;

Morrison, 2001; SER, 2002). Increasingly, however, a significant amount of effort is

being put towards exploring the ways in which the restoration process can influence the

relationship between people and the natural world.

Nowhere is the need to build a relationship so dramatically apparent as in the

urban context. With an ever-increasing majority of the Western population living in cities

(Kirkby et al., 1995), the way in which this population understands and perceives the

natural world will be of critical importance in determining how the urbanising society

will interact with and impact on nature at local, regional and global scales. Restoration is

posited as a means by which people can regain a sense of a direct link to the natural

world (Clewell, 2001; Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999). It is hypothesised here that

establishing such a link is vitally important where it is weakest, believed in this case to be

within the urban context, in which people’s lives are particularly removed from contact

with nature.

6

Within the primarily built environment of the city, residents are given relatively

little opportunity to interact with the natural world. How such limited interaction with

nature affects people’s sense of belonging to and responsibility towards the natural world

is one of the primary questions with which this paper deals. City greenspaces are known

to be important to the urban population (P. Mandel, pers. comm., 2002), and it is clear

that even in the case of such ecologically lifeless areas as barren city parks and

abandoned parking lots, people develop strong ties to their local fragments of nature

(Civic Trust, 1988). How do such ties form, how are they further developed, and what

role do they play in determining how people feel they should act towards nature, both at

the local and broader levels?

It is argued here that answering such questions is imperative in attempting to

understand how to carry out restoration that can effect meaningful change. In this time of

ecological loss and degradation on all scales, leaving unexplored the relationship between

people and their surrounding natural environments is not considered to be a viable option.

Here we investigate fostering a type of interaction with nature that will act to engender

the depth of relationship believed necessary to developing an ethic based on obligation

and respect towards the natural world.

It becomes particularly clear at this point that the process of restoration provides

just such an opportunity for people to interact with nature, within the context of healing

anthropogenically-degraded areas. By allowing people to intimately interact with their

environment in a tangible way, restoration is a means for people to meet directly with the

non-human world in a constructive process of healing damaged and degraded spaces.

Restoration allows for a relationship-building process by permitting a unique level of

7

interaction with that which participants help to create (Clewell, 2001; Geist and

Galatowitsch, 1999). Restoration requires that people participate and play an active and

positive role in the creation process. As such, restoration creates a new role for people,

one that stands in direct opposition to the conventional human-as-destroyer myth of the

modern conservation narrative.

Such are the posited benefits of restoration, particularly in the nature-limited

urban scenario. But is participation in restoration efforts in fact an effective means of

reestablishing a direct link between the urban dweller’s existence and a consciousness of

the natural world? Can one confidently state that participation in the restoration of one’s

surroundings is important in creating a relationship between people and nature that may

help to engender a feeling of responsibility towards and respect for the non-human

world? And if so, is this due to an inherent quality of restoration, or can the activity be

carried out so as to establish such a process to a greater or lesser extent?

According to the discussion of many restoration philosophers, questions as to the

efficacy of restoration would be answered in the affirmative (Clewell, 2001; Gobster and

Hull, 2001; Nicholson-Lord, 2003). There is continuing discussion as to the most

effective ways of carrying out restoration so as to achieve a shift in the modern western

individual’s consciousness of the natural world. However, many authors agree that

certain principles are involved in creating a restoration process that encourages a feeling

of involvement, meaningful participation in, and attachment to the restoration process

and the restored area (Higgs, 1997; Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999).

However, as will be discussed at length in this work, the basis for such

affirmations is generally not expounded; rather, hypotheses are stated without attributing

8

their origins to any defined field of inquiry. This is not to argue that restoration is

incapable of engendering a new relationship between modern people and the natural

world, nor that the basis of restorationists’ claims regarding such is mislaid. Rather, it is

argued here that the philosophical discussions of restoration are carried out in an isolated

and rather insular context, that restoration philosophy is in fact directly related to a well-

developed field of study, but that such a relationship is too little acknowledged. Finally, it

is posited that acknowledging and fostering this relationship between fields will assist

restoration in becoming better-developed in terms of its ability to comprehensively

address issues of building a new human-nature relationship in the Western context.

It is therefore argued here that restoration as a discipline must be clearly linked to

the academic field in which questions of the relationship between culture and nature are

the primary focus, in which perceptions of the natural world are understood to be directly

related to the way in which people direct their actions towards the non-human world, and

in which the nature of people’s involvement with their biophysical environment is

considered indicative of the place of nature in their worldview (Berkes, 1999; Fernandez-

Gimenez, 1993; Stairs and Wenzel, 1992). This field is ethnobiology: a discipline related

to both the fields of ecology and anthropology. Pertinent to an examination of restoration

is ethnobiology’s focus on exploring how people understand nature within the purview of

their culture and how such understandings impact on the way in which human

responsibility towards and treatment of the natural world is delineated (Johnson, 2002).

As such, the field of ethnobiology provides an ideal lens through which one may explore

the potential for restoration to facilitate a reentry of humans into nature.

9

As noted above, the relationship between people and the natural world is

increasingly discussed in the restoration literature. However, there is very little

acknowledgement of the fact that this topic comprises the primary investigatory focus of

ethnobiology, and little recognition that by integrating understandings from these two

related fields, the potency of both may be greatly expanded. This project thus attempts to

illustrate how restoration ecology and ethnobiology are in fact significantly linked, and

how fostering the integration of such fields will allow restoration to develop more fully as

a comprehensive area of study. Applying such theoretical exploration to the practical case

of restoring an endangered habitat type within the urban landscape allows for a more

thorough investigation of the range of elements necessary in creating a restoration style

that fosters a connection between people and their natural environments.

10

Chapter 1: A Primer on Urban Ecological Restoration

What is urban ecological restoration and in what ways is it distinct from

restoration in wildlands? In many respects, restoration in urban areas is very similar to

the process in any other context. Ecological considerations of any site need to be

analysed; these may include soil nutrient levels, erosion considerations, or the presence

and abundance of invasive species. Manipulation of hydrological and pedological factors

may need to be carried out such that newly establishing vegetation on a restored site will

be able to survive and flourish. Reference ecosystems need to be identified in order to

ensure that the restoration process is directed towards returning sites to an accurately

determined historic trajectory (Clewell et al., 2001; SER, 2002). And factors important in

a site’s initial and/or continuing degradation will have to be identified in order to

understand in what ways the area was or is being degraded, and whether or not such

factors can be minimised or eliminated. Such considerations are general to restoration in

any context.

But there are elements that are unique to an urban as compared to a wildland

restoration. One of the most important of these in the ecological context is the fact that a

restored urban space will by its very nature exist as a habitat island in an otherwise highly

altered landscape matrix (Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999; Morrison, 2001). While a

comprehensive restoration program for a city would include the establishment of

corridors along which fauna may travel and flora may disperse, typical urban restoration

sites are limited in their connection to other high-quality habitat areas (Morrison, 2001).

11

In addition, inherent in urban restoration projects is the persistence of certain

degrading factors impinging on a site. Some factors that may influence the ecological

health and integrity of a restored urban site include the following: Altered hydrological

regimes as a result of impervious paved surfaces surrounding the site; a proportionally

large extent of edge habitat, and thus increased vulnerability to invasion by exotic

species; and potentially increased levels of toxins from surrounding landscape activities:

(Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999). These factors, common in the typical urban scenario,

may determine the ecological value of a site once restored.

Finally, due to their presence in highly-valued urban land-use areas, restored

urban sites are often of limited geographical extent. While many habitat values, such as

the historical complement of floral species, and perhaps the presence of certain avian and

insect species, can be effectively restored in small sites, others cannot be accommodated

in the limited range provided by an urban restoration. Larger animals, and thus the

ecological effects of herbivory, will not likely be restored in the majority of urban

restorations (Heinrichs, 1997; Morrison, 2001).

In addition, reinstating certain ecosystem processes, according to some

restorationists the most important focal point of the pursuit (Whisenant, 1999), may not

be possible. As stated above, historic hydrological regimes may never be restored to a site

(Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999). Certain herbivores influential in the maintenance of

ecosystem structure will likely be excluded (Heinrichs, 1997; Morrison, 2001).

Regeneration of certain plant species may not take place if establishment and growth are

dependent on dispersal by wind or water in a context in which there are no adjacent areas

from which material may come. Ad disturbance regimes such as fire, often critically

12

important to the maintenance of ecosystem structure and function, may be actively

suppressed (Kidd, 2002).

There are thus clear limitations in terms of what an urban restoration is capable of

achieving. In some cases the process of initiating ecosystem recovery in cities must more

correctly be termed rehabilitation, as a true restoration of all ecosystem properties to their

historic trajectory is unlikely, if not impossible (Clewell et al., 2000; Geist and

Galatowitsch, 1999; Morrison, 2001).

Urban restoration also differs from its wildland counterpart in another important

way. Situated on land that is generally well-used and highly-valued by urban residents

(Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999; Nicholson-Lord, 2003; Mandel, pers. comm., 2002),

restoration sites in urban areas may be uniquely able to engage large numbers of people

in the experience of rehabilitating degraded or otherwise ecologically-impaired spaces.

By providing the opportunity for involvement in initiating ecosystem recovery,

restoration in urban areas has the potential to begin developing a human-nature

relationship for those in whom a sense of such a relationship may be most lacking: urban

residents.

Discussion of the potential social benefits of urban restoration is not meant in any

way to diminish the importance of wildland restoration, which may initially provide more

ecologically-significant benefits than its relatively small-scale urban counterpart. Rather,

the argument made here is that urban restoration, if carried out appropriately, has the

potential to involve people who are currently removed from nature in a process of

reattachment. One ethnobiological premise in particular stands out as being relevant to

this examination of urban restoration: A culture’s perception of nature is thought to

13

influence the way in which people act towards and feel about the natural environment

(Fernandez-Giminez, 1993; Stairs and Wenzel, 1992). Restoration, if capable of

influencing such perception among urban residents, thus has the potential to effect long-

term, ecologically- important change. It is proposed that if, through participation in

restoration, the urban majority is given the opportunity to establish a sense of connection

to and responsibility for the natural environment, this sense of communion with the non-

human world will influence the way in which people will feel it is appropriate to act

towards nature.

The concept of a cultural sense of connection to and respect for the natural world

is neither novel, nor unstudied; a significant portion of the ethnobiological and ecological

anthropology literature pertains to just that topic (Berkes, 1999; Callicott, 1994; Gadgil et

al., 1993; Johnson, 2002; Johnson Gottesfeld, 1994 a). Nor is the concept of a culture’s

perception of the natural world as influential in affecting people’s understanding of

appropriate practices something new (Fernandez-Giminez, 1993; Stairs and Wenzel,

1992). A number of authors discuss indigenous peoples’ sense of interconnection with

the natural world as fundamental to their sense of stewardship and responsibility for

nature (Anderson, 1993; Berkes, 1999; Hrenchuk, 1993; Hunn, 1990; Johnson, 2002;

Johnson Gottesfeld, 1994 a); Turner, 1999). Such a sense of interconnection is not

believed to stem from a hands-off, leave-it-be attitude to interacting with the natural

world, but rather a first-hand knowledge of the land, an attribution of use-value, and an

understanding that one’s life is intimately related to the health and integrity of one’s

environment.

14

It is important to discuss the way in which restoration relates to such concepts,

particularly in the urban context, in which people’s daily lives are far removed from

direct, tangible dependence on the land. In fact, it is precisely because restoration

provides the means by which people can, on a regular basis, interact actively with their

local landscape that such a process offers urban residents a starting point for coming to

know, to understand, and to feel a sense of ethical obligation towards the land with which

they interact. Urbanites will not likely gain their livelihoods from their local restored

patches of land. And there is little room for the development among urban residents of

the intricate ecological knowledge systems held by land-based cultures. But restoration

provides what may be most important to the development of a land ethic in any culture:

contact with nature. And it is just this that is most lacking in the urban environment. It is

this contact that must be restored to the lives of urban residents if we are to work towards

a sustainable future in which caring for the land is to become a real part of our society’s

ethical foundation.

Ethnobiological research has indicated that contact and interaction with nature is

vital to the existence of an ethic of respect for and obligation towards the environment in

indigenous cultures (Berkes, 1999; Gadgil et al, 1993). Learning from ethnobiological

investigations of other cultures can help us to expand such concepts to non-indigenous

contexts. If sustainable human-nature relations are to be developed, we must ensure that

we provide the opportunity for people in all scenarios to develop an environmental ethic,

for daily life to include connection with the natural world, and for the urban majority to

be emphasised as being in especial need of reconnection with nature.

15

Chapter 2: Bringing Together Restoration and Ethnobiology: Enrichment through

Integration

Given the previous chapter’s discussion regarding what ecological restoration can

mean in the urban context, it is important to further examine how such concepts can be

integrated with understandings from ethnobiology. Ethnobiology involves the study of

the relationship between culture and nature, and aims to understand how that relationship

is shaped by the way cultures perceive and understand the natural world (Berkes, 1999;

Fernandez-Giminez, 1993; Johnson, 2002). The basis of much ethnobiological research

has been an investigation into language. In order to understand how people perceive their

biophysical surroundings, many researches have focussed on examining the descriptive

and classification systems of nature developed by various peoples (Alcorn, 1995; Berlin,

1992; Hunn and Selam, 1990; Johnson, 2002; Johnson Gottesfeld, 1994 b); Johnson

Gottesfeld and Anderson, 1988; Kindscher, 1992).

A great deal of ethnobiological research has focussed on non-Western cultures

and their perceptions of nature. Recently, a significant amount of interest has been

directed at incorporating traditional knowledge of the environment into Western ways of

knowing (Berkes, 1999; Fernandez-Giminez, 1993; Gadgil et al., 1993; Stairs and

Wenzel, 1992). But there is nothing inherently non-Western about ethnobiological theory

and methodology. In fact, it is argued here that there is a great deal to be gained from

directing ethnobiological research towards an understanding of Western, and particularly

urban, perceptions of nature.

Why a Western, and specifically an urban, research focus? The environmental

literature is replete with reference to the proportionally far greater negative impact

16

Westerners have on ecological integrity at all scales compared with non-Western, non-

industrial cultures (Kirkby et al., 1995). And approximately eighty percent of Westerners

now live in urban centres (Kirkby et al., 1995). While cities differ from other settlement

types in a number of ways, they are without question places of limited contact with the

natural world. What does such limited contact mean for the way in which this urban

majority will make decisions that affect the natural world far beyond the geographic

boundaries of their home cities (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996)? What will a society

increasingly divorced from nature as an integral part of everyday life understand the

natural world to mean? And, within the context in which urban residents now live, what

approaches may alter current perceptions so that sustainable choices become a part of a

new worldview? These are questions that need to be addressed if we are to be able to

move ahead with any kind of sustainable development agenda. As discussed in the

preceding chapter, it is argued here that ethnobiology is a means through which such

questions can be addressed and research findings can be analysed.

What elements of the modern Western perception of nature must we understand in

order to analyse restoration’s potential for engendering change? As Escobar (2001)

discusses, many cultures “...do not rely on a nature-society dichotomy”. The lack of such

a dichotomy is frequently cited as one of the most important factors in other culture’s

valuation of the natural world, and in their sustainable interactions with it (Berkes and

Folke, 1998; Gadgil et al., 1993). But in such cultures, the natural and social worlds are

explicitly linked, both in terms of everyday existence, and in cosmological terms

(Escobar, 1999; Hunn, 1990; Nelson, 1983). It is clear that the worldview of modern

industrial cultures is distinctly de-linked from the natural world (Berkes and Folke,

17

1998). It is this perceived decoupling of people from the rest of the ecosystem that many

consider to be at the root of modern Western society’s destructive behaviour towards the

environment.

How can the perception of separation from the natural world be overcome?

Escobar (2001) notes that “(t)he enduring connectedness of people with the land results

from an active engagement with it” and notes that in cultures in which nature is not seen

as something separate, “...it is an integral part of...contemporary modern life”. In the

modern urban context in Western societies, such a scenario does not currently exist.

Rather, nature is very much considered to be external, extraneous: the ‘other’ (Escobar,

1999). As Escobar (1999) discusses, “...separation of nature and society is one of the

basic features of modern societies”. I argue here that it is this very feature that needs to be

addressed and overcome by a reconstituted engagement with the land.

From the perspective of an ethnobiological research project into the modern

Western urbanite’s perception of the environment, we begin to discover that our

understanding of nature, which places humans in a distinct sphere from the rest of the

biophysical world, very much fits with the way in which we deal with nature. As Berkes

(1999) discusses, our disembeddedness from nature and our explicit nature:culture

dichotomy are directly linked to our instrumental perception and treatment of the non-

human world. By perceiving nature as something distinct and lesser, we equip ourselves

as a society to act without responsibility for our treatment of the natural world.

Is a process of re-embedding people in nature possible, and if so, is it necessary?

Is the nature:culture dichotomy surmountable? Is our cultural perception of separation

from the rest of the natural world, and our subsequent treatment of it as other and lesser,

18

something which we as a culture can overcome? It is argued here that, while such a task

is formidable at best, involvement in the act of restoration is one important way in which

people may become re-embedded within nature, and through which a feeling of

connection with and responsibility towards nature may be developed.

But if restoration is to help realise the goal of reconnection, those involved in

directing the process must ensure that it remains focussed on inclusion, on involvement,

on reintegrating nature into the daily lives of people, and as argued here, into the lives of

the urban majority in particular. By providing the opportunity for personal experience

with nature, and by creating a situation in which people are given a chance to feel that

they are ‘placelings’ (Escobar, 2001) as a result of an intimate involvement with their

local natural world, restoration has the potential to guide the process of reintegrating

nature into our cultural identity.

It is argued here that restoration is capable of playing a vital role in redirecting

Western culture towards sustainability. However, the corollary of this thesis is that a

version of restoration in which people’s involvement is considered secondary does not

constitute a process capable of achieving such goals. The position thus taken in this paper

is the following: Restorationists interested in effecting long-term, sustainable

environmental change must embed their approach to their craft in understanding that the

potential for restoration is dramatically magnified when viewed as a process of human-

nature relationship building rather than simply a process of biophysical rehabilitation.

Restoration thus understood is really a process whereby an ethnobiological analysis of

Western culture has indicated that our perception of nature (as other, separate and lesser)

is related to our general treatment of nature (as a providing entity towards which we have

19

no reciprocal responsibility), and that by ‘de-othering’ nature we may be able to build a

sense of reciprocity that will aid in the development of sustainable decision-making. Thus

restoration in this sense can be considered an ethnobiological pursuit: The fundamental

aim is to understand a nature-culture relationship; through such an understanding, the

next step is to address issues within this relationship that could contribute to the

development of a more respectful land ethic.

For readers interested in the biophysical exigencies of restoration, the above

discussion may appear superfluous. In an era in which preservation is no longer

considered sufficient for biodiversity conservation (Urbanska et al, 1997), and broad-

scale restoration is considered an essential management tool in the new conservation

biology (Baldwin et al., 1994; Sinclair et al., 1995), is there really time to focus on such

theoretical questions as are developed in this paper? Should not the focus be entirely on

developing techniques and methodological protocols for the most effective restoration

strategies possible so that the actual work of restoration may proceed? The answer lies in

the fact that restoration is so labour-intensive, so time-consuming, so resource-demanding

that site-by-site ecological restoration is unquestionably insufficient to meet the

conservation challenges of the day (Geist and Galatowitsch, 1999; Urbanska et al., 1997).

It must be understood that given the current rate of habitat loss and degradation, a handful

of restoration experts versed in the perfect methodology for ideal ecological rehabilitation

of degraded sites will be incapable of conserving our biological heritage. In order to be

ecologically valuable, restoration must become more far-reaching than is possible in an

expert driven field.

20

Restoration’s strengths, then, lie in its ability to involve people in the active

healing of their degraded local spaces, and thus to help develop a connection to their

environment such that they themselves will direct its transformation (Higgs, 1997). But

this can only happen in a context of inclusion. Gaining an understanding of the technical

aspects of restoration is unquestionably essential if restored areas are to have any

ecological value. But without the interest, involvement and meaningful participation of

local people in the restoration process, a long-term change of attitude so that

environments are not destroyed initially, so that restoration, when necessary, can be

carried out on a scale that is ecologically valuable, and so that restoration may be no

longer necessary at all, cannot result.

The next chapter outlines practical considerations that must be taken into account

in order to facilitate a process through which people can become involved in, and

attached to, a restoration effort. Throughout discussion of such considerations, it is

essential to keep in mind what is in this document considered to be the primary goal of

restoration in the urban context: the reconnection of people with their surrounding natural

world. Restoration is here viewed as a means by which a new nature:culture relationship

in the modern western, primarily urban, context can be developed. As such, investigating

urban restoration from this perspective can be considered an ethnobiological approach to

understanding and influencing cultural perceptions of the natural world.

21

Chapter 3: Applying Lessons Learned: Considerations in Developing an Urban

Restoration Program

This chapter is meant to apply concepts discussed in the previous two chapters to

the design of a best-practices restoration program. This chapter focuses on highlighting

what could be considered ideals for restoration efforts that aim to build a new human-

nature relationship in the urban context. The following chapter will apply the concepts

developed herein to a current restoration program: that of Toronto’s High Park Black Oak

Savannahs.

Based on discussion in earlier chapters, both ecological and social considerations

must be addressed if a restoration program is to be successful. The Society for Ecological

Restoration, the main body involved in establishing restoration as a discipline, has

published guidelines for creating ecologically successful restoration projects (Clewell et

al., 2000). While this is only a preliminary document designed to aid restorationists in

addressing the primary issues involved in establishing successful restorations, it is

indicative of the primary focus of the restoration field: the ecological aspects of

restoration efforts.

As is the case with a great deal of restoration literature, the work of Clewell et al.

(2000) focuses very little on the social and cultural values involved in restoration work.

In fact, only one element of the document specifically pertains to this topic. Chapter 3

therefore attempts to fill in this gap by developing a set of guidelines focussed

specifically on addressing social and cultural issues associated with restoration. These

guidelines are meant to help direct restoration such that people may be involved in

projects in such a way that their relationship with and sense of connection to their local

22

natural environment may be enhanced. By aiming to re-embed people’s everyday lives

within an ecological context (Berkes, 1999), and to revive urban residents’ active

engagement with the environment (Escobar, 2001), the guidelines developed in this

chapter are aimed at establishing both a reentry into nature, and a participatory, non-

hierarchical, inclusive process of community change (Campfens, 1999; Lewis and

Barnsley, 1990; Rubin and Rubin, 2001). By positing restoration as a process of

reevaluating and reworking the human-nature relationship, this chapter is very much

based on contextualising restoration within ethnobiology.

The guidelines set out below were created in a format similar to the SER’s

Guidelines for Developing and Managing Ecological Restoration Projects (Clewell et al.,

2000). Practitioners can refer to this chapter as a document covering the social aspects of

restoration omitted in publications such as that authored by Clewell et al. (2000). The

format is designed to provide information in an easily-accessible way to the wide variety

of people potentially involved in restoration, including the general public, academics and

practitioners. The goal of these guidelines is to allow restoration participants to easily

determine the fundamental requirements involved in establishing a restoration project

capable of fostering the development of a connection between people and their local

natural spaces. It is important to keep in mind the fact that these guidelines have been

created with urban ecological restoration in mind. While the general principles may be

similar in urban and non-urban scenarios, the reader is here-informed that reference will

be made throughout the guidelines to the urban environment.

It is important to note that while the following guidelines focus specifically on

social considerations of a restoration project, such a focal point should not be taken to

23

indicate that social and ecological goals are mutually exclusive. The intention of

highlighting social aspects of the process is not to diminish the importance of the

restoration of a site’s biophysical properties, but rather to emphasise that restoration,

particularly in urban areas, will always be a process of social engagement as well as one

of biophysical rehabilitation. If restoration is to be more than a site-by-site rehabilitation

of degraded natural spaces, instead effecting long-term change in the way people interact

with and feel towards the surrounding natural world, then it is argued that restorationists

must pay at least as much attention to the social as to the ecological processes involved.

The following considerations are thus intended to be used in conjunction with guidelines

regarding ecological considerations of a restoration so that a project can be successful

from both a social and an ecological standpoint.

Guidelines for Designing a Restoration Project for Human-Nature Relationship

Building:

The Initial Stages:

Guideline #1: Identify the project site. The first step of a project must involve

identifying a site with existing social meaning, or a potential for the development of such.

The site does not need to be a place of great current ecological value; rather, it is essential

that it be a place in which social value is, or seems likely to be, invested given the

opportunity. The site can be one valued and used by a large community (such as the High

Park example focussed on in the following chapter), or one in which primary interest

24

exists within a small community such as a neighbourhood. A site can include anything

from a current park, to abandoned rail lines, to old parking lots currently lacking any

semblance of green.

Guideline #2: Identify public perceptions and valuation of the site. Achieving this

goal requires research into the way in which the proposed restoration site is perceived by

the public. Important points to address include the use-value attributed to the space: What

uses do people want the site to be put? Is a sports field most desired by the community, or

are people looking to introduce more areas into their neighbourhood in which they can

carry out passive recreational activities such as hiking and birdwatching? Also important

in the research is finding out what aspects of the site are currently enjoyed and valued,

and which aspects are seen as elements that can be improved upon. Answering such

questions will help in determining the most appropriate approach if/when controversial

issues such as invasive species removal and/or reintroduction of management techniques

such as fire are proposed.

Guideline#3: Identify benefits of restoration at the site. This stage requires that those

involved in planning a restoration consider the particular opportunities for human-nature

relationship building offered by a particular site. It is important to clearly communicate

these opportunities to enhance others’ understanding of and interest in the project.

Benefits may include increased access to previously unusable greenspace such as

contaminated lands, or the creation of a restored site in a heavily developed area, thus

providing greenspace where it does not currently exist. By highlighting what restoration

25

can accomplish, both in terms of conservation, and for the community’s well-being, the

mutually-beneficial qualities of restoration can come to be appreciated by local

stakeholders.

Guideline #4: Initiate public contact. The research involved in identifying public

perceptions of a site will have initiated contact between those interested in facilitating the

restoration and the local community. But it is essential that from the outset it is clear to

local residents that the restorationist is but a facilitator, not a director of the project, and

that the restoration process is about integrating their interests with the ecological needs of

a site. Public information and involvement sessions should be held in the very early

planning stages so that people can feel not just informed of pre-existing decisions, but

involved in the actual decision-making process. Ensuring positive community relations

from the outset will both facilitate the successful completion of a project, and will help

achieve Higgs’ requirements for ‘good restoration’ (1997). As a process of coming to

understand and further develop the relationship between people and their local natural

world, a respectful restoration process is also uniquely suited to simultaneously fostering

an increased sense of community.

Guideline #4: Decide on the approach to the restoration project. At this stage, those

involved in planning the project must work with known ecological and social factors to

determine the approach to restoration. Where the public attributes great value to, for

example, mature (perhaps exotic) trees or to recreational activities provided by a site,

restoration planners will have to take into account such valuation. The restoration may

26

need to be planned in stages so that those aspects favourable to the public can be

developed first, thus heightening public interest in and commitment to the restoration

project before the possibility of more controversial aspects of the restoration are

introduced.

Guideline #5: Identify obstacles to successful restoration. Through public sessions,

discussions and other means, those involved in the restoration should identify potential

obstacles to restoration, such as limited resources. Such clarification will allow

participants to establish realistic goals, and to build expectations that take into account

known limitations. Providing the community with the feeling that they know what to

expect from their restoration will allow people to stay focussed on what is being

accomplished rather than what isn’t, and to direct energies to overcoming identified

obstacles where necessary.

Guideline #6: Establish goals of the program. With an understanding of perceptions of

a site, benefits of and obstacles to its restoration, those involved in the design can

establish points towards which the community can reach. These may include restoring

parts of the site for specific purposes, such as children’s educational areas, native wildlife

habitat, or passive recreational opportunities such as bird-watching. Other goals may

include the following: increasing the number of people involved in each season’s work at

the site; monitoring changing perceptions of the site as it moves through the restoration

process; and facilitating the transfer of the process such that a restoration project becomes

27

increasingly controlled by various community members as their knowledge of the

restoration process increases.

Guideline #7: Develop a restoration plan. Once goals are established, formal plans can

be laid out such that community organisations and public agencies can be informed of a

community’s intentions, and so that those involved in the restoration can monitor their

progress in the project. This plan should include not only basic elements such as site

location, timelines, budgets and a description of where expertise will come from, but how

conflicts will be resolved and an explicit outline of how relations between community

members and those with restoration expertise will be structured (Bright et al., 2002;

Egan, 2001; Gobster and Hull, 2001; Throop, 2001). Ensuring that such issues are clearly

laid out will give the public confidence that the restoration is in their hands, and will

allow community members to begin to build a sense of belonging to a site in whose

future they know they will play an important role.

Implementing the Plan: Restoration in Action

Guideline #8: Site preparation and restoration establishment with people in mind.

Preparing a site for restoration may involve activities such as decontamination or the use

of heavy equipment for surface alterations (Wait, 2003); due to their nature, such

activities will almost definitely occur without direct public involvement. But it is

important to keep in mind that while these activities may not be carried out by local

community members, it is they who should remain in charge of directing the overall

28

restoration plan, of which such activities are only one part. Where community members

can be directly involved, they should be. Preparing the soil, collecting seeds, planting,

protecting plants from herbivory, monitoring, and reestablishing goals based on

contingencies: All of these aspects of restoration should be carried out by community

members such that they not only feel a sense of ownership of a restoration project, but

become involved in the life of the new ecosystem they are helping to create.

Guideline #9: Restoring the social and biotic community: ‘Inreach’ and Outreach.

As the restoration project progresses, it is important to foster both a deepening

community connection with the changing local landscape, and a movement towards

involving the broader public in the restoration process. The intention of a community

restoration is to build a feeling of knowledge of, connection to and concern for a local

greenspace, but also to help develop a feeling of concern for the broader environment, of

which the restored space becomes for the community a well-understood microcosm. As

such, an ideal restoration project becomes a process of both ‘inreach’, whereby the

community over time builds a relationship with the space it is restoring, and a process of

outreach, in which interest in and knowledge of restoration moves beyond the single

community, single site scenario.

29

Project Evaluation: An Ongoing Necessity

Guideline #10: Evaluating whether restoration goals are being met: Questioning

methods and strategies

While project evaluation is often discussed as the final stage of an initiative, it is essential

for restorations to be assessed on an ongoing basis. Such evaluation is necessary both

from an ecological perspective, in terms of ensuring that the site is responding to

treatments as expected, but also from a social perspective. If restoration is here taken to

mean a process in which community members are given a chance to reenter nature

through constructive interaction with local natural areas, those facilitating the restoration

must ensure that each step of the process is effectively helping to accomplish such a goal.

Analysis of community commitment to a project, changes in such commitment, additions

or loss of participants, the development of a sense of belonging to and ownership of the

restoration process and the site, and other signs of a developing connection of participants

to the project should be monitored for. Where shortcomings are discovered, attempts

should be made to remedy these during the restoration process such that the community is

given as great an opportunity as possible to become involved in integrating the life of the

soon-to-be-restored site into their own.

The above guidelines are intended to direct restorationists’ attention towards

considerations that will impact on the way in which people become engaged with local

restoration efforts, and the extent to which people feel a sense of belonging to and

30

connection with both the restoration process and the restored site. The points highlighted

above represent only a selection of the numerous ways in which restorationists can

involve and engage the public with the restoration process in an attempt to develop a new

conservation consciousness. In summary, the above guidelines are intended to provide a

sense of the thought process involved in ensuring the inclusion of people in healing their

local landscape and their relationship with it.

As discussed early in this work, focussing on the human component of restoration

is necessary in order to situate restoration within an ethnobiological perspective. By

looking at how best to engage people with their local natural spaces, the examination

becomes one in which we may begin to address the ethnobiological premise that our

treatment of the natural world is directly related to our perception of nature. In allowing

people a place in the restoration process, we are allowing a space for the development of

a renewed perception.

31

Chapter 4: The Program: Process Establishment and Site Design

This chapter is developed in three sections. The first describes the feature

ecosystem on which the best-practices restoration will be based, namely Toronto’s High

Park Black Oak savannah. The second section outlines a best-practices approach to the

ecosystem’s restoration, taking into account both ecological and social considerations.

The final section describes the restoration program currently being carried out in High

Park’s Black Oak savannahs, and analyses the program within the context of

considerations developed in earlier chapters, and in preceding sections of this chapter.

As discussed in Chapters 1 through 3, the premise upon which this site design is

based is the following: Restoration programs must provide the greatest possible

opportunity for the public to engage with their local natural area without significantly

compromising a site’s ecological recovery. This design rationale is based on the

ethnobiological understanding that people’s understanding of the natural world, and their

perceived relationship with it, influences how they interpret their responsibilities towards

the environment. By attempting to design a restoration program in which people are

given the chance to develop a sense of belonging to, connection with and responsibility

towards local greenspaces, the goal is to expand restoration from simply a means of

biophysical rehabilitation to a process in which people are able to develop a broader

environmental consciousness. The following sections apply such theoretical concepts to

practical restoration initiatives in Toronto’s Black Oak savannah landscape.

32

The Black Oak Savannah: Description and Current Status

With a number of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna (Varga, 1989),

and an assemblage of vegetation unique in Ontario, the Black Oak savannah is considered

provincially rare, as well as continentally significant (Toronto Parks and Recreation

Department, 1996; Varga, 1989). Figure 1 above illustrates both the floral diversity and

the unique beauty associated with this at-risk ecosystem. With only five sites in all of

Ontario, the largest remaining parcel of this ecosystem is found in High Park, a large

centrally-located greenspace in Toronto, Ontario (See Figure 2). Approximately thirty-

hectares in size, the High Park Black Oak savannah remnant is very limited in

geographical extent. Located in one of the most well-used parks in Canada’s largest city,

the site’s ecological integrity is further compromised by high-impact activities within its

boundaries, as well as the highly urbanised nature of the surrounding landscape matrix.

Figure 1: Summer in the Black Oak savannah (source: North American Native Plant Society).

33

While over 10,000 hectares of prairie and savannah once covered the Southern

Ontario landscape, the High Park remnant is part of the less than one percent of this

ecosystem type now found in the region (Kidd, 2002). The High Park Black Oak

savannahs are significant at a number of levels. The savannah landscape is globally

endangered (City of Toronto Parks and Urban Forestry, 2002; Reid, 2002; Reid and

Symmes, 1997; Rodger, 1998), the Black Oak savannah is one the rarest ecosystems in

34

Canada (High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee, 2003b), and tallgrass prairies, of

which the Black Oak savannahs are one type, are Ontario’s most endangered landscape

type (www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/flowers.htm).

The High Park site is considered to be seriously compromised by a number of

factors, including fire suppression, lack of regeneration of the oaks (Quercus velutina),

and the presence of invasive species (High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee, 2003b;

Urban Forest Associates, 2002). From the perspective of ecological integrity, one of the

most urgent issues facing the Black Oak savannahs is the extremely limited extent of the

remnant ecosystem. While the High Park remnant is the most significant in the region

(Varga, 1989), its status as a tiny fragment of the original extent of the ecosystem type,

surrounded on all sides by roads, homes and commercial activities (See Figure 3), places

severe limitations on what can be done to ameliorate species loss, and degradation of

ecosystem structure and process within the patch itself. As indicated in Figure 3, even

within the park, the Oak savannah system is fragmented by roadways, buildings, and

areas designated for recreational activity.

As a savannah system, there are several factors essential to maintaining the

structure and composition of the Black Oak community. The most fundamental of these

appears to be fire; fire is considered to have been so crucial to the savannah’s

maintenance that Fule et al. (1997) refer to it as a keystone ecological process. For the

Black Oak savannahs “(i)n Ontario, fire is considered the main driving force behind the

persistence of these ecosystems”

(www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/flowers.htm).

35

Re-implementing fire is thus considered to be one of the most basic tools with which to

begin the savannah restoration process (Kidd, 2002; Maloney, 1997). Both natural and

36

historic anthropogenic fires are considered to have been of prime importance in

maintaining the open, grassland structure of the savannah landscape (Apfelbaum, 1993;

Fule et al., 1997; Howe, 1994; Varga, 1989).

However, it is important to realise that in a restoration program not all fire is

created equal. Howe (1994) points out that it is critical to pay attention to fire season if

restoration efforts are to foster the establishment and growth of the appropriate

complement of species. Howe (1994) argues that by timing fire in accordance with the

periods in which natural peaks in fire frequency would have occurred (i.e. late July,

assuming lightning as the primary source), restorationists can help to ensure that late-

season, frequently weedy invasive species will be excluded to the benefit of early-season

native species.

However, it is essential to also take into account the role of anthropogenic burning

in maintaining these open landscapes: Non-anthropogenically derived fires are thought to

have been only one element in the prairie fire regime (Denevan, 1997). The indigenous

peoples of Southern Ontario are believed to have actively burned the site for cultivation

(Apfelbaum, 1993; Kidd, 2002). As Apfelbaum (1993) states, understanding the role of

“pre-settlement culture on the past evolution and management of High Park is important

to understanding strategies to restore its natural areas”, including, of course, the Black

Oak savannahs. In general, indigenous peoples appeared to have burned in the ‘safe

seasons’ of spring and fall (Lewis, 1982). Turner’s (1999) investigation into the

traditional burning practices of British Columbia’s indigenous peoples indicates too that

burning was only carried out in seasons in which climate and other variables were

considered to be favourable for safely carrying out landscape burning. Unfortunately,

37

knowledge of the annual patterns of southern Ontario’s First Nations burning practices

appears to be quite limited relative to the level of understanding of such practices in other

parts of Canada and the world.

While the significance of fire season in the maintenance of the Black Oak

savannahs themselves appears to be relatively little researched, it is important to keep in

mind that fire is not necessarily in and of itself an effective treatment. It is necessary that

prescribed burns are carried out such that they achieve established restoration goals. It

may well be necessary to carry out experimental burn regimes to research the response of

the Black Oak savannah to various burn treatments. In the urban scenario in particular, it

will undoubtedly also be necessary to approach landscape burning in such a way that

negative public perception of the practice does not necessitate its termination. Informing

people of the rationale behind such landscape management, particularly the dependence

of this endangered ecosystem on the presence of fire, may be the first and most important

step in achieving such a goal.

According to Apfelbaum’s statement (1993) above, gaining an understanding of

traditional First Nations burning practices in the ecosystem may be helpful in determining

the most appropriate techniques to use in restoring the High Park site. The first step in

gaining such an understanding must be researching with First Nations communities of the

region to investigate traditional burning practices. The next logical stage would be to

carry out experimental trials of such practices at the High Park or similar oak savannah

sites (Anderson, 1996). Such research could help practitioners to discover traditionally

successful management patterns, and to determine and their potential efficacy in

contemporary restoration work.

38

Figure 4: Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), a category 1 invasive plant of southern Ontario,can dominate the understory layer (source: Havinga, 2000).

Another of the most pressing issues in the Black Oak savannahs is the presence,

and in some cases dominance, of invasive species. While introduced species from many

taxa can be found in the savannahs (Toronto Parks and Recreation Department, 1996),

those of greatest concern appear to be large shrubs such as Rhamnus cathartica and a

number of Lonicera species (Urban Forest Associates, 2002). However, dog-strangling

vine (Cynanchum rossicum and C. nigran) and a number of smaller invasives are also

considered to be of great concern (Havinga, 2000; Kidd, 2002). Figure 4, below,

39

illustrates the level of invasion found in some southern Ontario sites.

These invasive exotics are considered to be of such concern both because of their

abundance, and because of their ability to shade out sun-loving species typical of the

savannah landscape. By casting shade so that the grass and herbaceous layers of

vegetation can no longer be sustained, these shrubs do more than cause the loss of species

and the alteration of community structure. By shading out the grass and herbaceous

layers, the intricate, soil-binding root systems of these plants are degraded, and soil

erosion becomes a serious problem (Toronto Parks and Recreation Department, 1996).

The presence of exotics can thus contribute significantly to both soil loss and the

disappearance of the soil’s bank of seeds and root stock.

By undermining the vegetative structure of the community, the presence of such

invasive species can also influence nutrient dynamics. By changing the composition of

litter build-up from primarily quickly decomposing grass and herbaceous material to

slowly decomposing woody and leafy components, the dominance of invasive trees and

shrubs can significantly alter the availability of such limiting nutrients as nitrogen, and

thus compromise the ability of certain species to regenerate (Kaye and Hart, 1998; Xiong

and Nilsson, 1999). It is thus essential to ensure that removal of invasive species is

carried out both as soon as possible after the plants’ arrival, and in such a way as to avoid

soil disturbance so that erosion and loss of the seed/root stock bank is minimised. In

addition, the reestablishment of native grasses and herbaceous flora is necessary as early

as possible on bare soil beneath invasive plants to foster soil stability and to restart

appropriate nutrient cycling processes.

40

Given the above-discussed stressors impinging on the High Park Black Oak

savannahs, and the fact that this ecosystem type exists in very few other locations in the

region, it is necessary to bring together the social and ecological requirements of the site

in order to create a program of best practices on which effective restoration may be

based. In the following section of the paper, a best practices approach is developed as

part of the Black Oak savannah’s management plan.

A Best Practices Approach to Restoring High Park’s Black Oak Savannahs:

Best Practice #1: Overcoming Geographical Limitations

As evidenced by the diversity of stresses facing the ecosystem type in question, several

issues need to be taken into account when designing a best-practices restoration program

for the High Park Black Oak savannahs. One of the most essential of these is considered

to be an emphasis on restoring not only the High Park site itself, but surrounding

greenspaces and community, school, workplace and home grounds as well. As a best-

practices consideration, the restoration program should focus not on a restored High Park

as the final product, but on establishing High Park as the central base from which an

entire restored Black Oak savannah landscape can emanate.

Best Practice # 2: Highlight the Cultural Relevance of the Ecosystem, Both

Historical and Contemporary

A best practices restoration program for the High Park Black Oak savannahs should

include an emphasis on the cultural relevance of the ecosystem, both in terms of its

historical importance to southern Ontario’s indigenous peoples, and its current relevance

to those who live around it, as well as the one million people who visit the park each

41

year. A cultural emphasis in the restoration program is important in ensuring that

community members and restoration participants maintain a feeling of belonging to,

rather than alienation from, the ecosystem. Such emphasis will allow for a sense that

humans have been, and can again be, important parts of maintaining the health of such

ecosystems.

Best Practice #3: Highlight the Rarity of the Ecosystem, and the Unique

Opportunity for Participating in the Preservation of an Ecosystem Type

Local residents and restoration participants should be given the opportunity to understand

the extreme rarity of the Black Oak savannah ecosystem and the challenges such rarity

poses. But more importantly, people should be helped to understand the unique

opportunity the presence of this rare ecosystem in their community provides to them in

terms of being able to be a part of restoring to health an ecosystem type found in few

other places. Highlighting the unique and special nature of the ecosystem, its extreme

rarity, and the positive impact participation in restoration could have on the entire

ecosystem type is important in providing a sense of the special, positive, and healing role

people can play in the health of the savannahs. It is essential to stress this role over that of

people as factors in the degradation of the landscape if people are to feel drawn into

rather than alienated from the process of restoration.

42

Best Practice #4: Provide Every Opportunity Possible for Engagement with the

Restoration Process and the Restored Landscape

It is of utmost importance to ensure that people are given every opportunity possible to

engage with the restoration process and the restored landscape. As discussed in preceding

chapters, it is an active involvement with the land that gives people the sense of

belonging, attachment and obligation towards their surrounding natural environment.

Concerns regarding human over-use of savannah sites must be balanced by permanent

opportunities for people to engage with the changing landscape, to become familiar with

and attached to it, and to become committed to restoring this landscape type both on and

off-site.

Figure 5 below indicates the current extent of the Black Oak savannahs within High Park.

As is clear in Figure 5, expansion of the Black Oak savannah habitat within the park itself

is constrained by the presence of roadways and other infrastructure. Figure 6 speaks

directly to balancing the need for ecological recovery with the need for human interaction

with this urban greenspace. Overall design rationale for Figure 6 was based on site

selection premised on the following considerations: Areas involving human presence are

those in which 1) the site is currently in need of restoration, so that people’s presence and

restoration activity is ecologically beneficial; 2) recreational values are high, and around

which recreational activities are centred; and 3) activity is centred around a permanent

habitat edge such that human presence is not detrimental to habitat recovery and use, and

active restoration can act to increase the extent of the ecosystem from the centre

43

outwards. Figure 6 illustrates that community use of the site, community engagement

with the restoration process, and ecological recovery process are all able to take place.

Figure 5: Approximate Distribution of Black Oak SavannahsWithin High Park

44

Figure 6 represents a design that designates areas within the park as Zones. Location of

these zones is based on the level and type of human activity taking place. Ecological

Recovery Zones are those in which human presence is limited such that regeneration of

vegetation can proceed, and wildlife use can occur with minimal disturbance. The

designation of Active Restoration Zones allow people to interact with the relatively high-

quality Ecological Recovery Zones by spending time in and working to expand such areas

from the edge outwards. Focussing such activities around the edges of an already

fragmented ecosystem allows people to experience the unique qualities of a savannah

system in the process of being restored without acting as a degrading factor in the site’s

recovery.

As noted in the diagram, there are also areas within the Black Oak savannah ecosystem

that are specifically meant to involve human presence. High-Impact Activity Zones are

those in which recreation activities currently represent the primary land use, and to which

the public attributes high use value. As evidenced in Figure 7 by the presence of

senescing oaks and the lack of understory vegetation, these historic Black Oak savannah

sites are areas that could be slated for restoration if/when alternative public use zones

could be designated. Currently, these areas are considered to be ones in which the public

can be exposed to something of the majesty of the savannah system with minimal

constraints on activity type relative to what is required in other parts of the park.

45

46

Figure 7: The High Park Black Oak savannahs. The presence of dead oaks in thebackground and the lack of understory vegetation indicate the poor ecological health ofthis site (source: Urban Forest Associates, 2002).

47

Best Practice #5: Involve the Public in Learning about Restoration Practices

There are a number of unique landscape management tools that contribute to the

maintenance of the Black Oak savannahs’ structure and function, including the process of

landscape burning. Given a national history of fire suppression, proposals to introduce

such activities as prescribed burning will likely meet with initial resistance from the

public. It is essential to maintain throughout the restoration process the local

community’s trust, and their confidence that appropriate management decisions are being

made. In introducing potentially controversial management strategies such as landscape

burning and invasive species removal, the first step should be to fully involve the public

in learning about the ecological impacts of fire suppression, or invasion by introduced

species. Assume the public’s interest and desire to make the right decisions for the

landscape, and give people the opportunity to learn why certain restoration techniques are

favoured over others. Ensure a respectful learning environment, such that people feel they

are learning in common with others, rather than being directed by all-knowing experts.

Establishing a democratic basis for restoration is important in allowing community

members to feel a sense of shared ownership in the process of healing their degraded

local landscapes, thereby helping to cultivate community interest and involvement in,

leadership of and commitment to the project.

Best Practice #6: Involve a Diversity of People in the Restoration Program

It is important to ensure that people from a diversity of backgrounds are included in

restoration efforts. Children, adults and the elderly of a variety of socio-economic, ethnic

and educational backgrounds should be given the opportunity to become involved in,

48

learn about, and develop a connection with the Black Oak savannah landscape. By

creating a restoration process that is as inclusive as possible, an understanding of and

interest in efforts to preserve and restore the savannah landscape will most effectively be

spread throughout the community. An inclusive restoration process will ensure that all

segments of the population are given the chance to build a relationship with this unique

landscape type.

An Overview of the Current High Park Restoration Program:

One of the bases upon which the High Park Black Oak savannah restoration

program is built is the following concept: “There is...a broad understanding that human

intervention is needed because these ecosystems cannot restore themselves” (Kidd,

2002). As the High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee (HPCAC) states, “(b)ecause it is

surrounded by city, it [High Park’s Black Oak savannah ecosystem] needs help”

(2003b)). Of course, one of the primary reasons for the park requiring human intervention

is its isolation from other similar communities, and the fact that natural regeneration of

the vegetation therefore cannot occur. Therefore, the current Black Oak savannah

restoration program is meant to “increase the size of existing natural areas, improve

connections between fragments, establish new natural areas and regenerate closed trails”

(Kidd, 2002). In addition, removal of invasive species believed to be detrimental to the

ecology of the at-risk ecosystem is being carried out (Kidd, 2002; Toronto Economic

Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Parks and Recreation Division, 2002).

How are the needs of the public, particularly the local community, being taken

into consideration in the program plan for High Park? Kidd (2002) outlines the

49

restoration program as having taken into consideration right from the beginning the needs

of the community, and the need of the ecosystem for community support. She notes that

the savannah system, and High Park in general, are “...big enough to provide us with a

sense of wilderness within the bustling city” (Kidd, 2002). This natural oasis within

Canada’s biggest city is both needed by the community, and needs the community for its

ecological health and persistence.

It appears that the current restoration program very much takes into account this

reciprocal requirement. As Kidd (2002) states, “(c)ommunity involvement has been

integral to the protection and management of High Park and takes place both informally

and formally”. It is understood that without the support of the community in all of its

diversity, the unique High Park system cannot persist: Restoring this ecosystem “will

take community involvement and support and partnership...It will require the work of

many hands” (Kidd, 2002). The City of Toronto concurs with Kidd’s statement, and notes

that “...community partnerships are an important factor in the success of the savannah

restoration program” (City of Toronto Parks and urban Forestry, 2002).

Ensuring that people are not just involved at the final, hands-on stage, but are able

to participate throughout the process appears to be a continuing priority of both HPCAC

and the City. The restoration program was designed with the input of the whole roster of

people involved in the continuing health of the ecosystem: The Black Oak savannah

restoration strategy “...has been developed with the involvement of experts, community

members and interested individuals” (Kidd, 2002).

Integrating the needs of the community with those of the ecosystem is one of the

primary challenges involved in restoring a high-use area such as High Park. However,

50

restorationists involved in the High Park initiatives note that in order to maintain

community support, environmental and park usage requirements must be balanced

against one another. These needs must both be taken into account in restoration program

design, and planning must take place in such a way that recreation is able to occur, but

within a context of ensuring the preservation of the park’s unique ecosystems (Kidd,

2002). Where recreation uses must be limited, education initiatives such as interpretive

signage are put in place such that the public is able to understand the rationale behind use

limitation.

Again recognising the need to balance the desires of park users with the needs of

the ecosystem, controversial practices such as the removal of mature invasive trees are

carried out in such a way as to minimise public impact. As Kidd states (2002), this type

of removal “is carried out selectively and gradually, and trees are replaced with native

species that are appropriate for the site”. Mature trees are generally highly-valued in the

urban context, so this gradual removal and replacement technique represents an attempt

to carry out restoration treatments without alienating the public, and potentially

decreasing community support. Such a strategy allows the public to view such restoration

strategies as having a positive rather than a negative impact in their highly-valued urban

greenspace.

One of the most telling signs of the commitment to public involvement, input and

participation in the High Park restoration program is the presence and influence of the

High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee (HPCAC). HPCAC is a volunteer organisation

that provides “public input on park policies, goals and objectives; helps facilitate

volunteer involvement in park initiatives; and promotes public awareness and responsible

51

stewardship”

(www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/index.htm). While the

City of Toronto’s Parks and Recreation Department is ultimately responsible for

decisions regarding the nature of and plan for the ecosystem’s restoration program, it is

HPCAC that holds primary responsibility for ensuring and directing public involvement

in the parks’ restoration program. This community-run organisation involves the public at

an informal, passive educational level through tours of the park, and introductions to the

site’s natural history and ongoing restoration initiatives. HPCAC also facilitates more

interactive, hands-on experiences including the Volunteer Stewardship Program. In this

latter program, community members are given the opportunity to play an important role

in maintaining and enhancing the ecosystem’s health, by regularly participating in

monitoring and maintaining the site

(www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/index.htm).

The High Park restoration program aims to involve a diversity of people in

interacting with and actively restoring the Black Oak savannah ecosystem. The

restoration plan includes a children’s program, in which young people are directly

involved in restoring site integrity. In the summer of 2001, 1350 students from grades 1

to 7 planted “2000 new grasses, sedges and wildflowers...[in] High Park’s Black Oak

savannahs” (High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee, 2001). In its first fall, the program

involved 2200 local children in planting 8000 acorns and 3500 seed balls in the

savannahs (HPCAC, 2003a)). As HPCAC (2001) states, the school program’s

“...strongest point is its emphasis on direct restoration involvement”. Not only is the work

of so many hands useful in achieving site restoration goals and targets, but the direct

52

involvement these children are able to experience through this program is important in

allowing them to interact with this unique ecosystem in a positive and rarely experienced

way. According to HPCAC, “(m)any of our participants come from inner city areas and

had very little previous experience with a natural setting”. Thus the Black Oak savannah

restoration program is important in ensuring that young people are given a chance to

experience first hand this bit of wilderness in the city, and to participate directly in

ensuring the long-term ecological health of an at-risk ecosystem. As HPCAC states, “(a)ll

in all, the program gives many students the chance to make positive change in their city”

(HPCAC, 2001).

The High Park restoration program appears as important in influencing and

educating adults as children. As mentioned above, HPCAC runs not only programs for

young people, but also initiatives such as the provision of nature tours to families and

individual adults of all ages. Local residents, including seniors who have lived in the

neighbourhood their whole lives, “...repeatedly mentioned that they...ha(d) never been to

nor known about the Black Oak savannahs” (HPCAC, 2001). Once involved in the

education and hands-on restoration work, these same people reported that “(t)hey were

truly amazed” to discover the rare and unique ecosystem in their midst (HPCAC, 2001).

In addition, the High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee itself is made up of people from

a diversity of backgrounds. The group is comprised of “local ratepayers, residents

associations, recreation stakeholders...business and park entrepreneurs and members at

large from the community”

(www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/index.htm).

53

While citizen-led, the group is not just a mouthpiece: The head of HPCAC is the

Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for the City of Toronto,

and the organisation works in concert with the City’s Technical Resource Group to

achieve restoration goals. The organisation also notes that all HPCAC meetings are open

to the public, and that there is an open invitation for the public at large to “come...help

restore the natural oak savannah vegetation of High Park”

www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/index.htm.

Significantly, the Black Oak savannah restoration program is aimed at

simultaneously restoring the existing site “to presettlement condition”, and restoring the

ecosystem as a whole to at least a portion of its presettlement extent (HPCAC, 2003a)).

In attempting to achieve this goal, HPCAC focuses on educating people about restoring

Black Oak savannah vegetation to sites outside of the park, and helps them to do so by

supplying them with the materials necessary for such restoration. In its 2003 annual

report, HPCAC states that “(v)olunteers sold hundreds of native plants to residents in

neighbourhoods near High Park as a means of expanding the boundaries of the Park”.

HPCAC states explicitly that its mandate includes not only restoring the ecosystem

within the confines of the park itself, but also ensuring that the concepts of and capacity

for rehabilitation are fostered so as to effect restoration in a broader geographical area.

The organisation states that “Our goal is restoration of the natural areas of High Park...to

presettlement conditions, along with spreading use and knowledge of native plants”

(HPCAC, 2003a)).

54

Analysing the High Park Black Oak Savannah Restoration Program in the Context of the

Best Practices Approach:

Given the above outline of the current restoration program in High Park’s Black

Oak savannah ecosystem, it is now necessary to examine the ways in which the program

meets the best practices guidelines outlined earlier in this chapter. Six primary points

were highlighted as being important in ensuring a restoration process that involves people

in such a way that their relationship to the local landscape could include the development

of a connection to and feeling of responsibility towards the landscape. In attempting to

integrate restoration with ethnobiological understandings, this section of the paper looks

at evaluating the current restoration program’s ability to help in understanding existing

community perception of the natural environment, and to effect change in such

perception. The following analysis will be carried out by examining elements of the

current restoration program in the context of the best practices points highlighted above.

Restoration program guidelines developed in Chapter 3 will also be referred to in this

analysis.

Overcoming Geographical Limitations

As discussed in Guideline #9 of Chapter 3, it is important that restoration projects

include both an ‘inreach’ and an outreach component. Such a dual focus ensures that

participants in restoration projects are able to develop a sense of connection to their local

urban greenspace. This also ensures that the concepts and tangible knowledge gained

through a restoration project are shared, and ecosystem restoration can be expanded

beyond a single site. The High Park restoration program focuses on deeply involving

55

people with the ecosystem through such initiatives as the Volunteer Stewardship

Program. However, at the same time the program also ensures that the restoration

initiative is able to effect more ecological change than would be possible with a single

site focus. Through public tours and information sessions, children’s programs and the

sale of native Black Oak savannah flora, the High Park restoration initiative provides a

means whereby the process of restoring this endangered ecosystem type to at least a

portion of its original geographical extent may be begun. Sites both within and beyond

city boundaries are extremely limited in size and number (Rodger, 1998), and the greater

the understanding of and interest in restoring the Black Oak savannahs, the greater their

potential for persistence.

Highlighting the Cultural Relevance of the Ecosystem

A number of publications related to the High Park restoration program (e.g.

Apfelbaum, 1993; Kidd, 2002; Varga, 1989) make mention of local First Nations

historical use of the Black Oak savannahs. However, there is very little discussion in

educational initiatives related to the savannahs of what the ecosystem has meant in the

past for either First Nations people or settlers in what is now the Toronto area. It is

known that the High Park area was an important trading route for First Nations people,

and that indigenous people used the area for cultivating corn (Apfelbaum, 1993; Kidd,

2002). Yet the current restoration program appears to focus very little on the fact that this

ecosystem no doubt played an important role historically in people’s lives in terms of

providing a place of sustenance, beauty, and a location from which other cultural needs

were derived. Neither is the fact of local indigenous people’s fundamental role in the fire

56

regime of the Black Oak savannahs well-developed. In a time in which conserving an

ecosystem still means to many people preservation from the meddling hands of humans

(Clewell, 2001), it is important to focus in restoration initiatives on the ways in which

human activity can act as not only a benign but in fact a beneficial force.

As discussed earlier in this paper, the High Park Black Oak savannah site requires

human intervention if its long-term health is to be maintained. However, the case is never

strongly made in High Park-related literature that there is direct historical evidence of

people having had such positive influence on this very ecosystem in the past. It is

recommended here that advocates of the High Park Black Oak savannah restoration

program should develop the case to a greater extent than merely mentioning traditional

use value of the site and the importance of anthropogenically-derived fire in the

maintenance of ecosystem structure. Rather, direct reference should be made to the fact

that human presence in this ecosystem was a significant part of making it what it was,

and can again be influential in creating a healthy Black Oak savannah ecosystem. Geist

and Galatowitsch’s (1999) concept of reciprocal needs in a restoration project can be

used as a basis for such a program focus: People do now, and have in the past needed this

ecosystem for a variety of purposes; in turn, the ecosystem has historically and again

today needs people if it is to be maintained.

Highlighting the Unique Nature of Participating in the Preservation of a Rare

Ecosystem

The current restoration program appears to be very well focussed on highlighting

the rarity of the Black Oak savannahs, and on indicating the special value of the public’s

57

assistance in restoring and expanding this ecosystem type. Participants in the restoration

projects are made aware of the extreme rarity of the ecosystem, and of the relevance of

their participation in restoration to the maintenance of an entire endangered landscape

type. The fact that the High Park site is considered to be one of the best remaining

examples of the endangered Black Oak savannah ecosystem seems to be highlighted to

the public to the extent that participation in restoration is presented as a unique

opportunity to effect broad environmental change by acting at the local level.

Providing Opportunities for Engagement with the Restoration Process and the

Restored Landscape

The High Park Black Oak savannah restoration program appears to be uniquely

suited to achieving this particular goal. The fact that the entire restoration program is run

by HPCAC, a citizen-led, open-to-the-public organisation, and that community

involvement is not only welcomed but actively solicited means that the High Park

program involves the public in every level of the restoration process. The structure of

decision making with respect to the savannah’s restoration is significant in that the local

community is, or at least has the potential to be, as involved as city officials in

determining both how restoration activities will be carried out, and who will be

responsible for actually putting restoration goals into action.

Perhaps most important is the fact that it is community members who enact the

restoration process. While involvement at all levels of the restoration process is important

in ensuring community commitment to and interest in the project, it is the actual

everyday interaction with the ecosystem, the hands-on, personal connection with the

58

landscape that is imperative in the development of a relationship between the restorer and

the restored. The current High Park restoration program involves a large number of

people in the project at a somewhat superficial level through, for example, passive

educational programs. But it also offers the chance for people to become deeply involved

in the restoration process. Through school and community education events, and

volunteer-directed restoration and habitat maintenance and monitoring programs, the

current program appears to be very effectively engaging people with the restoration

process such that a connection between the community and the local natural world is

fostered.

Involving the Public in Learning about Restoration Practices

Important in involving the public in learning about restoration practices is

ensuring that all stakeholders understand the management options available, and why, in

the context of a given ecological problem, certain practices may be undertaken instead of

others. Informing people about the options for restoration-based landscape management

allows the local community to play a part in assigning value to the pros and cons

associated with each option. The question of invasive species removal is a particularly

good example of a case in which officials and the public may have differing viewpoints

as to the best management option. Manual removal of, for example, buckthorn (Rhamnus

cathartica), may be posed as an alternative to herbicide use. The ecological limitations

and strengths of both methods, as well as the repercussions of each for the community,

must be fully explained to and understood by all stakeholders.

59

The High Park restoration initiative, with its community directed program, is well

set up to involve the community in such decision-making processes. As discussed in

Chapter 3, this involvement is vital to ensuring a program in which people can begin to

feel attached to both the restoration process and the restored area, in whose future they

must feel they are able to play a determining role. The High Park restoration program

illustrates the reality of involving the public in such decision making, and the fact that

such involvement may well lead to restoration management options that make sense for

the community, but would not be the first management option chosen for achieving

ecological objectives.

As is no doubt necessary in any urban restoration program, certain initiatives

carried out in the High Park Black Oak savannahs are clearly done in response to

community opposition to conventional restoration approaches. For example, as Kidd

(2002) mentions, the removal of mature trees is carried out gradually. Removing invasive

species as quickly as possible is generally considered to be imperative in initiating the

recovery of an ecosystem (SER, 2002). As such, it is assumed that this gradual removal is

done so as to limit public opposition to the treatment. Such an approach is indicative of

the types of compromises involved in restoring well-used and highly-valued urban public

spaces. The use of techniques such as these would likely not appeal to the purists in the

restoration community. However, the decision of High Park’s restorationists to

meaningfully involve the public in learning about the variety of restoration techniques

available, and to then alter these techniques according to community values indicates a

program in which restoration is truly directed by local people.

60

While such a conclusion may distress those concerned about the ecological

viability of such a restoration effort, it needs to be stressed that without community

support, restoration in urban greenspaces will not occur at all. A restoration treatment

compromised to take into account community valuation of the site is no doubt initially

less ecologically valuable than one carried out exclusively for ecosystem health.

Nevertheless, taking into account a community’s valuation of the site in the restoration

plan allows for the establishment of a basis of public support to the extent that the public

is able to feel ownership over what happens to the local natural world: a well documented

prerequisite to fostering a sense of responsibility and stewardship. In the context of this

paper, the importance of a community-driven restoration program is considered

imperative in effecting long-term change in the human-nature relationship. As such, the

approach taken in the current High Park restoration program is considered to be

effectively addressing such considerations.

Involving a Diversity of People in Restoration Efforts

The above sections of Chapter 4 have focussed on assessing High Park’s current

restoration program in terms of the level to which the public is able to be involved in

restoring the park’s Black Oak savannah systems. How does the program fare in terms of

involving a diversity of people in these restoration efforts? The program appears to be

effectively involving a diverse range of people, both in terms of age and socioeconomic

background. The extent to which different ethnic groups participate in the project is not

clear.

61

By fostering the participation of people of various ages and socioeconomic

backgrounds, the current restoration program achieves two primary goals. Firstly, a

diversity of people are able to experience the Black Oak savannah’s unique character, to

learn about the threats to its persistence, to be involved in helping it to survive, and thus

to be involved in building a relationship with this special landscape type. Secondly, by

sharing interest in, knowledge of, and commitment to restoration of the Black Oak

savannahs with people from different areas of the city and different walks of life, the

restoration program is effectively facilitating the possibility of community-initiated

projects in other areas of the city and beyond. As the Black Oak savannah ecosystem

once covered much of the Toronto area, inspiring interest in restoration initiatives in

participants from across the city could lead to the beginning of reestablishing the historic

range of the Black Oak savannahs within Toronto.

In summary, the current program aimed at restoring High Park’s Black Oak

savannahs appears, in most pertinent areas, to meet the standards developed in Chapters 3

and 4 of this document. By addressing both the needs of the ecosystem and the local

community, existing efforts to restore the featured ecosystem type are well equipped to

help in developing a human-nature relationship premised on connection, embeddedness,

belonging, and respect. The greatest strengths of the current program are its focus on

involving the community at every stage of the restoration process, and the opportunity it

offers for people’s everyday lives to be integrated with the unique Black Oak savannah

ecosystem.

62

Chapter 5: Conclusions: Why Restoration Success is so Rooted in Integrating

Practice with Ethnobiological Understandings

This paper focussed on a number of issues pertaining to restoration in a highly-

used, highly-valued urban greenspace. The primary purpose of this piece was to highlight

the ways in which restoration can be carried out so as to effect change in the relationship

between urban residents and the natural world. As discussed early in the paper, this

relationship has been seen to be typically quite weak, with urban residents perhaps

feeling the least embedded in nature of all modern Western individuals.

As an entity is only as strong as its weakest link, it was argued from the outset in

this work that it is towards the urban milieu that restorationists must direct the most

attention if restoration as a pursuit is to be successful in effecting long-term, broad-scale

environmental change. This was argued to be particularly so in part because urban

residents now comprise the majority of the voting public in Western countries, and thus

hold the greatest sway in terms of affecting the outcome of decisions regarding the

environment. If what we are referring to as the weakest link also comprises the majority

of the population, it seems reasonable to argue that this is the area in need of the most

urgent attention from those who would like to see degraded ecosystems restored to their

full ecological potential.

This paper focussed on the concept that, in order for restoration to achieve such a

potential, we must look at this process as one based on a relationship between the

restorers and the restored. If restoration is about negotiating a relationship between these

parties, then the first step in trying to improve and deepen this relationship must be to

first acknowledge that it exists and is important in determining how people relate to the

63

natural world. The human-nature relationship in the urban context was thus analysed in

this paper through an ethnobiological lens. Through this lens, the relationship between

people and their local natural world was examined as being both based on and indicative

of people’s feeling of connection to, or alternatively, alienation from, nature.

The remnant Black Oak savannah system in High Park was chosen as a feature

ecosystem in which could be explored ways of proceeding with restoration in the very

often complex urban context. As was discussed throughout Chapters 3 and 4, a number of

considerations must be taken into account in urban restoration projects. Not least of these

is the fact that the ecological goals of a project must sometimes be compromised to

accommodate social requirements and/or geographical constraints present in the urban

context.

The Black Oak savannahs served as a useful case study on which to focus an

investigation into the issues involved in urban restoration. As an endangered ecosystem,

its ecological requirements are so urgent that it is imperative to appropriately address

questions of compromise in a restoration program. Nevertheless, as discussed throughout

the paper, urban restoration is unique partially because it is provides a situation in which

without compromise to gain community support, there will be no restoration at all. Urban

greenspaces are so highly valued by urban residents, and there is such a diversity of

interests involved in determining what will happen to a site, that attempting to carry out a

restoration project is as much about negotiating community relations as it is about

determining the best course of action to take in rehabilitating an ecosystem.

Urban restoration, then, represents a unique situation in which ecological and

community needs must be integrated if the well-being of an ecosystem is to be ensured.

64

In attempting to integrate these needs in the development of a best-practices restoration

program, understandings from ethnobiology were drawn on throughout this paper.

Ethnobiology focuses on examining interactions between human and natural

communities. As such, integrating insights from this field with concepts from the

restoration literature provided fertile ground for exploring the development of a

restoration process capable of achieving a shift in people’s perception, and thus

treatment, of the natural world.

The aim of this paper was to bring together insights from a diversity of disciplines

to assist in the development of a restoration process in which both people and ecosystems

are given equal consideration. As an analysis and synthesis of a broad-ranging selection

of literature from the fields of restoration, ethnobiology, community studies, and non-

hierarchical organising, this project represents the integration of knowledge from

traditionally disparate fields. By drawing on such a diverse range of theoretical

underpinnings, this paper serves as a reflection of what, at its best, restoration represents:

bringing together people from every imaginable background with ecosystems of

unimaginable complexity.

Restoring natural systems, particularly in human-dominated landscapes, is a

challenging endeavour. The contemporary situation, in which the most at-risk ecosystems

are typically found within human-dominated areas, necessitates that we address the ways

in which not just site-by-site, but long-term, broad-scale amelioration of environmental

problems may be effected. It is hoped that by drawing on the insights of both those with

expertise in the fields of biology and ecology, and those with expertise in anthropology

and sociology, this project served to aid in the development of a restoration process that

65

can be effective at healing the land while simultaneously healing people’s relationship

with the natural world.

Without creating a positive space for humans in the restoration process, we may

be unable to achieve the recovery of degraded natural landscapes. In the urban context

presented here, as well as in what have in many cases been erroneously termed

‘wilderness’ areas, people are a part of the natural world. Looking at restoration as a

process of nature:culture negotiation, a process of coming to understand how our

perception of and interaction with the local landscape influence our behaviour towards

the land may be imperative in determining the future persistence of ecosystems such as

southern Ontario's Black Oak savannahs. The ethnobiological perspective recognises that

landscapes are places of interaction between people and nature; such a fundamental

insight offers to restoration the opportunity to invite people to be a part of healing their

local natural spaces, and their relationship with these often already highly-valued sites.

By integrating knowledge, insights and understandings from ethnobiology and

restoration, it is hoped that we may come one step closer to offering such an opportunity

for both people and nature.

66

Bibliography:

Adams, W. 1997. Rationalization and conservation: Ecology and the management ofnature in the United Kingdom. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, NewSeries, Vol. 22, No. 3. (1997), pp. 277-291.

Alcorn, J.B. 1995. The scope and aims of ethnobotany in a developing world. InEthnobotany: Evolution of a Discipline, ed. by R.E. Schultes and S. von Reis, pp. 23-29.Portland, Oregon: Dioscorides Press.

Anderson, M.K. 1996. The ethnobotany of deergrass, Muhlenbergia rigens (Poaceae): Itsuses and fire management by California Indian Tribes. Economic Botany 50(4): 409-423.

Anderson, M.K. 1993. Native Californians as ancient and contemporary cultivators. InBefore the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians, ed. by T.C.Blackburn and K. Anderson, pp. 151-174. Menlo Park, California: Ballena Press.

Anderson, M.K. 1993. The Experimental Approach to Assessment of the PotentialEcological Effects of Horticultural Practices by Indigenous Peoples on CaliforniaWildlands. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.

Apfelbaum, S.I. 1995. Savannah Research Plot Program at High Park’s Oak Woodlands.Toronto: Applied Ecological Services.

Apfelbaum, S.I. 1993. Analysis of Historic and Existing Ecological Conditions ofSignificant Oak Woodlands at High Park, Toronto, Canada. Toronto: Applied EcologicalServices.

Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and ResourceManagement. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Introduction: Linking social and ecological systems forresilience and sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: ManagementPractices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, ed. by F. Berkes, C. Folke, andJ. Colding, pp. 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berlin, B. 1992. Excerpts from Ethnobiological Classification: Principles ofCategorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies, pp. 3-35; 52-78. Princeton:Princeton University Press.

Blair, R. 1996. Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. EcologicalApplications, 6 (2): 506-519.

Bright, A., S.C. Barro, and R. T. Burtz. 2002. Public attitudes toward ecologicalrestoration in the Chicago Metropolitan Region. Society and Natural Resources, 15:763-785.

67

Brothers, T. 1990. Surface-mine grasslands. Geographical Review, 80(3): 209-225.

Callicott, J. B. 1994. Earth’s Insights: A survey of Ecological Ethics from theMediterranean Basin to the Australian Outback. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Campfens, H, ed. 1999. Community Development Around the World: Practice, Theory,Research, Training. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

City of Toronto Parks and Urban Forestry. 2002. Toronto’s oak savannahs are ecologicaltreasures. In Toronto Fun 2002 Spring/Summer. Toronto: Parks and RecreationDepartment.

Civic Trust. 1988. Urban Wasteland Now. London: Russell Press Ltd.

Clewell, A., J. Rieger, and J. Munro. 2000. Guidelines for Developing and ManagingEcological Restoration Projects. Society for Ecological Restoration, www.ser.org.

Clewell, A. 2001. Resistance to restoration. Ecological Restoration, 19(1): 3-4.

Egan, D. 2001. Beyond members: Another level of community. Ecological Restoration,19(2): 67-68.

Escobar, A. 2001. Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategiesof localization. Political Geography, 20(2): 139-174.

Escobar, A. 1999. After nature, steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. CurrentAnthropology, 40(1): 1-30.

Fernandez-Gimenez, M. 1993. The role of ecological perception in indigenous resourcemanagement: A case study from the Mongolian forest-steppe. Nomadic Peoples, 33: 31-46.

Fule, P., W. Covington, and M. Moore. 1997. Determining reference conditions forecosystem management of southwestern Ponderosa Pine forests. Ecological Applications,7(3): 895-908.

Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversityconservation. Ambio, 22 (2/3): 151-156.

Geist, C. and S.M. Galatowitsch. 1999. Reciprocal model for meeting ecological andhuman needs in restoration projects. Conservation Biology, 13(5): 970-979.

Gobster, P.H. and R.B. Hull. 2001. Restoring nature: Continuing the conversation.Ecological Restoration, 19(4): 225-226.

68

Havinga, D. 2000. Sustaining Biodiversity: A Strategic Plan for Managing InvasivePlants in Southern Ontario. Toronto: City of Toronto.

Heinrichs, L.. 1997. Grazing as a technique for prairie restoration. Restoration andReclamation Review (University of Minnesota-St. Paul Department of HorticulturalScience), www.hort.agri.umn.edu.

Herkert, J. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on midwestern grassland birdcommunities. Ecological Applications, 4(3): 461-471.

Higgs, E. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology, 11(2): 338.

High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee. 2003a). Annual Report 2002/2003. Toronto:HPCAC.

High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee. 2003b). High Park Volunteer StewardshipProgram: Newsletter and Calendar. Toronto: HPCAC.

High Park Citizen’s Advisory Committee. 2001. High Park Nature Centre Report.Toronto: HPCAC.

Howe, M.F. 1994. Response of early- and late-flowering plants to fire season inexperimental prairies. Ecological Applications, 4(1): 121-133.

Hrenchuk, C. 1993. Native land use and common property: Whose common? InTraditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, ed. by Julian T. Inglis. pp. 69-86.

Hunn, E. S. with J. Selam and family. 1990. Nch’i-Wana: “The Big River”: Mid-Columbia Indians and Their Land. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Johnson, L. M. 2002. Ethnobiology: Traditional Knowledge of Plants, Animals, and Landin Contemporary Global Context. Athabasca, AB: Athabasca University.

Johnson Gottesfeld, L.M. 1994 a). Conservation, territory, and traditional beliefs: Ananalysis of Gitksan and Wet’suwet’en subsistence, Northwest British Columbia, Canada.Human Ecology, 22(4):443-465.

Johnson Gottesfeld, L.M. 1994 b). Wet’suwet’en ethnobotany: Traditional plant uses.Journal of Ethnobiology, 14(2):185-210.

Johnson Gottesfeld, L.M., and B. Anderson. 1988. Gitksan traditional medicine: Herbsand healing. Journal of Ethnobiology, 8(1):13-33

Kaye, J.P. and S.C. Hart. 1998. Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformation in aPonderosa Pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications, 8(4): 1052-1060.

69

Kessler, W., H. Salwasser, C. Cartwright, and J. Caplan. 1992. New perspectives forsustainable resources management. Ecological Applications, 2(3): 221-225.

Kidd, J. 2002. High Park: Restoring a Jewel of Toronto’s Park System: RestorationStrategies for High Park. Toronto: Parks and Recreation Department.

Kindscher, K. 1992. Medicinal Wild Plants of the Prairie: An Ethnobotanical Guide.Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Kirkby, J., P. O’Keefe, and L. Timberlake. 1995. Introduction. In The Earthscan Readerin Sustainable Developmen, ed. by J. Kirkby, P. O’Keefe, and L. Timberlake, pp. 1-16.London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Lewis, D. and J. Barnsley. 1990. Strategies for Change: From Women’s Experience to aPlan for Action. Vancouver: The Women’s Research Centre.

Lewis, H.T. 1982. Fire technology and resource management in Aboriginal NorthAmerica and Australia. In Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers, ed. by N.M. Williams and E.S. Hunn, pp. 45-68. Boulder, Colorado: WestviewPress Inc.

Lubchenko, J., A. Olson, L. Brubaker, S. Carpenter, M Holland, S. Hubbell, S. Levin, J.McMahon, P Matson, J Melillo, H Mooney, C. Peterson, H Pulliam, L Real, P. Regal,and P. Risser. 1991. The sustainable biosphere initiative: An ecological research agenda.Ecology, 72(2): 371-412.

Maloney, J.N. 1997. Oak savannah restoration techniques. Restoration and ReclamationReview (University of Minnesota-St. Paul Department of Horticultural Science),www.hort.agri.umn.edu.

MapArt Publishing. 2001. Ontario Map. Oshawa, ON: Peter Heiler Ltd.

Morrison, M.L. 2001. Introduction: Concepts of wildlife and wildlife habitat forecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 9(3): 251-252.

Nelson, R.K. 1986. Make Prayers to the Raven: A Koyukon View of the Northern Forest.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nicholson-Lord, D. 2003. Make our cities green. New Statesman, 132(4634): 32-33.

North American Native Plant Society. Undated online photo album. www.nanps.org

Reid, R. 2002. Practical Options for the Greening of Carolinian Canada. Prepared by RonReid, Bobolink Enterprises, in Collaboration with the Carolinian Canada Coalition.

70

Reid, R. and Symmes, R. 1997. Conservation Strategy for Carolinian Canada: SummaryReport. Prepared for the Carolinian Canada Steering Committee, London, ON.

Ringold, P., J. Alegria, R. Czaplewski, B. Mulder, T. Tolle, and K. Burnett. 1996.Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecological Applications 6(3):745-747.

Rodger, L. 1998. Tallgrass Communities of Southern Ontario: A Recovery Plan. Toronto:World Wildlife Fund.

Rubin, H.J. and I.S. Rubin. 2001. Community Organizing and Development, 3rd Edition.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Working Group. 2002. The SERPrimer on Ecological Restoration. www.ser.org/

Sinclair, A., D. Hik, O. Schmitz, G. Scudder, D. Turpin, and N Carter. 1995. Biodiversityand the need for habitat renewal. Ecological Applications, 5(3):579-587.

Stairs, A. and G. Wenzel. 1992. “I am I and the environment”: Inuit hunting, communityand identity. Journal of Indigenous Studies, 3(1): 1-12.

Throop, W. 2001. Restoring nature: Balancing nature and humans in ecologicalrestoration. Ecological Restoration, 19(4): 215-217.

Toronto Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Parks and RecreationDivision. 2002. High Park Woodland and Savannah Management Plan. Toronto: City ofToronto.

Toronto Department of Parks and Recreation. 1992. High Park: Draft Proposals forRestoration and Management: A Report to Neighbourhood Committee. Toronto: City ofToronto.

Toronto Parks and Recreation Department. 1996. High Park Oak Woodlands Study: AnImplementation Plan For the Savannah Research Test Plot Program. Toronto: City ofToronto, Parks and Recreation.

Toronto Urban Forestry Services. 2001. High Park Oak Savannah and WoodlandsRestoration. Toronto: Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Parks andRecreation.

Turner, N.J. 1999. “Time to burn”: Tradtional use of fire to enhance resource productionby Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. In Indians, Fire and the Land in the PacificNorthwest, ed. by Robert Boyd, pp. 185-218. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

71

Turner, N.J. 1997. Royal British Columbia Museum Handbook: Food Plants of InteriorFirst Peoples. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Turner, N.J., L.C. Thompson, and M.T. Thompson. 1990. Thompson Ethnobotany:Knowledge and Usage of Plants by the Thompson Indians of British Columbia. Victoria:Royal British Columbia Museum.

Urban Forest Associates. 2002. Invasive exotic species ranking for southern Ontario.www.serontario.org/publication.htm

Urbanska, K.M., N.R. Webb, and P.J. Edwards, eds. 1997. Restoration Ecology andSustainable Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Varga, S. 1989. A Botanical Inventory and Evaluation of the High Park Oak Woodlands:Area of Natural and Scientific Interest. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Parks andRecreational Section. Toronto: OMNR.

Wackernagel, M., and W. Rees. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing HumanImpact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Wait, A. 2003. Ditch the dirt. The Lawyer, February 17, P7.

Weaver, J.E. and T. J. Fitzpatrick. 1934. The prairie. Ecological Monographs, 4(2): 109-295.

Whisenant, S.G. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands: A Process-Oriented, Landscape-Scale Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/index.htm

www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/techservices/involved/outreach/vsp/flowers.htm

Xiong, S. and C. Nilsson. 1999. The effects of plant litter on vegetation: A meta-analysis.Journal of Ecology, 87:984-994.