damaged, or destroyed” (Primer; SER 2002 cited in Martin 2017). Within academia,
ecological restoration aligns with conservation biology and more recently also the
idea of rewilding, with a focus on protection of valuable ecosystems and restoration
of natural habitats (Pires 2017).
The field of ecological restoration has been criticized for deploying a naïve and
static understanding of nature. While nature is inherently dynamic, as studies of
climate history have revealed, an ecosystem can never be restored (in the true sense
of the word) into a previous condition, only altered (Choi 2007). Ecological restoration inevitably involves values, ethics, priorities and, most importantly, human
actions in the landscape. As such, it is a field that depends on insights both from the
natural and the social sciences, as well as direct involvement of actors who live
adjacent to and/or depend directly on the health of the ecosystems (Palmer et al.
2016). The questions of who decides when an ecosystem is deemed degraded, and
how restoration should be done, make ecological restoration an inherently political
issue (Martin 2017). This observation also relates to the question of which actors
should be responsible for the restoration, as there are often differences in ideals
between different actors (Blicharska and Rönnbäck 2018).
The prospect of fostering engagement with fish, fishing and water ecosystems is
an explicit driver and goal for the Skolbäcken project. There is evidence in the
literature of a connection between nature experiences and memories in childhood
and pro-environmental behaviour and engagement later in life (Beery and Lekies
2018). However, it is important to acknowledge that this connection is often found to
be modest and that there are several challenges when trying to empirically study such
relationships (Beery and Wolf-Watz 2014). Firstly, there are many ways of being
environmentally engaged and so defining and operationalising this term is difficult.
Secondly, it is difficult to weigh the importance direct nature contact has in relation
to other experiences and sources of inspiration during childhood, such as norms and
encouragement from families and friends. Third, “nature” is a very broad concept—
from the flora of bacteria in our stomachs to the stars above our heads. It is therefore
difficult to say something specific about these myriads of different phenomena and
how they can help form children’s values and behaviour.
Finally, the concept of ERE can be seen as a part of larger movement that stresses
the importance of seeing humans’ role in nature in an alternative, more positive and
constructive light than in anxiety-driven narratives. Jepson has suggested “the
Recoverable Earth” as a narrative, which “offers citizens something new, hopeful
intriguing, purposeful and potentially rewarding, namely the invitation to participate
in the unfolding new stories about the relationship between nature and people”
(Jepson 2019, p. 128). We see concurrence between Jepsons assertions and the
unfolding of ideas and practices behind the development of Skolbäcken.
We are fully aware that in the era of gloomy environmental prognosis, any
hopeful position about the recoverability of the world and humans active role in it
can easily be deemed romanticised and unrealistic. To make our hopeful position a
bit more robust, we frame it as “meliorism”. This is a position that takes a middle
ground between fundamental optimism and pessimism and is important within the
pragmatism tradition and philosophers such as John Dewey (known in the context of
From Onlookers to Ecosystem-Assistants: Exploring the Potentials of Ecological. . .
227
ecological restoration aligns with conservation biology and more recently also the
idea of rewilding, with a focus on protection of valuable ecosystems and restoration
of natural habitats (Pires 2017).
The field of ecological restoration has been criticized for deploying a naïve and
static understanding of nature. While nature is inherently dynamic, as studies of
climate history have revealed, an ecosystem can never be restored (in the true sense
of the word) into a previous condition, only altered (Choi 2007). Ecological restoration inevitably involves values, ethics, priorities and, most importantly, human
actions in the landscape. As such, it is a field that depends on insights both from the
natural and the social sciences, as well as direct involvement of actors who live
adjacent to and/or depend directly on the health of the ecosystems (Palmer et al.
2016). The questions of who decides when an ecosystem is deemed degraded, and
how restoration should be done, make ecological restoration an inherently political
issue (Martin 2017). This observation also relates to the question of which actors
should be responsible for the restoration, as there are often differences in ideals
between different actors (Blicharska and Rönnbäck 2018).
The prospect of fostering engagement with fish, fishing and water ecosystems is
an explicit driver and goal for the Skolbäcken project. There is evidence in the
literature of a connection between nature experiences and memories in childhood
and pro-environmental behaviour and engagement later in life (Beery and Lekies
2018). However, it is important to acknowledge that this connection is often found to
be modest and that there are several challenges when trying to empirically study such
relationships (Beery and Wolf-Watz 2014). Firstly, there are many ways of being
environmentally engaged and so defining and operationalising this term is difficult.
Secondly, it is difficult to weigh the importance direct nature contact has in relation
to other experiences and sources of inspiration during childhood, such as norms and
encouragement from families and friends. Third, “nature” is a very broad concept—
from the flora of bacteria in our stomachs to the stars above our heads. It is therefore
difficult to say something specific about these myriads of different phenomena and
how they can help form children’s values and behaviour.
Finally, the concept of ERE can be seen as a part of larger movement that stresses
the importance of seeing humans’ role in nature in an alternative, more positive and
constructive light than in anxiety-driven narratives. Jepson has suggested “the
Recoverable Earth” as a narrative, which “offers citizens something new, hopeful
intriguing, purposeful and potentially rewarding, namely the invitation to participate
in the unfolding new stories about the relationship between nature and people”
(Jepson 2019, p. 128). We see concurrence between Jepsons assertions and the
unfolding of ideas and practices behind the development of Skolbäcken.
We are fully aware that in the era of gloomy environmental prognosis, any
hopeful position about the recoverability of the world and humans active role in it
can easily be deemed romanticised and unrealistic. To make our hopeful position a
bit more robust, we frame it as “meliorism”. This is a position that takes a middle
ground between fundamental optimism and pessimism and is important within the
pragmatism tradition and philosophers such as John Dewey (known in the context of
From Onlookers to Ecosystem-Assistants: Exploring the Potentials of Ecological. . .
227