Renaming restoration: conceptualizing and justifying the activity as a restoration of lost moral value rather than a return to a previous state

A significant percentage of contemporary restoration work, while informed by history, aims for a novel state rather than an exact simulacrum of any particular historical state. However, the lay definition of “restoration” is to return something to its original state, and this influences public perceptions—and perhaps perceptions inside the field—about what the goals of restoration are. Relying on history to justify the proposed end state of a restoration project is problematic because of climate change, knowledge gaps, and the fact that ecosystems are dynamic and have no single historical state. Restorationists should be open to discussing whether the name of their field is inaccurate and considering alternatives. The process productively forces them to think about, articulate, and justify their values. One possible outcome of this process is a redefinition of “restoration” to mean a restoration of moral value rather than a restoration of a historical state. Restorationists will need to be comfortable talking about choices, intentions, values, and justifications in a world where historical fidelity no longer reigns supreme.