9722

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9722
• Author: Hilderbrand, R.H., A.C. Watts and A.M. Randle.
• Title: The myths of restoration ecology.
• USFW Year: 2005.
• USFW - Doc Type: Ecology and Society
• Copyright Material: YES

THE MYTH OF THE COOKBOOK

When a particular restoration experience is
successful in one area or ecosystem, we naturally
want to apply the same techniques in other
restoration efforts; after all, science has little
relevance if the results are not repeatable. We refer
to the over-use or continued use of a locally
unsuccessful restoration prescription because it
worked somewhere else, or is in the published
literature, as the myth ofthe Cookbook. Perpetrators
of this myth assume that similar physical and
ecological systems respond identically and
predictably to restoration techniques. Although a
reasonable starting point, systems that appear very
similar may exhibit considerable differences in
variables that regulate slow processes (e.g., carbon
storage), and the same management prescription
applied to two such systems may have vastly
different results. The difficulty arises when
approaches are adopted that ignore uncertainty. A
non-adaptive technique forces us down a path with
few alternatives to a changing world.

The myth of the cookbook arises often in stream
restoration, and possibly wetland restoration and
creation, where recipes forrestoration exist (Rosgen
1998). Cookbook approaches seem to be most often
present in engineering approaches to restorations.
Weare not denouncing the goal of standard
methods, but we believe that there is still too much
uncertainty to commit totally to one technique in a
given situation. Even in chemistry, where well
developed standard methods exist, a good yield
from a single reaction may be 90% and a complex
set of reactions may yield less than 50%, meaning
that half the reactions did not go as they should.
Given the complexity of many restorations, the
practice is fairly successful relative to the chemistry
analogy. However, incomplete chemical reactions
can be precipitated, discarded, or otherwise dealt
with quickly and inexpensively, but we do not have
the luxury to treat degraded systems similarly, nor
can we accept such a failure rate given the high
financial cost. The positive side is that systems are
rarely in worse condition after a restoration even if
the project did not meet the stated goals.

To resource professionals plagued by alack of
information, time, and budget, cookbook
approaches may be the only realistic approach. The
opportunity to use a successful restoration effort as
a template for a similar system is a start, and may
be preferable to inaction. It may also De advisable

Ecology and Society 10(1): 19 A
htto:/ lwww.ecolol!.Vandsocietv.ore/vollO/issl/artI9/

to replicate certain elements of proven restoration
techniques, because some valid generalities may be
made concerning the responses of a wide range of
ecosystems to the same actions (Zedler 2000a).
However, idiosyncrasies of each system (unique
ecological histories, differing assembly rules, or
even differing functional roles of components of
two similar ecosystems) may result in elements of
surprise and crisis when a uniform, cookbook
approach is used without detailed knowledge of the
ecological characteristics of the ecosystem to be
restored. As the community or ecosystem to be
restored becomes less and less similar to the system
in which a given restoration approach was
successful, the potential for unforeseen responses
and failure increases dramatically.

By defining the myth of the Cookbook, we do not
advocate reinventing the wheel with every new
project. One of the major goals of restoration
ecology is to develop a suite of methods that can be
used in a given situation to best effect. We believe
this desire or belief in repeatable methods is why
the cookbook remains. Problems arise when a
method is over used or used in the wrong situation
just because the method exists and is understood. A
number of approaches (e.g., Kershner 1997, Clewell
et al. 2000, Richter et al. 2003) provide general
guidance, but allow for site-specific adjustments to
deal with uncertainty. A more cautious approach,
acknowledging our inability to predict the exact
response of an ecosystem to manipulation, would
be the application of a varied management or
restoration regime across a landscape. Techniques
aimed at discovering and mimicking the character
of natural systems would be more likely to find
successful solutions (Mitsch and Wilson 1996),
while likely contributing to the resilience of the
system (Holling et al. 2002).

THE MYTH OF COMMAND AND
CONTROL AND THE SISYPHUS COMPLEX

The myth of Command and Control (Holling and
Meffe 1996) describes the "pathology of natural
resources management" where goals are achieved
by active intervention and unending control, or
manipulation of physical and biological components
of the ecosystem. This myth, articulated by Holling
and Meffe (1996), assumes we have the knowledge,
abilities, and foresight to actively control ecosystem
structure and function to manage for a particular
ecosystem state indefinitely into the future. Exerting