Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Towards a land management approach to ecological restoration to

encourage stakeholder participation
Nathalie Couix ∗ , Héloïse Gonzalo-Turpin
INRA, UMR 1248 AGIR, CS 52627, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the field of ecological restoration, many authors call for more stakeholder participation in the process
Received 1 May 2014 of restoration. In their opinion, when a restoration project is planned, the range of points of view and
Received in revised form 2 October 2014 the knowledge of local stakeholders need to be taken into account to limit the risk of failure. Although
Accepted 31 January 2015
effective stakeholder involvement is often cited as a factor of success, in practice, it is far from systematic.
To understand the ways in which the stakeholders actually participate in projects and their opinion of
Keywords:
the projects, we analysed three restoration projects. We interviewed the people who would be affected
Ecological restoration
by the projects in the French Pyrenean Mountains: inhabitants, livestock farmers, and other users of the
Land management
Stakeholders
territory, site managers, locally elected officials, experts, and development agents. Our results revealed
Interpretive approach that how interviewees viewed the outcome and the success of a restoration project depended on their own
Pyrenees activity, which also influenced the way they viewed and defined the territory concerned by restoration.
France Two different perceptions of ecological restoration objectives and approaches coexist in the Pyrenees. The
first is highly technical and the aim is simply to restore the original plant cover. In this case, the ‘territory’
is limited to the area to be restored and its immediate surroundings. The second perception of restoration
takes into account both past and other possible land uses and consequently concerns a larger territory
and the users of the site to be restored. If the participation of local actors in the restoration process is
desired, we recommend a comprehensive land management approach to ecological restoration, as this
approach is more likely to arouse the interest of the stakeholders.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction view of the stakeholders needs to be taken into account to prevent

Population growth, urban sprawl, industrialisation, and the
development of agriculture and more generally of human activ-
ities can contribute not only to land degradation but also to the
destruction of natural ecosystems. Growing environmental con-
cerns and the desire to conserve biodiversity have led to ecological
restoration projects for damaged sites that enjoy varying rates
of success. Since the 1990s, many authors have recommended
that stakeholders should be more involved in environmental con-
servation projects (Chan et al., 2007; Robertson and Hull, 2000;
Stenseke, 2009; Wesselink et al., 2011; Robinson and Berkes, 2011;
Comerford, 2013), for species reintroduction (O’Rourke, 2014), and
for the restoration of degraded areas (Cairns, 1995; Higgs, 1997,
2005; Gobster and Hull, 2000; Shackelford et al., 2013; Hallett et al.,
2013). In the opinion of these authors, the wide range of points of
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 5 61 28 52 64.
E-mail addresses: Nathalie.Couix@toulouse.inra.fr (N. Couix),
heloise gonzalo-turpin@yahoo.fr (H. Gonzalo-Turpin).
the projects from failing.
Stringer et al. (2006) summarised the advantages of involving
stakeholders:
- obtaining a better understanding of the situation and of the prob-
lem through a range of different of points of view;
- integrating local knowledge in addition to scientific knowledge;
- preventing top-down approaches and enabling the empower-
ment of local population;
- enabling social learning to favour new modes of collective work.
In agricultural development, land use planning, and the man-
agement of renewable resources, such preoccupations are not new
and many authors have reported on participatory approaches.
However, “participation” cane be interpreted in different ways
(Pretty, 1995; Stringer et al., 2006; Benson et al., 2014). A gradi-
ent of approaches to “systems of learning and action” ranges from
“manipulative participation” to “self-mobilization” (Pretty, 1995). As
discussed by Gonzalo-Turpin et al. (2008), Couix (2002), Pahl-Wostl
(2006), Ison et al. (2007), among these participatory approaches,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.01.025
0264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
156 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
those focused on collective learning processes are the most likely
to facilitate the incorporation of the points of view of the different
actors, as well as of different forms of knowledge.
Several approaches have been developed for natural resources
management in the last 30 years. According to the current
“community-based conservation” approach (Western et al., 1994;
Twyman, 2000; DeCaro and Stokes, 2008), in particular, respon-
sibility for resources management should be in the hands of the
local population, since they are the first concerned by the sus-
tainability of the resources. The idea is that, if conservation and
development can be achieved jointly, the interests of both could
be served (Berkes, 2004). Co-management approaches have been
developed based on Orstrom’s concept of the commons (Orstrom,
1990). These approaches aim to share responsibility and power
between the state and the local resource users and to take the
local, regional, national levels of resources management into con-
sideration. In parallel, adaptive management approaches have been
widely developed in the environmental field. These approaches
are based on “learning by doing” (Holling, 1978; Schreiber et al.,
2004; Jiggins and Röling, 2000; van der Brugge and van Raak,
2007; Johnson, 1999). Given the lack of knowledge on ecosys-
tem functioning, “ongoing” learning is important when concrete
management actions are being implemented. Recently, the con-
cepts of co-management and adaptive management have tended
to converge and have led to the emergence of the concept of
‘adaptive co-management’ in which the general principle is to
allow interactions between actors of the same level and between
actors of different levels and to favour iterative learning (Berkes,
2009). In the same vein, Robinson and Berkes (2011) show that
multi-level participation contributes to the adaptive capacity of
social-ecological systems.
Far fewer studies have been conducted in the field of ecologi-
cal restoration. Light (2000; Light and Higgs, 1996; in O’Neill et al.,
2008) and Higgs (1997, 2003) are the main contributors. They con-
ceptualised stakeholder participation in actions to be carried out.
Although in the literature, including the stakeholders’ points of
view is frequently reported to play an important role in the suc-
cess of restoration projects, in practice, their inclusion is far from
systematic. Few publications explore the stakeholders’ views and
their diversity. In this field, like in the more general field of natu-
ral resources management (Booth and Halseth, 2011), few authors
question the public’s opinion of restoration projects. In ecological
restoration, few authors have made concrete proposals for modes of
management capable of incorporating these diverse points of view,
even though such information needs to be included in guidelines
for practionners (Hallett et al., 2013).
The work presented here tackles these subjects in the field of
ecological restoration. Based on three case studies, we analysed
the range of stakeholders’ points of view, although we do not claim
to be exhaustive. To understand how ecological restoration actions
are managed, we also analysed to what extent the different points
of view were taken into consideration during the actual implemen-
tation of the projects.
Material and methods
We conducted an analysis of three cases of restoration using a
collective case study approach (Stake, 2000). Case studies, which
“have become one of the most common ways to do qualitative
inquiry” (Stake, 2000) enable the analysis of any entity in its
specific context (Langley and Royer, 2006). In proceeding by infer-
ences from similarities or difference between cases, a multiple case
study can favour a first level of theorisation (Langley and Royer,
2006). Another advantage of the collective case study approach
is its heuristic power (Dumez, 2013). Finding differences between
cases can lead to a new point of view and reveal aspects of cases
which otherwise might not have been disclosed. This approach
enabled us to understand the unique aspects of each case, to com-
pare the stakeholders’ points of view and the management of each
project, and, as a result, to reach the first level of abstraction called
“middle range theory” (Richards, 2009), i.e. “apparently local and
contextual, while implicitly supporting wider questioning” (David,
2004).
Characterisation of the three restoration projects studied
In the French Pyrenees (south-western France), one project,
whose aim is to use local plants to restore degraded alpine
grasslands to restore has mainly been driven by the Pyrenean
Botanical Conservation association (CBP, Conservatoire Botanique
Pyreneen) since 2000, in partnership with territorial collectivities,
state services, locally elected officials, the forestry department, and
scientific research departments. Until recently, only zones subject
to regulations in favour of the protection of nature were concerned
by the use of local plants. The aim of the restoration project dis-
cussed here is to scale up from limited revegetation projects to
genuine ecological restoration, even in areas which are home to
traditional occupations such as livestock raising and hunting, or
more recent activities such as skiing, and cross country SUV ral-
lies. Our study is part of this project. One outcome of a previous
study conducted by the CBP on the range of revegetation practices
in the Pyrenees (Dutrillaux, 2005) was an inventory of the main
restoration projects. With this inventory as a starting point, we
selected the three cases we studied, not because they were ‘rep-
resentative’, but because the inventory revealed the diversity of
the restoration projects, and diversity is important in achieving the
first level of abstraction (Mitchell, 1983; Dumez, 2013). In addi-
tion, these three case studies fitted our objectives. To be sure of
identifying the whole range of stakeholders’ points of view, and of
identifying possibly different ways to manage restoration projects,
we chose sites where:
- different uses were made of the territory, particularly traditional
activities such as livestock breeding, plus more recent activites
such as skiing, hiking or cross-country rallies in sports utility
vehicles (SUVs);
- the site managers belonged in different organisations and there-
fore had different mandates and objectives;
- the site was subject to environmental protection regulations (or
not), and if so, whether specific rules had to be respected (or not);
- with reference to the aims of the global project driven by the CBP,
consideration was given to the recommendations concerning the
use of local plants.
The three case studies we used (Fig. 1 and Table 1) were:
- the high altitude plateau of Pla Guillem;
- Peyragudes ski resort;
- the La Pierre St Martin cross-country skiing area.
Choice of the people to be interviewed
Based on the above-mentioned sociological study by Dutrillaux
(2005), we identified the main local actors to interview (site
managers, the project manager, local elected representatives,
experts, etc.). Then, thanks to a “snowball sampling” strategy
(Berg and Lune, 2012), the people we met at each site gave us
the names of other useful contacts, in particular the users of the
site or their representatives. In this way, we managed to meet
most of the stakeholders involved at each site. We conducted
 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
Fig. 1. Map showing the localisation of the three study sites in the Pyrenean Mountains.
a total of 20 interviews with site managers, project managers,
local elected representatives, and potential users of sites including
livestock farmers, experts, state representatives and occasionally
development agents. We met three people who were involved
in the entire Pyrenean mountain massif (an expert from the
Botanical Conservatory of the Pyrénées, one from the Regional
Association for the Environment and one agricultural technician),
seven people in Pla Guillem, six in the Peyragudes resort and five
in the Braca zone. With the aim of data triangulation, in addition
to the interviews, we consulted written documents produced
during the restoration projects: minutes of meetings, expertises,
Table 1
Characteristics of the three restoration projects we studied.
Case characteristics Restoration of Pla Guillem
Territory High altitude plateau used as pasture
located in a nature reserve and in the
middle of a recognised heritage site
Altitude: 2250–2300 m
Localisation (Commune) Py
118 inh.
2.3 inh./km2
Geological substratum Mostly gneiss
Dominant vegetation Alpine meadows dominated by Festuca
supina and Festuca eskia.
In degraded areas patchworks of
meadows and thickets (mostly Calluna
vulgaris and Loiseleuria)
Origin of the degradation Initially, the frequent passage of SUVs
which damaged a track, then early
grazing of pastures prevented
re-colonisation and increased the
degradation
Year of the first operations 1998
Surface area restored 5000 m2
Protection status Nature reserve of Py: mandatory use of
local species for restoration
Activities in the restored area Extensive livestock farming, tourism,
this is a place with lots of comings and
goings
Manager, farmers Canigou Joint Association (Regional
Council of the Pyrénées orientales,
association of communes, French
Forest Commission)
Restoration commissioned by Canigou Joint Association (Regional
Council of the Pyrénées orientales,
association of communes, French
Forest Commission)
Project manager for restoration Conservatory for natural zones of the
operations Languedoc-Roussillon
(nonprofit-making association) and
French Forest Commission
Land owner State (private estate)
157
registers of special technical clauses, letters, etc. Other information
we thought would help us better understand the cases was also
collected during informal discussions with local actors.
Interviews and their analysis
Cases were analysed using an “interpretive” approach based on
an empathic understanding of the stakeholders’ points of view
(Weber et al., 1978; Schutz, 1987). In practical terms, this meant
conducting “interpretive” interviews (Kaufmann, 1996). Guides
were written for the interviews with series of topics and questions
Restoration in Peyragudes Creation of the Braca zone
Ski slopes of Cross-country skiing area in
Peyragudes–Summer pasture Arette-La Pierre
Altitude: 1450–2250 m asl Saint-Martin–Summer pasture
Altitude: 1450–1550 m asl
Germ Arette
36 inh. 2.9 inh./km2 1094 inh.
Gouaux de Larboust
47 inh. 4.4 inh./km2
Mostly shists Karst–Lapies
Alpine meadows dominated by Grassland communities
Nardus stricta ou Festuca eskia. dominated by Festuca scoparia,
Thickets dominated by Calluna Festuca rubra L. or Nardus
vulgaris and Vaccinium stricta L., depending on the
myrtillus or Rhododendron degree of soil acidification on
ferrugineum this harsh limestone
Pinus uncinata
Fagus sylvatica
Construction and improvement Creation of a cross-country
of ski slopes skiing area on what used to be
a wild karst zone
2001 2005
10,000 m2 /year 10,000 m2
No particular protection No particular protection
Preparation of ski slopes, Preparation of cross-country
extensive livestock farming, ski tracks, extensive livestock
tourism farming, tourism
Semi-public company for the Public company for mountain
development of the resorts (lease)
Peyragudes resort
Association of Agudes and the Regional Council of the
commune of Peyressourde Pyrénées atlantiques
Semi-public company for the French Forestry Commission
development of the
Peyragudes resort
Association of Agudes and the Regional Council of the
commune of Peyressourde Pyrénées atlantiques
158 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
to be asked but using a flexible approach. The aim of the guide was
to help interviewers establish a dialogue with the interviewees,
to help the interviewees express their point of view rather than
simply answering the questions asked by the interviewer. All the
interviews were conducted by the same interviewer. The inter-
views, which lasted between 25 and 125 min (mean of 70 min),
were recorded and transcribed in full. We asked all the interview-
ees to read and check the written record of their interview, and only
one local elected representative modified it.
Each interview was analysed for a deeper understanding of the
interviewee’s point of view (Darré et al., 2004; Schutz, 1987), and to
identify what made sense to him/her (pertinent traits). Each inter-
view was then coded according to the major topics which emerged
from the previous analysis:
- the criteria for the success of a restoration as good indicators of
what the stakeholders expect from restoration;
- the ways in which the opinions of the stakeholders were taken
into account, and the territories concerned by the restoration.
We performed double coding. Each of us coded all the inter-
views. We then compared the resulting coding and, if we differed in
the choice of a code, a discussion was held to make them coherent.
This method improves the consistency and the reliability of the cod-
ing (Richards, 2009). On this basis, a thematic analysis (Miles and
Huberman, 2003; Richards, 2009) of all the interviews was then
undertaken. The same analysis was conducted for each of the three
sites and the three sites were also compared.
Our results derived directly from the analysis of the interviews
and the documents we consulted. We then discussed our results
in light of the current ecological restoration literature and more
broadly in light of natural ressources management and organisa-
tional management.
Results
Restoration: a product but also a complex process
A variety of criteria for the success of a restoration
The analysis of the interviews revealed that the criteria used
to define the success of a restoration project varied depending on
the activity of interviewee. The criteria were ecological, practical,
technical, or aesthetic. An interviewee might mention more than
one criterion at a time.
Generally speaking, experts and site managers considered
restoration to be a success if the site was returned to its state prior
to degradation. Although they acknowledged it is actually impos-
sible for a site to return to an identical state, not least because the
substrate has been damaged, their ‘goal’ was re-establishing local
flora, which were defined as the vegetation growing ‘in the vicinity
of the site’. The aim was therefore to ensure that the restored envi-
ronment resembled the previous environment as much as possible
in terms of floral composition and that it should be self-sustaining
in spite of the way in which the plant cover was used. These are
classical considerations in restoration ecology.
For most livestock farmers, the main criterion of a successful
restoration was that the restored plant cover provided good fodder
for their livestock. For example, one of the livestock farmers we
interviewed said a restoration is successful when the field ‘remains
a pasture’ with palatable and nourishing grass for the animals.
Resort managers were concerned by technical criteria, i.e. what
kind of plant cover would hold the soil and snow in place. In their
opinion, the capacity of the restored plant cover to limit soil erosion
or to retain snow is essential, i.e., “a [plant] cover that can fix the soil
[. . .] and that is not a hindrance for the fixation of the snow cover”.
The capacity of the plant cover to limit erosion was also
mentioned by the experts and environmental managers we inter-
viewed. In their opinion, fixation of the substrate is indispensable
for long-term colonisation by plants.
Locally elected officials and resort managers also considered
how the restored sites ‘melt’ into the landscape. A project manager
said that restoration should allow the restored plot to “disappear
completely in the landscape”.
These results show that the interviewees mainly qualified
restoration in practical terms: they used very concrete criteria to
judge the success of a restoration project. Success was evaluated in
terms of the final product, i.e. the quality of the restored site. The
economic cost of the restoration was also of concern to most of the
interviewees. However some of the interviewees also talked about
restoration as a process and not simply about its result.
Restoration as a process
Only experts and environmental managers were really sensitive
to how the restored ecosystem functions and to the ecological pro-
cess involved and thus considered restoration as a process. They
were the only interviewees to refer to this ecological dimension;
the other interviewees referred to “revegetation” or “re-grassing”.
Nevertheless, analysis of the interviews revealed that varying
degrees of attention were in fact paid to the approaches used during
the restoration projects, including the type of organisation, inter-
actions, the kind of conflicts, and the participation of the different
stakeholders. Thus, restoration is not only judged by its concrete
results or as an ensemble of interacting ecological processes but
also as an organisational process, or an action that has to be orga-
nised.
At Pla Guillem, the site managers wondered how to interact with
livestock farmers to prevent conflicts arising. The livestock farmers’
representative was also aware of the approach used, especially after
difficulties had arisen due to the absence of dialogue. As a result,
particular attention was paid to factors concerning the progress of
the project.
In contrast, in the two ski resorts, the interviewees paid little
attention to the approach that had been chosen. For example, all the
resort managers and technical staff involved in the restoration only
referred to pasture as a way to achieve a satisfactory plant cover
for snow retention (short plant canopy). None wondered about,
or mentioned, a more efficient way of collaborating with livestock
farmers on restoration projects.
Approaches to account for the diversity of the points of view of
stakeholders varied with the site
Our interviews revealed that, depending on the site, managers in
charge of restoration projects used different approaches to try and
get stakeholders involved in defining the situation and the problem
to be solved.
At the Pla Guillem site, the origin of the degradation could be
the too frequent passage of sports utility vehicles which destroyed
the plant cover. This site belongs to a natural reserve, so the use of
local species for restoration is mandatory. To this end, seeds of local
species are required, but early grazing of pastures by cattle prevents
the grass from going to seed and hence renders collection of seeds
impossible. Early grazing was consequently considered by experts
and site managers to be one source of degradation of the meadows.
The original problem of restoration thus “revealed another problem,
[. . .] the problem of pasture” as one of the interviewees commented.
Following this observation, the site manager conducted a historical
study of pastoral practices and land use. This showed that changes
in pastoral practices were linked to the progressive closure of the
“jasses”, which are intermediary zones between the valley bottom
and the high altitude pastures. In the past, the jasses were used
 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
in spring before the livestock was moved to the summer pastures.
Because of reduced use, the jasses had reverted to scrub and gradu-
ally, livestock farmers had started to take their herds to the higher
pastures earlier in the season. Subsequently, to allow the grass time
to regenerate, site managers obliged the farmers to take their herds
up later. To compensate for the lack of grass in spring, and faced
with the strong disapproval of the livestock farmers and their rep-
resentative, who challenged this unilateral decision, site managers
also began work to render the “jasses” accessible again. Gradually,
experts, site managers and the livestock farmers’ representative
started to consider the management of the territory as a whole, as
one of the site managers put it: “A small problem of revegetation was
transformed into a question of land management”. The restoration
project manager then conducted a “productive enquiry” according
to the meaning of the pragmatist philosopher J. Dewey (1938), i.e.
the processes during which an individual will make use of the dif-
ferent resources available in a given situation (documents, objects,
individuals, etc.) to build knowledge about the situation, to progres-
sively define it and give it meaning. At Pla Guillem, several resources
were exploited (historical studies, field observations, discussions,
and other forms of interactions between the actors). This led to a
change in the original definition of the problem proposed by the
experts and site managers. From the original definition of a prob-
lem of restoration, the issue now became one of farming practices
involving new stakeholders.
In the two ski resorts, there were very few interactions between
the different stakeholders about the issue of restoration: users were
not asked to get involved, to give their opinion, or to share their
knowledge of the environment. In these resorts, only the technical
staff in charge of the restoration work actually talked to the live-
stock farmers. Resort managers and experts never really changed
their appraisal of the situation or their modes of action.
From a variety of superposed territories to a coherent territory
Our analysis of the interviews revealed that the territories that
make sense to each individual stakeholder were not always the
same. They corresponded to different spatial scales and differ-
ent entities whose pertinence depended on the interviewees’ own
activities and on how they themselves considered the different pos-
sible land uses. Here we define the term ‘territory’ as the space an
individual or a social group appropriates through its use. The com-
parison of the situation at Pla Guillem and at the two ski resorts
again underlined the contrast between a site where a progressive
and collective approach to the situation had been chosen, and the
other two sites where experts and resort managers did not sieze
the opportunity to exchange ideas with potential stakeholders.
As described above, at Pla Guillem, the definition of the terri-
tory under consideration for concrete actions progressed in parallel
with progress in the definition of the problems and the participants
involved: first a track and its immediate vicinity, then high altitude
grassland, and finally the “jasses”. In this case we can therefore refer
to comprehensive land management.
In the Peyragudes and la Pierre St-Martin ski resorts, the analysis
revealed several superposed territories with no progressive incor-
poration of these territories in a comprehensive unit. The technical
staff who actually carry out the restoration work, mainly talked
about the plot or plots they were working on, and about the tracks
intended for the circulation of vehicles and machinery used by the
ski resort. This is the scale at which they identified the appropriate
techniques, and they did not appear to be particularly interested
in the surroundings. The resort managers only talked about the ski
slopes and about the equipped zones of the resort. In Peyragudes,
a geographic information system (GIS) had been set up to allow
the condition of the equipped zones to be monitored, and as a sup-
port for decision making when scheduling interventions: the date
159
and nature of the works required, the state of the plant cover (%
cover, etc.). However, only the equipped zones (in particular the
ski slopes) were being monitored, and monitoring the surrounding
vegetation was never envisaged. For both the experts and locally
elected officials, one of the main stakes of restoration is integrating
the facilities in the landscape. It is thus only in “landscaping” terms,
the colour or even the substrate, that the ski slopes and other facili-
ties are considered in the context of a wider territory. The livestock
farmers only referred to their grazing itineries and more generally,
to the movement of their herds over the course of the season and
as a function of the quality of the grass.
Discussion
Two perceptions of ecological restoration
The main results reported here reveal two somewhat different
perceptions of restoration in the Pyrenees. Even when they were
not clearly expressed in the discourse, the different perceptions led
to different behaviour in the field. The two perceptions can be dis-
tinguished by their objectives and by their approach to restoration
projects as revealed, in particular, by the different criteria of success
of the restoration used by experts, project managers and contract-
ing authorities, and by the ways the stakeholders’ points of view
and needs were taken into account (or not).
The first perception was technical and the aim was to restore
a plant cover that resembled its “original” state, in other words,
the vegetation that grew before degradation occurred. This was
the prevailing perception in the two ski resorts, particularly
in Peyragudes. In this approach, experts plan works to replant
degraded sites using local plants. Although livestock farmers are
expected to maintain the plant cover, they are not invited to
express their opinion, particularly in terms of the plant species to
be planted, or to share their knowledge of the natural environment.
The specific needs of their livestock with respect to pasture are not
taken into account. However, this technical view of restoration is
not limited to an ecological objective: it considers the wishes of
locally elected officials and territorial communities with respect to
the integration of the ski slopes in the landscape. It also aims to
create a plant cover that is suitable for skiing. This concept also has
a time management dimension, as shown by the creation of the
monitoring system (GIS). In this way, it at least partly considers the
“process” of restoration identified by Higgs (1997), although only
with respect to vegetation dynamics. As is true in the majority of
restoration projects (Wortley et al., 2013), monitoring the opera-
tion does not really take the social and economic dimensions of
ecological restoration into account.
The second perception is closer to the concept of “ecocultural
restoration” developed by Higgs (2003), meaning it is closer to an
“expanded view of ecological restoration” that puts considerations
of ecological and cultural fidelity at the heart of the restoration
project. This concept emerged progressively at Pla Guillem. First,
there was a desire to restore the vicinity of the tracks using local
plants to reproduce an ecosystem similar to the original one. Next,
increasing consideration was given to the users of the sites, to the
meaning spaces have for livestock farmers (early pasture for cattle),
to the historical use of these spaces, to the needs of livestock farm-
ers in terms of the amount of pasture they require, etc. Beyond a
simple ecological restoration, a more comprehensive approach was
adopted that allowed the active involvement of livestock farmers.
The approach adopted at Pla Guillem is reminiscent of the prin-
ciples of action whose importance was underlined by Light (2000;
O’Neill et al., 2008) or Higgs (1997, 2003): the principle of involving
local actors, notably in actions of restoration, and the principle of
historical, ecological, cultural and socio-economic continuity. Both
160 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
authors speak of a “narrative approach” to restoration. Starting from
the observation that a landscape is often the result of interactions
between ecological processes and its use by local actors, the aim
of this approach is not to return to the previous state as defined
by ecological science. Rather it aims at a future that makes sense
for the different stakeholders. In accordance with Minteer and
Pyne (2013), this approach calls for philosophical pragmatism with
respect to restoration. The ‘sense’ given to landscape is reflected in
the stories told by the participants, and also in the stories told by
the landscape itself. One can interpret the approach chosen at Pla
Guillem as a narrative approach, even if not in all its aspects. The
search for written documents about previous agricultural practices,
as well as exchanges with professionals, allowed the restoration
project to become an integral part of the trajectory of the site
and of the users of the site. In the field of organisation studies,
Weick (1995) developed the concept of “collective sense-making”
to describe the collective process during which the interactions
between those who are participating in a collective action, give it
a sense. The approach progressively adopted during the course of
the project at Pla Guillem represented (and continues to represent),
a process of “collective sense-making” (Weick, 1995), which allows
the joint definition of priorities and preferences about the actions
to take.
In contrast, in the ski resorts, where a more “technological” view
of restoration (according to Higgs, 2003) prevailed, the idea of find-
ing a pathway at the interface of ecological and social processes,
particularly in the use of resources, was missing. This absence is
exemplified by the lack of attention paid to the plant resources
required to feed the cattle.
Territory as an indicator of a process of “collective sense-making”
Beyond revealing differences in concepts in terms of ecologi-
cal restoration in the Pyrenees, our results also demonstrate that
a territory concerned by a restoration project (see section “From a
variety of superposed territories to a coherent territory”), and to an
even greater extent, the monitoring of its transformation, reveals
the approach that has been used. In particular, it can reveal the
extent of participation in the discussion and concertation about
the project or in other words, the more or less collective nature
of the process of “sense-making” (according to the definition of
Weick, 1995). The example of Pla Guillem shows how the terri-
tory itself evolved little by little in parallel with the transformation
of the approach. The final approach, which facilitates participa-
tion by the different users of the territory, was not the one that
was originally envisaged. Indeed, the site managers initially had
a rather technical view of the restoration, and intended to limit
their actions to the degraded parts of the territory, where eco-
logical restoration was implemented. The final approach gradually
emerged from the (occasionally) conflicting interactions between
the different actors. The process enabled more active involvement
of local actors, particularly of livestock farmers. The improved inter-
actions are reflected in the extension of the territory concerned by
the ‘restoration project’ because the re-opening of the “jasses” was
thought to be necessary for the success of the restoration.
In the two ski resorts, the territory directly concerned by
restoration corresponds to the ski slopes, which represent a very
small part of the whole territory. In this respect, the monitoring
system set up in Peyragudes is highly significant. Any other ways
of perceiving the territory expressed by other interviewees were
ignored.
So we can see that a territory concerned by a restoration project
is not fixed but is progressively defined as a function of the actors
the project managers decide to involve. This is one of the points
on which we distance ourselves most from the current literature.
Even when the authors underline the importance of stakeholder
participation, the territory concerned by the restoration is taken as
a given. For example, Hagen et al. (2002) showed that stakeholders
were involved in the definition of the objectives and of the modal-
ity of the restoration. However, the aim was to reach a consensus
on the actions to be undertaken in a predefined territory based on
ecological criteria (zones in which ecological degradation had been
identified). Our results lead us to underline the “constructed” fea-
ture of the territory of the project: the definition of the territory has
to make sense for each of the actors concerned. This does not nec-
essarily imply that the territory must have the same meaning for all
the actors, but that it enables each actor to practice his/her activities
in line with the objectives of the restoration. And, as demonstrated
by the example of Pla Guillem, in such a context, a territory is not
‘fixed’ but is likely to change over time thanks to newly acquired
knowledge (about the environment and how it changes as a result
of the first actions carried out, the history of the site, etc.), with
increased or reduced participation, or possibly, a change in their
activities decided by the actors themselves.
The need for an on-going learning about the social and
organisational dimensions of restoration
These results invite us to think about modes of managements
which are better suited to the understanding of restoration as a
complex process. That is to say, a process that is both progressive
and uncertain because of the different (ecological, socio-economic,
etc.) dynamics at play, because of the progressive elaboration of
knowledge useful to the action, possible changes in the interest of
the different stakeholders in the territory concerned, the transfor-
mation of the participation of the potential stakeholders, etc.
O’Neill et al. (2008) and Higgs (2003) call for historical continuity
through a narrative approach, regardless of the dynamics at play. In
our opinion, we also need to think about set-ups and principles for
the management of restoration; restoration needs to be thought
of as ongoing and as a long-term process which will continue to
require maintenance in the future.
Several authors (Robertson and Hull, 2000; Murray and
Marmorek, 2003; McCarthy and Possingham, 2007; Failing et al.,
2013) suggest adopting the principles of adaptive management in
restoration to cope with the need for adaptation. However, as this
approach has its roots in ecology, it focuses most often on devel-
oping learning about the ecological dynamics at play. In particular,
monitoring and evaluation concern the ecosystem and its function-
ing. The organisation of the restoration work and the social process
it involves are not taken into consideration by the partners (Lee,
1999; Berkes, 2009; Failing et al., 2013). The monitoring initiative
in Peyragudes implicitly belongs to this approach. Beyond enabling
work to be scheduled, which is the main reason for monitoring the
state of the ski slopes, restoration works on the ski slopes have an
experimental dimension which should not be ignored.
The situation at Pla Guillem showed that the definition of a
situation and hence the identification of the actions that need to
be carried out, can evolve over time depending on the resources
exploited, and particularly on which actors are involved. It shows
that this transformation may call for the participation of new actors
and perhaps even for new sources of documentation which will
reveal new stakes or raise new questions. In a context of water
management, Steyaert and Jiggins (2007) introduced the concept
of ‘stake-holding’ to express the progressive transformation of situ-
ations, of stakes, and consequently of stakeholders: “new stakes can
emerge from social interactions and as these are constructed they lead
to the emergence of new stakeholders” (Steyaert and Jiggins, 2007).
As we previously demonstrated in the context of land-use manage-
ment (Couix and Vissac, 1995; Couix, 1997), this dynamic concept of
the context in which restoration takes place, suggests that it could
be useful to consider the management of operations from the point
 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
of view of “procedural rationality” (Simon, 1978). Such a perspec-
tive calls for the development of procedures that make it possible
to “adapt as you go”, but also requires the assessment of the qual-
ity of reasoning during the application of the procedures. In terms
of project management, it also means continually asking oneself
whether the procedure chosen to elaborate and assess knowledge
and the actions that need to be undertaken are still appropriate.
Should other people be involved? Are the methods chosen for col-
laboration with those on whom we reciprocally depend adequate?
Overall, this perspective calls for the development of a way of think-
ing which includes the social and organisational dimensions of
restoration, for which on-going learning is also necessary.
In this connection, the questions raised by our results recall the
works of Pahl-Wostl and colleagues on the restoration of rivers
(Pahl-Wostl, 2006; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). These authors adopt
a perspective of procedural rationality and explicitly state the need
for feedback on the social dimension of management as much as on
the ecosystem in adaptive management. They summarise this con-
cept as “managing to learn in order to learn to manage”. Works on
adaptive co-management which are more focused on the issues of
governance, are currently underway in this direction (Berkes, 2009;
Leys and Vanclay, 2011).
Conclusion
In this work, we analysed the diversity of stakeholders’ points of
view and how this range of points of view is taken into account in
restoration projects. Our results revealed two views of restoration
projects in the Pyrenees in terms of objectives and approaches. One
is very technical and aims to restore the plant cover as closely as
possible to its “initial” state. In the second, consideration is given
to the users of the sites, the sense the spaces have for them, and
the historical use of the spaces. This approach is more global and
appears to allow more active participation by the different actors.
Our results also highlight the relevance of project management
based on the principle of procedural rationality, exemplified by
certain adaptive management trends today. We recommend incor-
porating ecological restoration in a more global land management
project, as exemplified by Pla Guillem. This project illustrates a shift
from a view of a restoration project stricto sensu to a view of land
management in which the actors learn as much about the social
dimension of management as about the ecosystem. We believe this
view allows and even encourages the participation of local actors.
Indeed, these actors are no longer limited to simply restoring a site,
but rather contribute to the future of the territory on which their
activity depends, a territory that makes sense to them.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded by Ecovars2 project and INRA-SAD. Eco-
vars2 was funded by The European Union, the French government
and Midi-Pyrénées, Aquitaine and Languedoc-Roussillon regions.
The authors thank Daphne Goodfellow for language correction.
References
Benson, D., Fritsch, O., Cook, H., Schmid, M., 2014. Evaluating participation in WFD
river basin management in England and Wales: processes, communities, outputs
and outcomes. Land Use Policy 38, 213–222.
Berg, B.L., Lune, H., 2012. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, eighth
ed. Pearson, London.
Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18 (3),
621–630.
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridg-
ing organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1692–1702.
Booth, A., Halseth, G., 2011. Why the public thinks natural resources public partic-
ipation processes fail: a case study of British Columbia communities. Land Use
Policy 28, 898–906.
161
Cairns, J.J., 1995. Ecosocietal restoration, reestablishing humanity’s relationship with
natural systems. Environment 37, 4–33.
Chan, K.M.A., Pringle, R.M., Ranganathan, J.A., Boggs, C.L., Chan, Y.L., Ehrlich, P.R.,
Haff, P.K., Heller, N.E., Al Khafaji, A.L., Macmynoswski, D.P., 2007. When agendas
collide: human welfare and biological conservation. Conserv. Biol. 21, 59–68.
Comerford, E., 2013. The impact of permanent protection on cost and participation
in a conservation programme: a case study from Queensland. Land Use Policy
34, 176–182.
Couix, N., 1997. Le co-pilotage de projets co-conçus dans un contexte de gestion
ed l’espace rural. In: Avenier, M.J. (Ed.), La stratégie chemin faisant. Economica,
Paris, pp. 299–324.
Couix, N., 2002. Concerted approach to land-use management: developing common
working procedures. A Cévennes case study (France). Land Use Policy 19, 75–90.
Couix, N., Vissac, B., 1995. System modelling and social construction of a land use
planning and management project. In: Schoute, J.F.T., Finke, P.A., Veeneklaas,
F.R., Wolfert, H.P. (Eds.), Scenario Studies for the Rural Environment. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 577–588.
Darré, J.-P., Mathieu, A., Lasseur, J., 2004. Le sens des pratiques. Conceptions
d’agriculteurs et modèles d’agronomes. INRA, Paris.
David, A., 2004. Études de cas et généralisation scientifique en sciences de gestion. In:
Conférence 2004 de l’ Association Internationale de Management Stratégique.
Le Havre, France, pp. 2004.
DeCaro, D., Stokes, M., 2008. Social-psychological principles of community-based
conservation and conservancy motivation: attaining goals within an autonomy-
supportive environment. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1443–1451.
Dewey, J., 1938. Logic: the theory of enquiry. Henry Holt and Company, New York,
USA.
Dumez, H., 2013. Qu’est-ce qu’un cas? Le Libellio d’AGEIS 9 (2), 13–26.
Dutrillaux, C., (dissertation) 2005. Analyse des processus de décision dans les pra-
tiques de revégétalisation sur le massif pyrénéen. Centre de Formation et de
Recherche J.F. Champollion, Albi.
Failing, L., Gregory, R., Higgins, P., 2013. Science, uncertainty, and values in eco-
logical restoration: a case study in structured decision-making and adaptive
management. Restor. Ecol. 21 (4), 422–430.
Gobster, P.H., Hull, R.B. (Eds.), 2000. Restoring Nature. Perspectives from the Social
Sciences and Humanities. Island Press, Washington.
Gonzalo-Turpin, H., Couix, N., Hazard, L., 2008. Rethinking partnership
with the aim of producing knowledge with practical relevance: a case
study in the field of ecological restoration. Ecol. Soc. 13 http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art53/
Hagen, D., Aasetre, J., Emmelin, L., 2002. Communicative approaches to restoration
ecology: a case study from Dovre Mountain and Svalbard, Norway. Landsc. Res.
27, 359–380.
Hallett, L.M., Diver, S., Eitzel, M.V., Olson, J.J., Ramage, B.S., Sardinas, H., Statman-
Weil, Z., Suding, K.N., 2013. Do we practice what we preach? Goal setting for
ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 21 (3), 312–319.
Higgs, E.S., 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conserv. Biol. 11, 338–348.
Higgs, E.S., 2003. Nature by Design. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Higgs, E.S., 2005. The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integra-
tion of knowledge. Restor. Ecol. 13, 159–164.
Holling, C.S., 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assesment and Management. Wiley,
New York, USA.
Ison, R., Roling, N., Watson, D., 2007. Challenges to science and society in the sus-
tainable management and use of water: investigating the role of social learning.
Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 499–511.
Jiggins, J., Röling, N., 2000. Adaptative management: potential and limitations for
ecological governance. Int J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 1, 28–42.
Johnson, B.L., 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach
for resource management agencies. Conserv. Ecol. 3 http://www.consecol.
org/vol3/iss2/art8/
Kaufmann, J.C., 1996. L’entretien compréhensif. Editions Nathan, Paris.
Langley, A., Royer, I., 2006. Perspectives on doing case study research in orga-
nizations. Management 9 (3), 73–86 http://www.management-aims.com/
PapersMgmt/93Langley.pdf
Lee, K.N., 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Ecol. Soc. 3 http://www.consecol.
org/vol3/iss2/art3/
Leys, A.J., Vanclay, J.K., 2011. Social learning: a knowledge and capacity building
approach for adaptive co-management of contested landscapes. Land Use Policy
23, 574–584.
Light, A., 2000. Restoration, the value of participation and the risks of
professionalization. In: Gobster, P.H., Hull, R.B. (Eds.), Restoring Nature. Per-
spectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Island Press, Washington,
pp. 163–184.
Light, A., Higgs, E., 1996. The politics of ecological restoration. Environ. Ethics 18,
227–247.
McCarthy, M.A., Possingham, H.P., 2007. Active adaptive management for conserva-
tion. Conserv. Biol. 21, 956–963.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 2003. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source-
book. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Minteer, B.A., Pyne, S.J., 2013. Restoring the narrative of American environmental-
ism. Restor. Ecol. 21 (1), 6–11.
Mitchell, J.C., 1983. Case and situation analysis. Sociol. Rev. 31, 187–211.
Murray, C., Marmorek, D., 2003. Adaptive management: a science-based approach to
managing ecosystems in the face of uncertainty. In: 5th International SAMPAA
Conference.
O’Neill, J., Holland, A., Light, A., 2008. Environmental Values. Routledge Ed, New York.
162 N. Couix, H. Gonzalo-Turpin / Land Use Policy 46 (2015) 155–162
O’Rourke, E., 2014. The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: people
and wildlife. Land Use Policy 38, 129–137.
Orstrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collec-
tive Action. Cambridge University Press.
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. The importance of social learning in restoring the
multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecol. Soc. 11 http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., Tallieu, T., 2007.
Social learning and water resources management. Ecol. Soc. 12 http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art5/
Pretty, J.N., 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 23,
1247–1263.
Richards, L., 2009. Handling Qualitative Data. A Practical Guide, second ed. Sage.
Robertson, D.P., Hull, R.B., 2000. Beyond biology: toward a more public ecology for
conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15, 970–979.
Robinson, L.W., Berkes, F., 2011. Multi-level participation for building adaptive
capacity; Formal agency-community interactions in northern Kenya. Global
Environ. Change 21 (2011), 1185–1194.
Schreiber, E.S.G., Bearlin, A.R., Nicol, S.J., Todd, C.R., 2004. Adaptative management:
a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecol. Manag.
Restor. 5, 177–182.
Schutz, A., 1987. Le chercheur et le quotidien. In: Traduction de Collected Papers par
A. Noschis-Gilliéron. Klincksieck, Paris.
Shackelford, N., Hobbs, R.J., Burgar, J.M., Erickson, T.E., Fontaine, J.B., Lalib-
ert, E., Ramalho, C.E., Perring, M.P., Standish, R.J., 2013. Primed for change:
developing ecological restoration for the 21st century. Restor. Ecol. 21 (3),
297–304.
Simon, H.A., 1978. Rationality as process and as a product of thought. Am. Econ. Rev.
68 (2), 1–16.
Stake, R.E., 2000. Case Studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 435–454.
Stenseke, M., 2009. Local participation in cultural landscape maintenance: lessons
from Sweden. Land Use Policy 26 (2), 214–223.
Steyaert, P., Jiggins, J., 2007. Governance of complex environmental situations
through social learning: a synthesis of SLIM’s lessons for research, policy and
practice. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 575–586.
Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M.S., 2006. Unpacking
participation in the adaptive management of social-ecological systems: a critical
review. Ecol. Soc. 11 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art39/
Twyman, C., 2000. Participatory conservation? Community-based natural resource
management in Botswana. Geogr. J. 166, 323–335.
van der Brugge, R., van Raak, R., 2007. Facing the adaptive management chal-
lenge: insights from transition management. Ecol. Soc. 12 http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art33/
Weber, M., Roth, G., Wittich, C., 1978. Economy and society: an outline of interpretive
sociology. Berkeley.
Weick, K., 1995. Sensemaking in Organisations. Sage, London.
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., Renn, O., 2011. Rationales for public partic-
ipation in environmental policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives.
Environ. Plan. A 43 (11), 2688–2704.
Western, D., Wright, R.M., Strum, S.C., 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives on
Community-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington.
Wortley, L., Hero, J.M., Howes, M., 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success:
a review of the literature. Restor. Ecol. 21 (5), 537–543.