Reference: Aronson, J. & Le Floc'h, E. 1996. Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology.

Restoration Ecology 4: 377-387.

Vital landscape attributes: missing tools for restoration ecology James ARONSON and Edouard LE FLOC'H Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionelle et Evolutive Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique B.P. 5051, 34033 Montpellier cedex 01, France Fax + 334 67.41.21.38 lefloch@cefe.cnrs-mop.fr aronson@cefe.cnrs-mop.fr

Abstract Twenty three "vital ecosystem attributes" (VEAs) were previously proposed to aid in quantitative evaluation of whole ecosystem structure, composition and functional complexity over time. We here introduce a series of 16 quantifiable attributes for use at a higher spatial scale and ecological organisational level, the landscape. "Vital landscape attributes" (VLAs), should be useful in evaluating the results of ecological restoration or rehabilitation undertaken with a landscape perspective, provided that clear definitions and boundaries are agreed upon for the different spatial and ecological entities involved. Like VEAs, VLAs should be sensitive to changes wrought by human as well as non-human factors leading to ruptures in flow processes or vegetation `switches'. They should be applicable over a wide range of landscape types and therefore aid in conducting rigorous inter-landscape comparisons. Three groups of VLAs are presented: 1) landscape structure and biotic composition, 2) functional interactions among ecosystems within the landscape, and 3) degree, type and causes of landscape fragmentation and degradation. Ecotones between ecosystems are touched upon by several different VLAs. As conflicting terminology abounds in this area, we append a glossary defining the problematic terms used.

Introduction Fifteen years ago, Forman & Godron (1981) called for distinct, measurable units to describe landscapes. Today, "landscape ecologists" do measure spatial components and dimensions of landscapes, but the concepts and units of measurement appropriate to the study of ecological aspects of whole landscapes have not yet been adequately developed. Many recent papers in this journal have cited the need for specific criteria to evaluate restoration and rehabilitation projects undertaken with a landscape perspective (Brown & Lugo 1994; Dahm et al. 1995; Jackson et al. 1995; Kondolf 1995). However, there have been few attempts at developing a practical approach with concrete methods. Perhaps the first problem has to do with defining the word "landscapes". Geographers in western Europe and North America tend to think of landscapes as something entirely subjective, whereas ecologists grapple only with the objective, material aspects of what they also name landscapes. Some authors (e.g., Berque 1990) have suggested - and rightly we think - that the notion of landscape is subjective and objective at the same time, and can therefore be used in different ways by different people. However, this arrangement requires that each author clearly define his or her use of the term. By most of its dozen-or-more `official' definitions, landscape certainly is generally something that involves humans - as individual observers or as a society. In contrast, ecologists place emphasis on biophysical features and the various interactions of an ecological and evolutionary character that take place within a landscape. Clearly, some kind of rapprochement is needed since, as Bertrand (1972) noted, dealing scientifically with landscape means working at the crossroads between ecology and human geography. Otherwise, ecologists may have to give up the term "landscape" altogether and coin a new one to indicate what they are talking about. But the problem of interacting across disciplinary lines would not have been eliminated by this tactic. A second stumbling block for ecologists and geographers alike has been the failure to clearly identify the place of landscapes in spatial or ecological hierarchies. Naveh & Lieberman (1984), Orians (1986), Tongway (1991), Hobbs (1993), and Whisenant et al. (1995) have all written of the need for quantifying landscapes as something discretely embedded within a well-defined hierarchy. However, they did not provide one! Working with wetlands, Zedler (Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory 1990), Swanson et al. (1990), Kelly & Harwell (1990) and many of the contributors to Stetzner et al. (1994) worked and reported results within a coherent conceptual hierarchy of fluvial units. For no apparent reason, far less has been attempted to develop quantifiable traits and experimental approaches to studying

and manipulating terrestrial systems with a nested approach (Hobbs & Saunders 1992; Hobbs & Norton 1996). Yet, just as when `landscape' is used as a spatial entity, we need to know where the authors draw boundaries around it on a map, so if this same word is denotes a level of ecological complexity (Forman & Godron 1981, 1986), then we need a clear exposition of the ecological hierarchy in which it appears (Aronson & Le Floc'h, 1996). We have previously presented a schematic model of ecosystem degradation, and the three main responses available, with emphasis on arid and semiarid lands where degradation tends to be widespread and severe (Aronson et al. 1993a). Applications of this model, and of a series of "vital ecosystem attributes" (VEAs), to on-going field experiments in southern Tunisia, central Chile and northern Cameroon were also described (Aronson et al. 1993b). A somewhat comparable overview for aquatic systems, particularly streams and rivers, was provided by Kelly & Harwell 1990). Lefroy & Hobbs (1993) have made an excellent contribution in the same vein, although they restricted themselves to agricultural systems where economic considerations are as or more important than biodiversity or other environmental or aesthetic concerns. In this paper, we introduce a series of measures to be used as a corollary to VEVEAVEAs; we call them "vital landscape attributes", or VLAs. Like VEAs, VLAs should provide quantitative indicators of levels of landscape degradation or - as is often said when ecologists are speaking of landscapes - their "fragmentation" (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992). In other words, they should help to monitor and compare restoration or rehabilitation projects whether or not the project designers fully realized the importance of a landscape perspective. No doubt such concerns are of most relevance in areas where people are likely to continue being the primary ecological factor at work. VLAs should be sensitive, therefore, to perturbations wrought by both human or non-human interventions, and also easily applicable over the full range of landscape types. They should help reveal ruptures in spatial flow processes across landscapes and previous crossing of thresholds leading to vegetation "switches" (Wilson & Agnew 1992; Wilson & King 1995). Ideally, they should also reveal something about how local people are managing their environment, since the `health' of a landscape has a great deal to do with the degree of good management that people have attained and applied to their resource exploitation and production systems. No single index can provide such information. Instead, large suites of indicators are required to thoroughly assess the `health' and evolutionary direction (which we call "trajectory") of ecosystems and landscapes. Change at these scales comes about from socioeconomic, but also climatic or biogeophysical factors, and the myriad interactions among them. Analogous to vital ecosystem attributes, VLAs should serve to identify and quantify

landscape-scale traits that change in the course of degradation, restoration or rehabilitation. They can play a critical role in "directing landscape dynamics" (Whisenant 1994, 1995), or piloting ecosystem trajectories, by permitting the formulation and testing of hypotheses concerning the organisation of landscapes, and their effects on individual ecosystems. The main difficulty lies in identifying attributes that are truly appropriate to the landscape scale and can, therefore, increase the sharpness or acuity with which we perceive interacting components, trends, anamolies, etc. In other words, VLAs should help us resolve the complexity we perceive in landscapes, both spatially and ecologically, so as to increase our ability to analyse, compare and manage them in whatever context we are presented with. Accordingly, our approach is purposefully somewhat simplistic so as to help inachieving rapid evaluations - or as a doctor might say, diagnoses - of a landscape's current state and its probable evolutionary trajectory. VLAs differ from VEAs primarily by dealing with two or more interacting ecosystems, and/or the ecotones occurring between them. Secondly, some VLAs must be defined that permit quantitative description and analytical comparison of historical, cultural and other anthropogenic dimensions of landscapes. While we do not dwell here on symbolic, perceptual, or other cultural aspects of landscapes, we suggest, once again, that landscapes are not only a critically important scale for evaluation and intervention by restoration ecologists, but also the meeting place between ecology, human geography, environmental management and of course urban and rural landscape design. It thus becomes inevitable to include both bio-pedo-physical and cultural/historical variables when evaluating a landscape. However, our main goal here remains to establish a preliminary list of VLAs for ecologists. We now present 16 candidate VLAs. Depending on the study area and the priorities of the restoration team, this list can and should be modified, as mentioned above. In what follows, an ecosystem is considered as being contained within a landscape embedded in a biogeographical matrix. (See Appendix for terms in italics.) The VLAs listed come under three headings: a) structural and biotic composition, b) functional interactions among ecosystems, and c) degree, type and causes of fragmentation and degradation. Conversely, the level of landscape reintegration achieved may be measured. Despite their importance, we devote little attention here to ecological processes that affect populations of individual species (e.g., source-sink and neighborhood effects) (Dunning et al. 1992). Nevertheless, unless careful population-level studies are also carried out on at least some key organisms, it will be very difficult to undertake reliable syntheses at higher levels such as `community' or `ecosystem'. In selecting and classifying VLAs, we have generally followed the criteria of Kelly & Harwell (1990) and Aronson et al. (1993a). Identifying correlations among these various VLAs, and

comparing them for various contrasted landscapes, with different past histories, are research priorities for the future. Vital Landscape Attributes (VLAs) 1. Type, number and range of landforms is a logical starting point. In Russia, Siberia and central Europe, a long tradition exists for studying physical-chemical "geosystems" or "natural territorial complexes" (Grin 1984; Rougerie & Beroutchachvili 1991). These concepts also recur in the German notion of "landschaft" and the English phrase "natural landscape" as opposed to "cultural landscape", and they have had a strong influence on French geographers as well. Swanson et al. (1988) discussed geosystem processes or landform features that can affect ecosystems and landscapes, including environmental gradients and the movement of material, organisms, propagules and energy along them, and geomorphic processes that alter biotic features and processes. These same authors also pointed out that landforms also influence the frequency and spatial pattern of non-geomorphically induced disturbances such as fire, wind and grazing. 2. The number of ecosystems present needs to be explicit, including both aquatic and terrestrial types. These different ecosystems, and their boundaries, should be defined and located as carefully as possible. This may be difficult in areas where landscape heterogeneity has been drastically reduced by human activities over the past few centuries, and the natural boundaries between ecosystems obscured. In most situations, however, a tentative listing can be achieved on the basis of broad differences in landforms and/or extant biotic communities. When this is not possible, it may be preferable to work initially with "land units" (see below). Biotic communities can be typified according to mathematical indices of landscape richness, evenness and patchiness (Romme 1982). McCoy et al. (1986) developed a quantitative method to determine biotic boundaries along environmental gradients that requires only presenceabsence data and a series of multivariate analyses. This approach could well be applied to landscapes by employing a series of transects along complete toposequences in such a way as to represent the entire landscape (Aronson et al. in press a). Patchiness was also used by Romme (1982) to reveal the interspersion and contrast of `communities' at the landscape scale. However, communities do not segregate neatly in accordance with ecosystems and, as mentioned above, ecosystems and communities boundaries are often masked by past human activities. Accordingly, caution must be employed. Where legitimate doubt exists as to the distinctions that can be drawn between `landscape' and `ecosystem', we may subdivide the territory under study into "land units" (Christian & Stewart

1964). When more data are available, notably via quantification of various VEAs and VLAs, then more precise terms can be substituted. Spatial aspects of landscape pattern (or physiognomy, as some would call it) can indeed be most readily - if not always satisfactorily - analysed in terms of land units, i.e., "ecologically homogeneous tracts of land at the scale at issue" (Zonneveld 1989). By definition, a land unit may either represent portions of a landscape in a given stage of "recovery" following a disturbance, or else "permanent cultures of at least a decade", e.g., orchards, vineyards (Zonneveld 1989:79). They can also be tracts of "wilderness", fallows, or anything else that lends itself to spatial cartography. 3. Type, number and range of land units are three simple measures of heterogeneity within a landscape. Land units can also be characterized or categorized by more sophisticated indices, e.g., dominance and contagion within a landscape, and fractal dimension. O'Neill et al. (1988) have used this approach to discriminate between major landscape types in the eastern United States. Dominance measures the relative frequency of a land unit in a landscape. The contagion index measures the extent to which the different land uses are aggregated or clumped. Conveniently, the fractal geometry of land units is highly correlated with the degree of human manipulation of a given landscape. See O'Neill et al. (1988) for units of measurement and computation techniques. It may be mentioned that many other workers in landscape ecology have applied information theory and fractal geometry to quantifying shapes and boundaries in a landscape (Turner 1989). Exceptionally, Turner & Ruscher (1988) and Odum & Turner (1990) used these approaches to describe landscape changes in Georgia (USA) since 1920, thereby tracking changing spatial dynamics and fractal dimensions over a considerable period of time. This seems a particularly promising research direction to pursue. 4. Diversity, length and intensity of former human uses. This type of investigation has been called, in France, the archeology of landscapes. In attempting to `read' or decipher a landscape's current condition, it can be extremely useful to identify the dates and duration of periods of particularly intensive exploitation of the study area in the past. The age or longevity of different uses, and of intensive use in general, to which man has put a landscape and its bio-resources, and the intensity of that use as well, are often critical variables in the current state of `health' of the various ecosystems operating within the landscape under study. The plant and animal species found in landscapes long since occupied by man have tended to evolve certain commensal characteristics allowing them to subsist despite the repeated, intense

perturbations cause by rural populations....otherwise they have disappeared. Thus, knowing something about the history of land use by people is critical (Aronson et al. in press a,b). For example, we are currently engaged in comparing long-term ecosystem studies in southern France and central Chile where an order of difference in magnitude separates the age since energy- intensive systems of agricultural exploitation have been introduced and practised. In France there are some 6 - 10 millenia of such history, as compared with only four to 460 years in central Chile (Aronson & Le Floc'h 1996). What's more many of the most common plant species found in central Chile are in fact originally from the Mediterranean Basin, where they evolved in cohabitation with people. (N.B. It is be useful to speak of `positive feedback systems' in this context but, technically, the term "coevolution" should be avoided.) 5. Diversity of present human uses of landscapes, or portions thereof, includes those activites leaving no trace (hunting, hiking, mushroom collecting, etc.). This is not the same as the preceding VLA, since they cannot be easily mapped or studied spatially. In any case, they require in-depth studies of local people and their day-to-day activities and preferences. Typically, this is a VLA for which the help of geographers or sociologists may be required. 6. Number and proportion of land use types refers initially to the uses to which people put different pieces of land, with concrete physical consequences visable in the landscape. These are broad categories such as plough-farming, pasturing, tree-farming, etc., and do not necessarily correspond to specific geographical land units. The proportion of each land use type to overall land area can be readily quantified. This calculation may have important social and political ramifications when many different actors or interest groups are present in a given landscape. By using ratios for this VLA, size-related variations can be overcome for the purpose of inter-landscape comparisons. However, the problem with both proportions and ratios is that they tend to encourage thinking in terms of linear relationships that in fact only rarely exist. To avoid such oversimplification, a modified Shannon-Wiener Diversity Index (Westman 1985) can be used to measure three indices of landscape pattern: proportion of land use type, mean size, and an overall index of diversity, combining number and relative abundance within the landscape. 7. Number and variety of ecotones i.e., zones of high biological and energetic connectivity between ecosystems, and of varying shapes and widths. As habitat boundaries and more-or-less permeable barriers, ecotones have major impact on the movement of organisms and materials across

landscapes (Hansen & di Castri 1992). For example, conserving a variety of ecotones of differing shapes and sizes may lead to higher retention of nutrients and may influence nutrient cycling over predominantly agricultural landscapes (Ryszkowski 1992). Hardt & Forman (1989) reported similar results on reclaimed surface mines. More research on ecotones is needed in other kinds of landscapes. In some areas (e.g., much of southern Europe, where lands are being `liberated' from agriculture), there may be long-term value in not only conserving existing ecotones but also artificially recreating semi-permeable barriers to animal or plant movements, as well as to water, nutrient and energy flows. In theory, this could complement the sort of artificially fostered patch dynamics practised with success by Hardt & Forman (1989) and by Ludwig & Tongway (1996). 8. Number and types of corridors or "wildlife corridors" are increasingly investigated, but seldom in conjunction with human movements across landscapes; these are usually treated apart, and by different investigators. In our view, more attention should be paid to the direction and orientation of all travel routes traversing a landscape. In past Oriental as well as Occidental and African cultures, great attention was paid to the siting, routing and orientation of roads, bridges, tombs and other conveyors of human souls, or bodies, or livestock, produce and the like. These routes were often determined by simple factors such as topography, but also by more cryptic ones, such as wind and rainfall patterns, or the behavior of certain rivers in exceptionally wet years. Telluric force lines were also considered in some cases, and such efforts should not be neglected by modern day restorationists. Similarly, determining exactly why animals followed one path rather than another merits our full attention. For present purposes, however, we simply recommend some kind of census be undertaken of all forms of movement corridors within a landscape (see below). An obvious follow-up to this would be to monitor actual numbers of people, livestock or wild animals moving in each direction along a corridor in, say, a 24-hour period, per week, or per year. The important thing is to characterize how movements across the landscape were traditionally effected. 9. Diversity of selected critical groups of organisms (or "functional groups"; Krner 1993) is an essential component to the characterization of habitats or communities (representing an approximation of ecosystems). Birds, fish, crustaceans, higher plants, mycorrhizae, etc., could all be considered as key groups of interest at the landscape level; there are often close, functional correlations among groups. For example, it is widely held that abundance and diversity of birds in a river valley are indicators of abundance and diversity of fish. Large animals are usually given particular attention (Naiman 1988; Pastor et al. 1988). Some measures of beta (i.e., between sites of

a similar type), and gamma (overall landscape) diversity should be obtained, e.g., on the basis of presence-absence data (Wilson & Shmida 1984). 10. Range and modalities of organisms regularly crossing ecotones is a related VLA directly affecting trajectories of more than one ecosystem. This can be quantified simply by using the number of entities involved and one of several existing indices of similarity chosen to compare them. It would be important to quantify the number and frequency of these trans-landscape movements to help understand the dynamics which drive them. 11. Cycling indices of flows and exchanges of water, nutrients and energy within and among ecosystems. We have proposed cycling indices (Finn 1976, 1982) as a VEA (Aronson et al. 1993a), but they probably apply better at the level of landscapes. In either case, they should be used to evaluate whether or not nutrient and water `leaks' are becoming more or less important, both within and among adjacent ecosystems as a result of past actions or current restoration efforts. Since "ecosystem health" (Leopold 1948; Costanza et al. 1992) and "ecosystem integrity", may well rely on a full complement of biological diversity being present, all tending to serve in "leak plugging" (von Voris et al. 1980; Main 1981), and thereby maintaining ecosystem structure and functioning, the study of "leakiness" at both the ecosystem and landscape levels can be a very powerful tool. Ultimately it should reveal what proportions of available energy, water and nutrient resources are being captured and recycled and where; a serious research committment is required for this and indeed, such enquiries should receive high priority. 12. Pattern and tempo of water and nutrient movements among contiguous ecosystems is an important VLA for which the traditional units of limnology and hydrology (cubic meters of water moving past a point per minute or cubic centimeters of silt charge in the water) are not appropriate. However, Band et al. (1991) offered some useful guidelines and quantitative measures for modalities of water circulation in a watershed, including rainfall and surface run-off patterns, water table dynamics, etc.).

13. Level of anthropogenic transformation of a landscape indicates relative homogenization of a landscape as a function of cumulative human activities. In French, and other Romance languages, this is called "anthropisation" or "artificialisation". "Banalisation" is a related concept. In English, no single words exist to convey these notions. In ecology, however, they are simply a special kind

of disturbance or perturbation and can to a large degree be lumped together. Plant and animal populations respond quickly to this kind of selective pressure; communities and ecosystems having achieved some sort of metastability despite prolonged human presence will presumably give an accurate reflection of the degree of anthropogenic transformation that obtains (Hobbs & Hopkins 1990; Aronson et al. in press a, b). Means of quantifying this VLA depend on the origin and severity of the processes involved. If quantitative or semi-quantitative measures can be agreed upon, this VLA can be used both when comparing between two or more landscapes in a given matrix, or else to characterize the range and proportions of past and ongoing artificialisation among land use units in a given landscape. This, of course, implies determining a "landscape of reference", however imperfect. Just as an ecosystem undergoing rapid transformation will present varying vegetation `facies' that are more or less removed from the "ecosystem of reference", it is important to clarify how much or how far each part of a landscape has been altered in the time frame of concern. Here in the Mediterranean Basin, of course, heterogeneity at all scales of analysis is the byword for all ecosystems and, until recently, all landscapes. Therefore, it is important to seek all available data on the past history of the specific study areas (see VLA 4). This approach was exemplified in the recent issue of this journal devoted to the Kissimme River project (Dahm 1995), where a detailed historical account of the study area was presented (Koebel 1995) prior to discussing the orientation and various details of the restoration project itself. One of the emergent properties of the landscape that should be become more apparent through study of this VLA is the relative degree of homogeneity to be found at the landscape unit level, and this can be expected to increase in situations of declining (or abolished) land use, at least in areas where ecosystem resiliency has not been totally destroyed. In the milder, subhumid portions of mediterranean Europe, this situation is generally perceived as a degradation of, or at least unwelcome departure from traditional landscapes that people have known in the 20th century. In drier parts of the same region (southern Spain, Greece, etc.), the greater aridity probably intensifies and accelerates the undesireable side-effects of prolonged human use, and extant ecosystem resilience is apparently much lower as a rule. Particular attention should be given to whether one or more "thresholds of irreversibility" have been crossed in the process of anthropogenic transformation. Land abandonment may also have direct consequences for some native plants, animals and, of course, people. In the case of southern France and adjacent parts of Spain and Italy, the hazard of disastrous fires raging out of control during the dry summer months increases rapidly as woodlands

and shrublands become inpenetrable (Etienne et al. in press). To give one more example, we cite a land-mapping study carried out in southern Tunisia (Le Floc'h 1979), wherein the number of man-hours spent working per hectare and per year proved a very useful indicator both for research and management purposes. This parameter is well-known in cultural anthropology and rural economy as well and should prove useful in the present context as well. 14. Spread of disturbance across a landscape, and ecological disturbance regimes in general, need to be studied since "disturbances operate at many scales simultaneously, and their interactions contribute to the observed landscape mosaic" (Turner 1989). Ecosystem and landscape managers should learn to expect and indeed plan for risk of unexpected disturbance and chance events in their multiscale, multidimensional projects (Allen & Hoekstra 1987; Bodkin 1990). To do so, they need to have a notion of the indigenous disturbance regimes of given ecosystems and their potential impact on whole landscapes. 15. Number and importance of biological invasions deal with a kind of disturbance for which the indigenous ecosystem was theoretically not `designed' to cope. Vitousek (1989) has elegantly demonstrated the profound impact of certain invasive organisms on certain ecosystems. At the landscape level, this impact may well be greater than at the ecosystem level. Many restoration efforts therefore logically begin with straightforward eradication efforts aimed at eliminating noxious animals or plants introduced intentionally or inadvertently in the past. However, the environmental impact of those invaders is not always well determined. These invaders may be the only organisms of a functional type to be able to survive under present conditions and can serve an important intermediary role while a range of native species is being reintroduced. An effective complement would be to rate landscape units, or even whole ecosystems, according to their "resistance to invasive (plant or animal) species", as recommended by Zedler and coworkers (Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory 1990) in their manual for evaluating coastal wetlands in southern California. Of course such ratings must be periodically reviewed as the extent of the "eternal external threat" (Janzen 1986) changes. The rate of plant invasion now occurring for the first time in the Galapagos Islands, for example, could hardly have been predicted ten years ago. 16. Nature and intensity of the different sources of degradation, whether legal or illegal. An example of how to use this self-explanatory VLA would be to quantify the sources and current levels of pollution by their relative importance, duration, origin, or other ecological or socio-

economic criteria. In some areas, illegal activities such as poaching or tree-stealing may be particularly influential but hard to quantify. With the last attribute in this list, we returned to our colleagues in the realm of sociology, cultural anthropology and human geography. All of these disciplines have much to contribute to the emerging "science of landscapes", especially in areas where restoration or rehabilitation must coexist with local populations' social, economic and other cultural needs. We note that Ruzicka & Miklos (1990) combine ecological and socioeconomic variables in their LANDEP system for "landscape optimization" planning. Other examples of this kind of thinking are given in Young's (1992) volume on "sustainable investment and resource use", and the well-known work of Costanza and co-workers (Costanza & Daly 1992). See also the interdiscipinary syntheses undertaken by Zube et al. (1975), Raveneau (1977), Brown & Lugo (1994) and Jackson et al. (1995) for examples of how to at least juxtapose, if not fully integrate, data from various disciplines ranging from ecology to rural sociology and economics. Discussion In this paper, we have proposed a preliminary list of 16 vital landscape attributes or VLAs to complement our previous list of vital ecosystem attributes, or VEAs. These should aid in refining existing models of spatial and ecological hierarchies relevant to restoration and landscape ecology. More concretely, developing quantifiable, sensitive, reliable, and universal VLAs appears to be an essential step in the advancement of a landscape perspective in restoration and rehabilitation ecology. Whether the goal is "ecologically sustainable landscapes" (Forman 1990), the preservation of biodiversity (Franklin 1993), or else "sustainable development", the landscape seems a crucial scale at which to work, both conceptually and practically. We hope that VLAs will provide a useful tool for such endeavors.

Acknowledgements We warmly thank Sandra Brown, Shivcharn Dhillion, Richard Hobbs, Byron Lamont, Bill Niering, Dan Simberloff and Steven Whisenant for comments and criticisms on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Literature cited Allen, T.F.H. and T.W. Hoekstra 1987. Problems of scaling in restoration ecology: a practical application. Pages 289-299 in Jordan, W.R. III, M.E. Gilpin and J.D. Aber, editors. Restoration ecology: a synthetic approach to ecological research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Aronson, J. and E. Le Floc'h (in press). Hierarchies and landscape history: dialoging with Hobbs and Norton. Restoration Ecology 5:000-000. Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle and R. Pontanier 1993a. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semiarid regions. I. A view from the south. Restoration Ecology 1:8-17. Aronson, J., C. Floret, E. Le Floc'h, C. Ovalle and R. Pontanier 1993b. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semiarid regions. II. Case studies from southern Tunisia, central Chile and northern Cameroon. Restoration Ecology 1: 168-187. Aronson, J., Del Pozo, A., Ovalle, C., Avendano, J. and Lavin, A. (in press a). Land use change in central Chile: the third wave. Pages 000-000 in P. Rundel, editor. Landscape degradation in mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, New York. Aronson, J., E. Le Floc'h, S. Dhillion, C. Ovalle and M. Abrams (in press b). Studies in ecosystem trajectories in France and Chile: experimental design and the possibilities of comparisons. Restoration Ecology 0:000-000. Band, L.E., D.L. Peterson, S.W. Running, J. Coughlan, R. Lammers, J. Dungan and R. Nemani. 1991. Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: basis for distributed simulation. Ecological Modelling 56:171-196. Baudry, J. and Merriam, G. 1988. Connectivity and connectedness: functional versus structural patterns in landscapes. Pages 23-28 in K.-F.Schreiber, editor. Connectivity in landscape ecology. Mnstersche Geographische Arbeiten 29. Mnster, Germany.

Berque, A. 1984. Paysage-empreinte, paysage matrice. L'Espace Gographique 12:3-4. Berque, A. 1986. Le sauvage et l'artifice. Les Japonais devant la nature. Gallimard, Paris. Berque, A. 1990. Mdiance. De milieux en paysages. Reclus, Montpellier. Bertrand, G. 1972. Ecologie d'un espace gographique: les gosystmes du Valle de Prioro. Espace gographique 2: 113-128. Bodkin, D. 1990. Discordant harmonies. Oxford University, Oxford. Brown, S.A. and A.E. Lugo. 1994. Rehabilitation of tropical lands: a key to sustaining development. Restoration Ecology 2:97-111. Christian, C.S. and G.A. Stewart. 1964. Methodology of integrated surveys. Proceedings of the UNESCO Conference on Principles and Methods of integrated Aerial Surveys of Natural Resources for Potential Development. Toulouse, France. WS/0394.15/NS. Clements F.E. 1916. Plant succession : an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institute, Washington, D.C. Publication No. 242: 1-512. Costanza, R. and H.E. Daly. 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6:37-46. Costanza, R., Norton, B.G. and B.D. Haskell, editors. 1992. Ecosystem health: new goals of environmental management. Island Press, New York. Cousins, S. 1993. Hierarchy in ecology: its relevance to landscape ecology and geographical information systems. Pages 75-86 in R. Haines-Young, D.R. Green and S.H. Cousins, editors. Landscape ecology and GIS. Taylor & Francis, London. Dahm, C.N. editor. 1995. Special Issue: Kissimmee River Restoration. Restoration Ecology 3:1238.

Dahm, C.N., K.W. Cummins, H. M. Valett and R.L. Coleman. 1995. An ecosystem view of the restoration of the Kissimmee River. Restoration Ecology 3:225-238. Dunning, J.B., B.J. Danielson and H.R. Pulliam. 1992. Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169-175. Etienne, M., J. Aronson and E. Le Floc'h (in press). Abandoned lands and land use conflicts in southern France. Piloting ecosystem trajectories in the 21st century. Pages 000-000 in P. Rundel, editor. Landscape degradation in mediterranean-type ecosystems. Springer Verlag, New York. Finn, J. T. 1976. Measures of ecosystem structure and function derived from analysis of flows. Journal of Theoretical Biology 56: 362-380. Finn, J. T. 1982. Ecosystem succession, nutrient cycling and output-input ratios. Journal of Theoretical Biology 99:479-489. Forman, R.T.T. 1990. Ecologically sustainable landscapes: the role of spatial configuations. Pages 261-278 in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer Verlag, New York. Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1981. Patches and structural components for a landscape ecology. BioScience 31:733-740. Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems or landscapes? Ecological Applications 3:202-205. Goodall, B. 1987. The Penguin dictionary of human geography. Penguin, Haemondsworth, Middlesex, England. Grin, A.M., 1984. the monitoring of geosystems: the case of the Kursk Biosphere Nature Reserve. Geoforum 15:113-122.

Hansen, A.J. and F. di Castri, editors. 1992. Landscape boundaries: Consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Springer Verlag, New York. Hardt, R.A. and R.T.T. Forman. 1989. Boundary form effects on woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology 70:1252-1260.

Henein, K. and G. Merriam. 1990. The elements of connectivity where corridor quality is variable. Landscape Ecology 4:157-170. Hobbs, R.J. 1993. Effects of landscape fragmentation on ecosystem processes in the western Australian wheatbelt. Biological Conservation 64:193-201. Hobbs, R.J. and A.J.M. Hopkins. 1990. From frontier to fragments: European impact on Australia's vegetation. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16: 93-114. Hobbs, R.J. and D. A. Saunders. 1991. Re-integrating fragmented landscapes - a preliminary framework for the Western Australian Wheatbelt. Journal of Environmental Management 33:161167. Hobbs, R.J. and D.A. Saunders, editors. 1992. Reintegrating fragmented landscapes. Towards sustainable production and nature conservation. Springer Verlag, New York. Hobbs and D.A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for Restoration Ecology. Restoration Ecology 4: 93-110. Jackson, L.L., N. Lopoukhine and D. Hillyard. 1995. Ecological restoration: a definition and comments. Restoration Ecology 3: 71-75. Janzen, D.H. 1986. The eternal external threat. Pages 286-303 in M.E. Soul, editor. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer, Sunderland.

Kelly, J.R. and M.A. Harwell. 1990. Indicators of ecosystem recovery. Environmental Management 14: 527-545. Koelbel, J.W., Jr. 1995. An historical perspective on the Kissimmee River restoration project. Restoration Ecology 3:149-159. Kondolf, G.M. 1995. Five elements for effective evaluation of stream restoration. Restoration Ecology 3:133-136. Krner, C. 1993. Scaling from species to vegetation: the usefulness of functional groups. Pages 117-140 in Schulze, E.-D. and H.A. Mooney, editors. Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Ecological Studies 99. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Lamont, B. 1982. Mechanisms for enhancing nutrient uptake in plants, with particular reference to Mediterranean South Africa and Western Australia. The Botanical Review 48:597-689. Le Floc'h, E. 1979. Elments pour une cartographie de l'occupation des terres en Tunisie aride et saharienne. Projet UNDP/FAO/ UNESCO/CNRS-Tun 78/007. Montpellier, France. Lefroy, E.C. and R.J. Hobbs. 1993. Ecological indicators for sustainable agriculture. Pages 1-24 in P.R. Scott, compiler. The role of trees in sustainable agriculture. Resource Management Technical Report 138. Department of Agriculture, Perth, Western Australia. Leopold, A. 1948. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lindeman, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology 23:399-418. Ludwig, J.A. and D.J. Tongway. 1996. Rehabilitation of semi-arid landscapes in Australia.I. Restoring vegetation patchs. Restoration Ecology 4:000-000. Main, A.R. 1981. Ecosystem theory and management. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 64:1-4. McCoy, E.D., S.S. Bell and K. Walters. 1986. Identifying biotic boundaries along environmental

gradients. Ecology 67:749-759. Merriam, G. 1984. Connectivity: a fundamental characteristic of landscape pattern. Pages 5-15 in Brandt, J. and P. Agger, editors. Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning. Vol. I. Landscape ecological concepts. Roskilde University centre, Denmark. Naiman, R. J. 1988. Animal influences on ecosystem dynamics. BioScience 38:750-752. Naveh, Z. and A. S. Lieberman. 1984. Landscape ecology: theory and applications. Springer Verlag, New York. Odum, E.P. 1969. The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262-270. Odum, E.P. and M.G. Turner. 1990. The Georgia Landscape: A Changing Resource. Pages 137-164 in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer Verlag, New York. O'Neill, R.V., D. DeAngelis, J.B. Wade and T.F.H. Allen. 1986. A Hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. O'Neill, R.V., J.R. Krummel, R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D.L. de Angelis, B.T. Milne, M.G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S.W. Christensen, V.H. Dale and R.L. Graham. 1988. Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology 1:63-69. Orians, G.G. 1986. Ecological and evolutionary approaches to the landscape aesthetic. Pages 3-25 in E.C. Penning-Roswell, editor. Landscape meanings and values. Allen and Unwin, London. Pacific Estuarine Research Laboratory. 1990. A manual for the assessment of restored and natural wetlands with examples from southern California. California Sea Grant Report No. T-CSGCP-021. La Jolla, California. Pastor, J., R. Naiman, B. Dewey, and P. McInnes. 1988. Moose, microbes and the boreal forest. BioScience 38:770-777.

Pickett, S.T.A., J. Kolasa and C.G. Jones. 1994. Ecological understanding. Academic Press, San Diego. Raveneau, J. 1977. Analyse morphologique, classification et protection des paysages: le case de Charlevoix. Cahiers du gographe du Qubec 21:135-178. Romme, W.H. 1982. Fire and landscape diversity in subalpine forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs 52:199-221. Rougerie, G. and N. Beroutchachvili. 1991. Gosystmes et paysages: bilan et mthodes. Armand Colin, Paris. Ruzicka, M. and L. Miklos. 1990. Basic premises and methods in landscape ecological planning and optimization. Pages 233-260 in I. S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman, editors. Changing landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer Verlag, New York. Ryszkowski, L. 1992. Energy and material flows across boundaries in agricultural landscapes Pages 270-284 in A.J. Hansen and F. di Castri, editors. Landscape boundaries: consequences for biotic diversity and ecological flows. Springer Verlag, New York. Saunders, D.A., R.J. Hobbs and C.R. Margules. 1991. Biological consequences of ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology 5:18-32. Simberloff, D., J. Farr, J. Cox and D.H. Mehlman. 1992. Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments? Conservation Biology 6:493-504. Stetzner, B., V.H. Resh and A.L. Roux, editors. 1994. Ecology of the Upper Rhne River: a test of habitat templet theories. Freshwater Biology 31:253-554. Swanson, F.J., T.K. Kratz, N. Caine, and R.G. Woodmansee. 1988. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns and processes. BioScience 38:92-98. Swanson, F.J., J. Franklin and J. Sedell. 1990. Landscape patterns, disturbance, and management in

the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 191-213 in I.S. Zonneveld and R.T.T. Forman (editors) Changing Landscapes: an ecological perspective. Springer Verlag, New York. Tansley, A.G. 1935. The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16:284-307. Tongway, D.J. 1991. Functional analysis for degraded rangelands as a means of defining appropriate restoration techniques. Pages 166-168 in A. Gaston, A., M. Kernick and H.N. Le Hourou, editors. Proceedings 4th International Rangeland Congress, Vol. 4. Centre International de Recherche Agricole pour le Dveloppement, Montpellier. Troll, G. 1971. Landscape ecology (geo-ecology) and bio-ceonology -a terminology study. Geoforum 8:43-46. Turner, M.G. 1989. Landscape ecology: the effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171-197. Turner, M.G. and C. Lynn Ruscher. 1988. Changes in landscape pattern in Georgia, USA. Landscape Ecology 1: 241-251. Urban, D.L., R. V. O'Neill and H. H. Shugart. 1987. Landscape ecology. BioScience 37:119-127. Vitousek, P.M. 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai'i: plant demography, nitrogen fixation, ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59:247-265. von Voris P., R. V. O'Neill, W.R. Emanuel and H.H. Shugart. 1980. Functional complexity and ecosystem stability. Ecology 61:1352-1360. Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, impact assessment and environmental planning. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Whisenant, S.G. 1994. Directing landscape dynamics: an evolving restoration paradigm (Texas). Restoration and Management Notes 12:221-222. Whisenant, S.G. 1995. Landscape dynamics and arid land restoration. Pages 26-34 in B. Roundy,

A. McArthur, E. Durant, J.S. Haley, D.K. Mann, editors. Proceedings: wild land shrub and arid land restoration symposium. Geological Technical Report INT-GTR-315. Ogden, Utah. Whisenant, S.G., T.L. Thurow and S.J. Maranz. 1995. Initiating autogenic restoration on shallow semiarid sites. Restoration Ecology 3:61-67. Wilson, J.B. and A.D.Q. Agnew. 1992. Positive feedback switches in plant communities. Advances in Ecological Research 23:264-336. Wilson, J.B. and W.M. King. 1995. Human-mediated vegetation switches as processes in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 10: 191-196. Wilson, M.V. and A. Shmida. 1984. Measuring beta diversity with presence-absence data. Journal of Ecology 72:1055-1064. Young, M.D. 1992. Sustainable investment and resource use. Parthenon Press and UNESCO, Paris. Zonneveld, I.S. 1972. Textbook of photo-interpretation, Vol. 7. ITC, Enschade, The Netherlands. Zonneveld, I.S. 1989. The land unit - a fundamental concept in landscape ecology, and its applications. Landscape Ecology 3: 67-86. Zube, E.H., R.O. Brush and J.G. Fabos, editors. 1975. Landscape assessment, value, perceptions and resources. 2nd edition. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Appendix: Glossary Ecosystem trajectories The sampling, evaluation and indeed monitoring of ecosystems (see below) as living, evolving systems, often far from thermodynamic equilibrium, is greatly facilitated by adapting the notion of trajectories. We see this as an integrative concept grouping succession, as defined by Clements (1916), as well as all other paths or itineraries imagined or engineered by people for any given ecosystem or set of ecosystems. On a short time scale, some ecologists may argue that ecosystems simply change without necessarily following a trajectory. However, with sufficient perspective, any and all changes an ecosystem undergoes in a given period of time can be seen as comprising a `trajectory'. It may be argued that any path taken by an ecosystem from one state to another is, by definition, succession. However, as commonly understood, succession is something autogenic (Cf. "autogenic restoration" (Whisenant 1994)). In contrast, the term trajectory implies a subject that `throws' or `guides' an object, which is accordingly `thrown' or `trajected'. Thus, trajectory seems a useful term for describing what happens to an ecosystem that is undergoing ecological restoration or rehabilitation. Ecosystem The term ecosystem was defined by Tansley (1935) as a biotic community and its biogeophysical environnment, including all the interactions between and among them. Lindeman (1942) wrote that an ecosystem could occur "within a space-time unit of any magnitude" (emphasis added). Recently, however, ecologists have grown dissatisfied with the lack of an intrinsic scale in this definition: either a more precise definition is needed, which indicates clearly the position of the ecosystem within a larger hierarchy, or else `ecosystem' must be abandoned as an independent, discrete entity (O'Neill et al. 1986). Naturally, we opt for the former. We follow Cousins (1993) who argues that an `ecosystem' can be defined as a "subjectively determined [emphasis added] aggregate with boundaries given by an observer...in a hierarchy of functional objects". That is to say that some number of visable or measurable attributes must be selected as criteria for delineating ecosystems within a landscape. Landscape The same process as described for ecosystem must also apply to landscape, if we are to avoid semi-mystical usages of these two terms. Objective or subjective barriers must also ultimately

be drawn between adjacent landscapes. Most hierarchies constructed by ecologists have tended to jump from `ecosystem' to biome, without stopping at `landscape'. The reason for this may be an unspoken desire to avoid dealing with `the human dimension' of landscapes. Some geographers, social scientists, and the general public tend to define `landscape' as something profoundly unquantifiable, a stew of human culture and symbolism, combined with, or carved out of, hard-edged (i.e., physical, biogeochemical) determinants of `natural', i.e., non-human origin. The Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography (Goodall 1987) notes ten concepts of landscape which differ slightly in emphasis, but are not mutually exclusive. In general, landscape is thought of as something comprising ecological, geographical and cultural components (Troll 1971). In passing, it should be noted that ecologists have at least that many different definitions of `ecosystem', but tend to eliminate all that cannot be seen or touched objectively in both cases. To cite one example of a geographer's thoughts on landscape, Augustin Berque (1984, 1986, 1990) writes of landscapes as being both the `imprint' of the past, and the matrix of current (and future) human activities in a given area. In other words, landscape is both objective and subjective at the same time. Berque argues that landscapes should be seen primarily as the ongoing relationship between people and their "milieu" or habitat. They are not simply a setting in which people (and other organisms) act out their lives; rather they are also the living matrix which makes those lives possible and determines the possibilities available to them. Landscapes are in turn continuously being altered and modelled by the cumulative effects of the organisms present within them, especially people (Cf. Troll 1971; Naveh & Lieberman 1984). As ecologists we must reject Berque's position for two reasons. First, with regards landscapes, his definition fails to meet the Popperian criterion that hypotheses should be amenable to rigorous testing via experimentation (Cf. Pickett et al. 1994, however, for a critique of Popper in the modern context). As an alternative approach, we follow Forman & Godron (1981, 1986) who defined landscape as something physical, tangible and, therefore, measureable. For these authors, and indeed most working ecologists today, a landscape is a heterogeneous portion of land (of some undetermined area, but often several square kilometers wherein occurs a "recognizable cluster of ecosystems that interact in ways producing spatially repeated patterns" (Forman & Godron 1986). Slightly different definitions are found in Swanson et al. (1988), Urban et al. (1987), and Turner (1989). Matrix In his timely call to pay more attention to ecosystems and landscapes, Franklin (1993) made extensive use of the term matrix. He follows the prevailing paradigm in landscape ecology when he

writes of nature reserves and parks as occurring within a "landscape matrix" that he defines as the "unreserved portion of the landscape" (Franklin 1993:204). By "unreserved", he means that portion of the landscape with which he is not concerned. According to this formulation, there is no indication of hierarchical scaling, and landscape and matrix are synonymous. While urging more attention be paid to higher levels of organization (ecosystem, landscape and matrix), Franklin fails to show how to quantifiy or even distinguish among them practically. We propose that the word `matrix' should be used, in the present context, to describe a new hierarchical scale, just above landscapes. As we have seen, landscapes are the result, the "imprint", of past human activities in a given setting. The matrix is thus the biological or, better still, the biogeophysical environment in which a landscape comes to be created. In other words, working with a certain vegetation type, geological substrate and prevailing climate - all of which together constitute the matrix in our hierarchy -, people create landscapes. (In the context of general ecology and biogeography, the notion of biome is nearly synonymous.) Note that several different landscapes can conceivably arise within a given matrix, as when, for example, populations from two different ethnic groups live and work in proximity one to the other. Each landscape is therefore the result of interactions between a matrix and the activities of a given cultural group. Fragmentation of landscapes This term (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992) describes a generally gradual phenomenon marked by the rupture of certain linkages, i.e., a reduction in `connectivity' (Merriam 1984; Baudry & Merriam 1988) among ecosystems in a given landscape. Such a rupture will naturally have profound consequences for the trajectories of each ecosystem, and the structure, composition and functioning of the landscape itself. In theory, even subtle consequences of landscape fragmentation should be measurable at inter-and intra-community levels within ecosystems, and among ecosystems as well.

Reintegration of landscapes This term (Hobbs & Saunders 1991, 1992) denotes a conscious effort to reestablish preexisting relationships of connectivity among contiguous ecosystems in cases where human activites have caused ruptures and fragmentation. It suggests that a return to former ecosystem trajectories, or something close to them, can be achieved by revising management practices (and, perhaps, land

tenure, zoning laws, etc.). For this to work, all of the local `actors' must agree to cooperate in the common interest. Much of the discussion surrounding landscape reintegration and biological conservation in densely populated areas has centered on "movement corridors" for wildlife (e.g., Henein & Merriam 1990; Saunders et al. 1991). However, although corridors may have strong public appeal, and therefore be useful for eco-activist lobbying or environmental reeducation, they are only a small part of the problem of reintegration (Simberloff et al. 1992). In a broad sense, landscape reintegration involves restorations, rehabilitations and reallocations, applied in different places and proportions, according to local context and contingencies. We have used the terms restoration, rehabilitation and reallocation in the plural, since the same ecosystem can occur more than once in a given landscape, especially in areas where human activities have a long history. In restoration projects concerned with the landscape as well as ecosystems, it may be necessary to treat land units of a given ecosystem type differentially. In some cases, they may be treated in an identical fashion but at different paces, to achieve a mosaic of land units in different stages of a given trajectory. Artificial `rejuvenation' of selected land units In areas of agricultural abandonment, such as are common throughout western Europe today, landscapes show a tendency to closed canopies, and to lose open spaces. As a result, they lose biodiversity at all hierarchical levels. It may thus prove worthwhile to attempt to maintain some open spaces by a variety of techniques we would group under the heading "artificial rejuvenation". The most obvious way to achieve `rejuvenation' of a given land unit is by engaging in cutting, plowing, burning, etc. in order to eliminate certain species or functional groups, and thereby temporarily halt, or slow, secondary succession. For example, in some countries, controlled fires are routinely used to maintain prairies or other grassland-type systems. In Figure 1 we have tried to show how rejuvenation relates to restoration, rehabilitation and reallocation. In some cases (Figure 1, a1 ) following degradation (or abandonment), with or without subsequent intervention, a trajectory can follow the same pattern, in reverse, as that shown by the pre-disturbance ecosystem or other ecosystem of reference. However, other possible trajectories exist (see Figure 1, a2) that may or may not converge at some point, and will no doubt proceed at different paces. In rehabilitation efforts, one or more thresholds of irreversibility can be crossed (Figure 1, b1 and b2). Furthermore, different trajectories should be anticipated in different phases of

restoration or rehabilitation (i.e., a1 vs. a'1 vs. a''1 and a2 vs. a'2 vs. a''2). Reallocations can lead to entirely new uses for land units; rejuvenation is a site-specific managerial activity that should be considered as part of a holistic landscape reintegration project. It is for this reason that "ecosystems" is given in the plural in this figure. Landscape of reference We propose a term both analogous to and complementary with "ecosystem of reference". It seems useful to have a standard of comparison and evaluation when working with complex systems, even though their past history is not fully knowable and any given ecosystem (or landscape) or reference selected will necessarily be arbitrary. To be acceptable to local people, the landscape of reference may be chosen on the basis of the cultural, social and economic context at some `moment' in the past.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of alternative ecosystem trajectories over three phases, illustrating the notions of restoration, rehabilitation, reallocation, and rejuvenation as well as that of "thresholds of irreversibility". See text for further details).