The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems
Abstract
Abstract: The reasons ecosystems should be restored are numerous, disparate, generally understated, and commonly underappreciated. We offer a typology in which these reasons—or motivations—are ordered among five rationales: technocratic, biotic, heuristic, idealistic, and pragmatic. The technocratic rationale encompasses restoration that is conducted by government agencies or other large organizations to satisfy specific institutional missions and mandates. The biotic rationale for restoration is to recover lost aspects of local biodiversity. The heuristic rationale attempts to elicit or demonstrate ecological principles and biotic expressions. The idealistic rationale consists of personal and cultural expressions of concern or atonement for environmental degradation, reengagement with nature, and/or spiritual fulfillment. The pragmatic rationale seeks to recover or repair ecosystems for their capacity to provide a broad array of natural services and products upon which human economies depend and to counteract extremes in climate caused by ecosystem loss. We propose that technocratic restoration, as currently conceived and practiced, is too narrow in scope and should be broadened to include the pragmatic rationale whose overarching importance is just beginning to be recognized. We suggest that technocratic restoration is too authoritarian, that idealistic restoration is overly restricted by lack of administrative strengths, and that a melding of the two approaches would benefit both. Three recent examples are given of restoration that blends the technocratic, idealistic, and pragmatic rationales and demonstrates the potential for a more unified approach. The biotic and heuristic rationales can be satisfied within the contexts of the other rationales.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Valuation of Ecosystem Services
van Wilgen, B. W., Cowling, R. M., & Burgers, C. J. (1996) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1312739 · Cited by 179
Cited by
Riparian vegetation: degradation, alien plant invasions, and restoration prospects
Richardson, D. M., Holmes, P. M., Esler, K. J., Galatowitsch, S. M., Stromberg, J. C., Kirkman, S. P., Pyšek, P., & Hobbs, R. J. (2007) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1366-9516.2006.00314.x · Cited by 959
Impacts of invasive Australian acacias: implications for management and restoration
Le Maitre, D. C., Gaertner, M., Marchante, E., Ens, E., Holmes, P. M., Pauchard, A., O’Farrell, P. J., Rogers, A. M., Blanchard, R., Blignaut, J., et al. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00816.x · Cited by 444
Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century
Martin, D. M. (2017) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12554 · Cited by 258
SANDERSON, E. W., REDFORD, K. H., WEBER, B., AUNE, K., BALDES, D., BERGER, J., CARTER, D., CURTIN, C., DERR, J., DOBROTT, S., et al. (2008) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00899.x · Cited by 193
Restoration and Reciprocity: The Contributions of Traditional Ecological Knowledge
Kimmerer, R. (2011) · Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration · doi:10.5822/978-1-61091-039-2_18 · Cited by 161
Metadata
- Authors
- CLEWELL, A. F., & ARONSON, J.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03-27
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 420-428
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2167360772
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00340.x
- The paper
- CLEWELL, A. F., & ARONSON, J. (2006). Motivations for the Restoration of Ecosystems. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00340.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.