BiodiversityThe Appreciation of Different Thought Styles and Values Helps to Clarify the Term

Philipp Mayer1,2,3
Abstract In restoration ecology the term biodiversity is widely used to dene endpoints, to assess restoration needs, and to monitor restoration success. However, the term is far from clear because different uses of it result in ambiguities and misunderstandings. The appreciation of different thought styles, which are types of worldviews, and different values is crucial for a clearer and more consistent understanding of biodiversity. Three groups of thought styles with different uses of the term biodiversity can be distinguished. (1) Natural history perceives biodiversity as biotic elements of nature that can be described and classied. (2) Science considers biodiversity as a measurable parameter that is relevant for ecosystem processes and functions. (3) In environmentalism, biodiversity is used in the context of concerns about species extinctions and habitat destructions. Values play a strong role in some perceptions of biodiversity but are negligible in others. Much confusion arises from some people considering biodiversity as something valuable per se and others seeing it as a virtually value-free parameter for the description of ecosystems. Because of different thought styles and values the term biodiversity should be used as a general concept, not as a specic element of nature. Biodiversity is a framework for the variety of life on Earth. Biodiversity in this sense is not measurable. However, specic features of biodiversity, e.g., the species richness of vascular plants, can be quantied. The selection of these features depends on thought styles and values. This implies that biodiversity as general concept should be distinguished from measurable features of biodiversity. Explicit declarations of selected biodiversity features, in every case quantities are in the focus, are inevitable for an unambiguous use of the term.
Key words: concept, environmentalism, natural history,

science, values.

Restoration Ecology and Biodiversity Restoration ecology aims to restore degraded ecosystems or to create new ecosystems to replace those that were lost (Kangas 2004). The discipline thus has very practical goals, but links to ecological theory are close. Ecological theory and its concepts, such as population, succession, or safe site, provide the scientic background for the restoration of degraded ecosystems (Mitsch & Jrgensen 2004). However, many questions in restoration ecology cannot be answered easily by ecological theory. What characterizes a degraded ecosystem? What are measurable goals for restoration? How can we assess restoration success? Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group (2004) postulates that an ecosystem is restored when it contains sufcient biotic and abiotic resources to continue its development without further assistance, sustains itself structurally and functionally, demonstrates resilience to normal environmental stress and disturbance, and interacts with contiguous ecosystems. It is obvious in this statement that there is a wide range of possible measures for assessing restoration success (Kangas 2004).

1 2

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL), Zurcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland. Address correspondence to P. Mayer, email philippmayer@gmx.net 3 Present address: Winzerhalde 6, CH-8049 Zurich, Switzerland. 2006 Society for Ecological Restoration International

Biodiversity is a term often used to assess restoration needs, to dene goals, and to assess restoration success. For example, the reestablishment of historic levels of biodiversity, the maintenance of biodiversity, and the increase of biodiversity are aims, among others, in restoration ecology (e.g., Aronson et al. 1998; Young 2000). The expression biodiversity prospecting stands for the search of species appropriate for restoration projects (Kangas 2004). And relationships of biodiversity with ecosystems self-designing capacities are assumed (Mitsch & Jrgensen 2004). The frequent use of the term biodiversity in restoration ecology is not astonishing because it is one of the key terms in all elds linked to nature and environment today (Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997; Piechocki 2002a). However, uses of the term biodiversity have provoked considerable criticism (Chadwick 1993; Gaston 1996; Ghilarov 1996; Takacs 1996; Steinberg 1998). Biodiversity has variously been called a buzzword (Angermeier 1994; Takacs 1996), a bandwagon (Rodda 1993), and a blunderbuss (Kaennel 1998). Major points of criticism are that denitions of biodiversity are vague (Heywood & Baste 1995; Gaston 1996; Takacs 1996; van der Maarel 1997; Baydack & Campa 1999; Swingland 2001; Mayer et al. 2002; Sarkar & Margules 2002) and depend on context and interest group (see Kaennel Dobbertin 1998, for different denitions). Noss (1990) states that biological diversity means different things to different people, and in the Global Biodiversity Assessment, it is expressed that

MARCH 2006

Restoration Ecology Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 105111

105

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

biodiversity is perceived differently by different interest groups (Heywood & Baste 1995). Consequences of the many denitions of biodiversity are ambiguities, which confound the communication of research results. Weesie and van Andel (2003) distinguish four main such ambiguities:
d

The term is used both for the variety among all organizational levels together (total variety of life on Earth) and for the variety at each single level (e.g., plant species richness). The term is used on widely different spatial scales (e.g., on square centimeters, on square kilometers, or on the Earth). The term is not only used for the variety within a particular set of biological objects but also for that set of objects itself. The term should describe only biotic objects but includes also ecosystem diversity with obvious abiotic components.

If researchers and practitioners in restoration ecology want to avoid ambiguities, operate with clear goals, and consistent monitoring schemes, then a clarication of the term biodiversity is mandatory. In this article, different viewpoints of biodiversity and their explanations are presented. Based on these viewpoints a consistent description of biodiversity is provided, which helps to use the term in a well-dened way.

Thought Styles and Biodiversity

Epistemological Background

Biodiversity, with its different meanings, is easier to grasp when it is not understood as something absolute but as something that is context dependent and the result of human thinking. Two epistemological discussions have to be mentioned here, the problem of universals and the concept of thought styles. The debate about the universals started in the middle ages and is still prominent in contemporary philosophy. The question is whether general terms (the universals) are real or whether individual things with individual properties, but not general terms, represent reality (Armstrong 1978). The two viewpoints of realism and nominalism describe the extremes of this debate. Realism assumes that general terms are the ultimate reality (Armstrong 1978). It is expected that some universals exist (in addition to particular individuals). Realism also means that there are objective facts independent of the conceptual frameworks in which those facts are discoverable (Klee 1997). Biodiversity is, from the viewpoint of realism, something potentially real that can be described and measured by different people with the same result. In contrast, nominalism assumes that everything that exists is a particular individual and that universals are nothing but names or

terms we use to group things together (Armstrong 1978). Thus, terms are the result of thinking. Nominalism also means that it depends in all cases on conceptual frameworks what is considered as facts and what not (Klee 1997). From this viewpoint, biodiversity is a mental construct and its manifestation depends on the person or group studying it. There has been a historical shift from absolutes, or realism, to relationships between things, or nominalism. Probably, most modern people not only embrace nominalism in the natural sciences but also in history and ethics. Exaggerated realism was a part of Platos philosophy. In contrast, many modern philosophers such as Hume, Taine, and Spencer hold the viewpoints of nominalists (The Catholic Encyclopedia 2004). For the term biodiversity it is obvious that the viewpoint of nominalism is much more persuasive than realism especially because it is a relatively new term purposefully invented (Kaennel 1998). The concept of thought styles (Denkstile) was introduced by Fleck (1935) for types of worldviews within scientic disciplines. Because the concept is of general validity, it is understood in this article in a wider sense and not restricted to science. Thought styles are the result of individual theoretical and practical education, interests, and motivation. This means that the profession or scientic school determines what should count as an admissible problem, which hypotheses are acceptable at the moment, and what are legitimate solutions for the problem (Kuhn 1996). Cohen and Schnelle (1986) write What, for one individual is important, even essential, is for another a side issue, not worth discussing. What is obvious for one, is nonsensical for the other. What is truth for one of them, is a naive illusion for another. The concept of thought styles is very helpful to understand ambiguities and misunderstandings in uses of the term biodiversity. The concept makes clear that it depends on thought style which groups of organisms are in the focus of biodiversity studies, which methods are applied for biodiversity assessments, and which objects are given priority in biodiversity conservation projects (Janich 2001). One problem with biodiversity is that it is a pseudocognate term in that many users assume wrongly that everyone shares the same intuitive denition (Williams 1993). Therefore, the awareness of different thought styles contributes to a clearer use of biodiversity by highlighting the need for explicit denitions in every case the term is used. Three (groups of) thought styles can be distinguished in elds related to the biodiversity issue: natural history, science, and environmentalism. These thought styles differ in their perception of nature and, which has to be accented, in their image of biodiversity.
Natural History

Natural history is the systematic account of natural phenomena. The elds of systematics and taxonomy can be assigned to natural history, and the work done by Carl

106

Restoration Ecology

MARCH 2006

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

von Linne (17071778) is a highlight not only for natural history but also for human civilization in general. Alexander von Humboldt (17691859) was a scientist who studied the variety of worlds nature with a natural history perspective. Natural history is of fundamental importance for biology, and all kinds of biodiversity research, because biological phenomena are described and classied (Mayr 1982). Natural history has a descriptive approach, and emphasis is often laid on special cases and curiosities (Trepl 1994). In modern biodiversity studies with a natural history perspective, biodiversity is seen either as the biotic components of nature or as the number or diversity of entities (e.g., species, plant sociological units). It should be pointed out here that these considerations reect how the term biodiversity is used in reality, not how the term should be used.
Science

cies, e.g., by representing the number of functional groups in a community (Martinez 1996). An extension of this approach distinguishes functional, spatial, and temporal dimensions for the different levels of biological organization (Beierkuhnlein 1998). Diversity indexes and integrative biodiversity measures often fail in that they end up combining different entities in indefensible ways. Therefore, some scientists do not try to grasp it in a single number but use species composition or functional trait spectra instead (e.g., Bond 1997). The main problem with scientic biodiversity measures is that biodiversity can be measured in many different ways and that results depend on investigated organisms and methods. One of the problems with biodiversity is what some people assume about it. People assume wrongly that there is one measure of biodiversity, that you can go out and measure the biodiversity of areas and capture it all in a single number for each area.
Environmentalism

Science tries to subsume the vast diversity of phenomena and processes of nature under a small number of explanatory principles (Mayr 1982). Modern science evolved in the Renaissance with Copernicus, Newton, and Descartes (16th and 17th centuries) as important representatives. Science evolved as a counterpart to mysticism and promotes a materialistic and mechanistic worldview. Typical for scientic studies is reductionism, that is, the object under study is separated in smaller units to gain a mechanistic understanding of the whole object (see Looijen 2000, for reductionism in ecology). Science advances by the formulation of hypotheses and their testing by observations and experiments (Popper 1989). Scientists are not interested in special cases or curiosities but in general laws, and they tend to reduce nature to numbers (Trepl 1994). In the center of biodiversity studies with a scientic perspective are relationships between entities, processes, and functions. Examples are experiments on biodiversity and ecosystem functions (e.g., Naeem et al. 1994; Tilman & Downing 1994) and the explanation of large-scale patterns in species richness (e.g., Gaston 2000). Species richness is the measure most often used in science, and probably also in the discipline of restoration ecology, to quantify biodiversity (Huston 1994; Bisby 1995; Gaston 1996, 2000; Purvis & Hector 2000). This results from practical issues of the ease and magnitude of data acquisition and from widespread recognition of the signicance of species as biological units (Gaston 2000). Species richness reects only the number of species in a given area but gives no information on the abundance of species. To overcome this shortcoming, several diversity indexes have been developed that give information on the relative abundance of the different species (e.g., evenness, Shannon index; Magurran 1988, 2004). Other indexes quantify genetic or morphological differences between the species of a community, e.g., disparity or character diversity (Purvis & Hector 2000). There are also measures of biodiversity that focus on levels above individuals and spe-

Environmentalism is an intellectual, moral, and political movement that arose in response to global environmental crisis (Smelser & Baltes 2001). In the 1950s and 1960s, concerns about population growth, nuclear technology, and the development of the science of ecology helped to create the environmentalist worldview (McCormick 1989). It is an important motivation for many people involved in the biodiversity issue and inuences national and international politics. Environmentalism in a broader sense is also concerned about the living conditions in developing countries and ghts for fair trade and equal opportunities. This becomes obvious in the Convention on Biological Diversity, which not only aims to conserve biodiversity but also strives for fair and equitable sharing of benets from the use of natural resources (Heywood & Baste 1995). The term biodiversity is used in contemporary environmentalism with three different meanings. First, it is used in an encompassing way as live on Earth or as a biotic resource for humans. Second, it is used to distinguish the deterioration of biological objects (summarized under the label biodiversity) from the deterioration of physical conditions (e.g., air quality, climate). Third, biodiversity is considered as species richness on global spatial scales because alarming extinction rates are an important topic for environmentalism.

Triangle of Biodiversity Perceptions

Disciplines and movements dealing with biodiversity can be positioned in a triangle with the corners dened by the thought styles natural history, science, and environmentalism (Fig. 1). The space enclosed in this triangle allows for different groups to be contrasted in their perceptions of biodiversity by their relative positions. Restoration ecologists are positioned in the center of the triangle because their work is inuenced by all the

MARCH 2006

Restoration Ecology

107

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

environmentalism

eco-warrior planner

conservationist restoration ecologist

bird-watcher taxonomist plant ecologist geneticist

science because they rely on approaches in natural history (e.g., description of vegetation types) and on science (e.g., study of plant response to stress). Finally, the study of genetic diversity can be seen as pure science. Therefore, geneticists are positioned in the lower right corner. In a similar way, organizations and institutions involved in the biodiversity issue can be positioned relative to the three thought styles environmentalism, natural history, and science. Close to environmentalism are international organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and WWF. Museums like the Natural History Museum in New York are, of course, close to natural history but also do scientic research. Scientic organizations that are involved in biodiversity research are, e.g., the Ecological Society of America or the British Ecological Society.
science

natural history

Figure 1. The thought styles natural history, science, and environmentalism (vertices of triangle) represent different perceptions of biodiversity. In the triangle, some disciplines and interest groups are, in respect of their understanding of biodiversity, positioned relative to the three thought styles.

three thought styles. The science of ecology provides principles and theories fundamental for understanding natural ecosystems and, therefore, also for their restoration. Natural history facilitates ecological restoration by unambiguous names for biological objects (e.g., species) and by descriptions of historic or natural ecosystems, which may serve as references. There is a direct connection between restoration ecology and environmentalism because the primary purpose of restoration activities is to add ecological value for its own sake, which is characteristic for environmentalism (Kangas 2004). Restoration ecology can be seen as subdiscipline of ecological engineering (Kangas 2004), and therefore, the thought style of engineering, which was not discussed so far, also plays a role for restoration ecology. Engineering involves methods to make things that benet people (Landis 1992). Engineering applies the principles of science but differs in so far because it is stronger based on empiricism and strives to make things work, not just to produce knowledge. A position in Figure 1 similar to restoration ecology has conservation biology, dened by Hunter (2002) as the applied science of maintaining the earths biological diversity. The group of ecowarriors is positioned close to the upper corner of the triangle because they use the term biodiversity with the aim to protect the environment, that is, to reduce pollution and halt habitat destruction. Landscape planners also aim to protect the environment but rely in their work on natural history and science. Taxonomists are closely connected with the thought style natural history because their aim is to describe and classify species. Bird-watching is linked to natural history and to a much smaller extend to environmentalism. Plant ecologists are positioned half way between natural history and

Values and Biodiversity Many misunderstandings of biodiversity result from the mixing of value-free and value-laden uses of the term (Gaston & Spicer 2004). Therefore, the appreciation of different value systems, or different intensities values play, helps to clarify the concept biodiversity (Duelli & Obrist 2003). The term value describes a fundamental good that people pursue over an extended period, an ultimate reason for peoples action, a quality or a practice that gives worth or goodness, or a criterion for people to choose what is good among possible courses of action (Lacey 2005). Statements like the higher biodiversity, the better are obviously value laden and conict with almost value-free scientic reports based on specic biodiversity measurements. The Convention on Biological Diversity gives a reasonably neutral denition of what biodiversity is, but the whole convention is very value laden about biodiversity. This is not astonishing because the coining of the term biodiversity was motivated by efforts to stop species extinctions and habitat destruction. Many biological papers make reference, mostly implicit, to the positive value of biodiversity in their introduction but proceed with a more or less value-free reporting of facts. This is very confusing and contributes to a misinterpretation of research results. For a clearer use of the term biodiversity, distinct declarations of included values would be most helpful. On the other hand the commingling of value-free with value-laden uses of the term is not always seen as a disadvantage. Piechocki (2002b) explains the success of biodiversity with the phenomenon that the term unites the reputation of a scientic fact with a generally acknowledged notion of a value per se. The relationship of values with the thought styles natural history, science, and environmentalism is that some are closer connected with values and others less. I do not want to go here into the discussion whether in reality science is free of values or not (e.g., OHear 1989; Weber 1991). But I assume that in contemporary daily work, science and

108

Restoration Ecology

MARCH 2006

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

natural history are relatively value free in comparison to environmentalism. In environmentalism the primary driver for activity is the value of nature and not the quest for objective descriptions and explanations of natural phenomena.

thought style

values

biodiversity per se
selected attribute of nature

A Coherent Concept of Biodiversity Up to this point I described how biodiversity is understood in reality. Now, I want to outline in a coherent concept the way biodiversity should be understood. This coherent, unambiguous concept of biodiversity has to take different thought styles and value systems into account and has to be compatible with them. Three points describe a consistent use of the term biodiversity. (1) Biodiversity per se is a general concept, or metaconcept (Failing & Gregory 2003), which cannot be caught in numbers. The all-embracing character of biodiversity becomes obvious in denitions as the diversity of organisms (Groombridge & Jenkins 2000) or the total variety of life (ICBP 1992). With the terms diversity and variety it is meant in this context that all different levels of biological classication, be they taxonomical, morphological, functional, or ecological, should be considered. It is not meant that all biological objects have to be quantied. (2) Specic features of biodiversity should be distinguished, for reasons of clarity, from biodiversity per se. The term feature is used here equivalent to facet (Purvis & Hector 2000) and element (Gaston & Spicer 2004). Because biodiversity per se is not measurable, quantitative biodiversity assessments are restricted to these features. An increase in clarity because of this distinction shows the following example: a study titled The biodiversity of arthropods is much vaguer than one titled The species richness of arthropodsa feature of biodiversity. Features of biodiversity can be clearly dened by specic attributes (e.g., arthropods, vascular plants, ecosystem types) and measures (e.g., species richness, evenness, number of individuals) (The Royal Society 2003). (3) Different thought styles and disciplines focus on different features of biodiversity, that is, they choose specic attributes and measures (Fig. 2). It is evident that in zoology, mostly animals are investigated in biodiversity studies. In restoration ecology, plants are primarily the focus (Young 2000). In addition to thought styles, values affect the selection of biodiversity attributes, e.g., in a sense that highly valued organisms are more likely to be selected for biodiversity monitoring programs (Fig. 2). A coherent concept of biodiversity, a vision for an appropriate understanding of biodiversity, is summarized in the following sentences:

feature of biodiversity
Figure 2. Features of biodiversity (e.g., species richness of vascular plants) are part of biodiversity per se, which is a general, unspecic concept. The selection of biodiversity features depends on thought style and values.

Biodiversity is the variety of life on Earth. Within this framework, different thought styles (e.g., natural history, science, and environmentalism) focus on different features of this variety, in value-free or value-laden ways. These features of biodiversity may include, for example, genes, individuals, populations, species, and ecosystem types. They may be quantied using a potentially innite range of methods. Biodiversity per se is, however, intangible. It is stressed in this concept that peoples attitudes affect their perception of biodiversity. Perlman and Adelson (1997) go further and state that the term biodiversity refers to human conceptions of life on Earth that are relevant for specic problems in nature conservation. And they point out that these conceptions of biodiversity are shaped by peoples values, biases, and interests.

Implications for Restoration Ecology The statement that biodiversity per se is intangible to measurement has two far-ranging implications. (1) Goals and monitoring programs in restoration ecology should be connected with specic and measurable features of biodiversity but not with biodiversity per se. The political aim to halt the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010 (EC 2001) cannot be controlled because it is inaccessible to quantication. It would be better to dene targets for specic groups of organisms and choose appropriate measures for their quantication. (2) The use of indicators, surrogates, or correlates for biodiversity per se has to be questioned. It is impossible to test the reliability of an indicator for something that cannot be caught in numbers. In contrast, indicators make sense for features of biodiversity. In these cases, indicators can track performance in nature management, enable decision makers to decide between options, and allow discrimination among hypotheses in science (Failing & Gregory 2003). The second important result is that different thought styles focus on different features of biodiversity. Thus, the choice of biodiversity features, and measures to assess restoration success, is essentially subjective and will be

MARCH 2006

Restoration Ecology

109

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

always open to debate (Kangas 2004). Because of subjectivity, the selection of biodiversity features is ideally based on a thorough understanding of the studied system and on several experts opinion to attain intersubjectivity at least. The third implication concerns the fact that the term biodiversity is used both in value-free and value-laden ways. A remark whether values are connected with biodiversity or not in every case the term is used would be very helpful to avoid misunderstandings. For example, it would prevent that scientic results indicating high species richness are automatically interpreted as good and low species richness as bad. Biodiversity is a powerful term, and restoration ecology can prot from its reputation. A use of the term in the way outlined above increases clarity and efciency in restoration projects and facilitates the communication of our overall aim: to restore degraded ecosystems.

Implications for Practice

d

Goals and indicators should be connected with measurable features of biodiversity and not with biodiversity per se. The selection of biodiversity features should be based on a well-founded understanding of the respective ecosystem. Explicit distinctions between value-free and value-laden uses of the term biodiversity help to avoid misunderstandings.

Acknowledgment Many thanks to Kevin J. Gaston for fruitful discussions, which laid the basis of this article, and his hospitality during a research visit.

LITERATURE CITED
Angermeier, P. L. 1994. Does biodiversity include articial diversity? Conservation Biology 8:600602. Armstrong, D. M. 1978. Universals and scientic realism, volume I: nominalism & realism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Aronson, J., E. Le Floch, J.-F. David, S. Dhillion, M. Abrams, J.-L. Guillerm, and A. Grossmann. 1998. Restoration ecology studies at Cazarils (southern France): biodiversity and ecosystem trajectories in a mediterranean landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 41:273283. Baydack, R. K., and H. Campa III. 1999. Setting the context. Pages 316 in R. K. Baydack, H. Campa III, and J. B. Hauer, editors. Practical approaches to the conservation of biological diversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. t Beierkuhnlein, C. 1998. Biodiversita und Raum. Die Erde 128:81101.

Bisby, F. A. 1995. Characterization of biodiversity. Pages 21106 in V. H. Heywood and R. T. Watson, editors. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Bond, W. J. 1997. Functional types for predicting changes in biodiversity: a case study in Cape fynbos. Pages 174194 in T. M. Smith, H. H. Shugart, and F. I. Woodward, editors. Plant functional types: their relevance to ecosystem properties and global change. International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Book Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Chadwick, D. H. 1993. Seeking meanings. Defenders Magazine, winter. Cohen, R. S., and T. Schnelle, editors. 1986. Cognition and fact materials on Ludwik Fleck, Dordrecht, Reidel. Duelli, P., and M. K. Obrist. 2003. Biodiversity indicators: the choice of values and measures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2063:112. EC. 2001. Environment 2010: our future, our choice. The 6th environment action programme of the EC 20012010. COM 31, Brussels, Belgium (available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ newprg/index.htm) accessed on December 16, 2005. Failing, L., and R. Gregory. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. Journal of Environmental Management 68:121132. Fleck, L. 1935. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen TatsacheEinfuhrung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. B. Schwabe und Co., Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel, Switzerland. Gaston, K. J. 1996. What is biodiversity? Pages 19 in K. J. Gaston, editor. Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom. Gaston, K. J. 2000. Global patterns in biodiversity. Nature 405:220227. Gaston, K. J., and J. I. Spicer. 2004. Biodiversity: an introduction. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Ghilarov, A. 1996. What does biodiversity meanscientic problem or convenient myth? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11:304306. Groombridge, B., and M. D. Jenkins. 2000. Global biodiversity: earths living resources in the 21st century. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Heywood, V. H., and I. Baste. 1995. Introduction. Pages 119 in V. H. Heywood and R. T. Watson, editors. Global biodiversity assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Hunter, M. L. 2002. Fundamentals of conservation biology. 2nd edition. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts. Huston, M. A. 1994. Biological diversitythe coexistence of species on changing landscapes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. ICBP. 1992. Putting biodiversity on the map: priority areas for global conservation. International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) (BirdLife International), Cambridge, United Kingdom. Janich, P. 2001. Zusammenfassung. Pages XXIXXIX in P. Janich, M. Gutmann, and K. Prie, editors. Biodiversitat: wissenschaftliche Grundlagen und gesellschaftliche Relevanz. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. Kaennel Dobbertin, M. 1998. Indicators for forest biodiversity in Europe: proposal for terms and denitions. BEAR, Technical Report No. 4, Version 1.0 (available from http://www.algonet.se/~bear/ TechnicalReport4.pdf) accessed December 16, 2005. Kaennel, M. 1998. Biodiversity: a diversity in denition. Pages 7181 in P. Bachmann, M. Kohl, and R. Paivinen, editors. Assessment of biodiversity for improved forest planning. Forestry Sciences Volume 51. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Kangas, P. C. 2004. Ecological engineering: principles and practice. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton. Klee, R. 1997. Introduction to the philosophy of science: cutting nature at its seams. Oxford University Press, New York. Kuhn, T. S. 1996. The structure of scientic revolutions. 3rd edition. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

110

Restoration Ecology

MARCH 2006

BiodiversityThought Styles and Values

Lacey, H. 2005. Is science value free? Values and scientic understanding. Routledge, London, United kingdom. Landis, R. 1992. An introduction to engineering. Page 26 in 1992 directory of engineering and engineering technology, undergraduate programs. American Society of Engineering Education, Washington, D.C. Looijen, R. C. 2000. Holism and reductionism in biology and ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Magurran, A. E. 2004. Measuring biological diversity. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Martinez, N. D. 1996. Dening and measuring functional aspects of biodiversity. Pages 114148 in K. J. Gaston, editor. Biodiversity: a biology of numbers and difference. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom. Mayer, P., C. Abs, and A. Fischer. 2002. Biodiversitat als Kriterium fur Bewertungen im Naturschutzeine Diskussionsanregung. Natur und Landschaft 77:461463. Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. McCormick, J. 1989. Reclaiming paradise: the global environmental movement. Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Mitsch, W. J., and S. E. Jrgensen. 2004. Ecological engineering and ecosystem restoration. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. Naeem, S., L. J. Thompson, S. P. Lawler, J. H. Lawton, and R. M. Woodn. 1994. Declining biodiversity can alter the performance of ecosystems. Nature 368:734737. Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4:355364. OHear, A. 1989. Introduction to the philosophy of science. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Perlman, D. L., and G. Adelson. 1997. Biodiversity: exploring values and priorities in conservation. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts. tskampagne 2002: Leben braucht VielPiechocki, R. 2002a. Biodiversita faltI. Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Ubereinkommens uber die biologische Vielfalt. Natur und Landschaft 77:4344. tskampagne 2002: Leben braucht VielPiechocki, R. 2002b. Biodiversita faltIV. Die Werte der Biodiversitat. Natur und Landschaft 77:172174. Popper, K. 1989. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientic knowledge. 5th edition. Routledge, London, United Kingdom. Purvis, A., and A. Hector. 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405:212219. Reaka-Kudla, M. L., D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson. 1997. Santa Rosalia, the turning point of the century, and a new age of exploration. Pages 507524 in M. L. Reaka-Kudla, D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson,

editors. Biodiversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C. Rodda, G. H. 1993. How to lie with biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7:959960. Sarkar, S., and C. Margules 2002. Operationalizing biodiversity for conservation planning. Journal of Bioscience (suppl. 2) 27:299308. Smelser, N. J., and P. B. Baltes, editors-in-chief. 2001. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom. Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. 2004. The SER international primer on ecological restoration. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona (available from http://www.ser.org). Steinberg, P. F. 1998. Dening the global biodiversity mandate implications for international policy. International Environmental Affairs 10:113130. Swingland, I. R. 2001. Biodiversity, denition of. Pages 377391 in S. A. Levin, editor-in-chief. Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Volume 1. Academic Press, San Diego, California. Takacs, D. 1996. The idea of biodiversity: philosophies of paradise. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. The Catholic Encyclopedia. 2004. Nominalism, realism, conceptualism. Online edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, volume XI (available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11090c.htm) accessed on December 16, 2005. The Royal Society. 2003. Measuring biodiversity for conservation. London, United Kingdom. (available from http://www.royalsociety. org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=6712; accessed on 16 December, 2005). Tilman, D., and J. A. Downing. 1994. Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363365. Trepl, L. 1994. Geschichte der Okologie. 2nd edition. Beltz Athenaum Verlag, Weinheim, Germany. van der Maarel, E. 1997. Biodiversity: from babel to biosphere management. Special Features in Biosystematics and Biodiversity 2. Opulus Press, Uppsala, Sweden. Weber, M. 1991. Value-judgments in social science. Pages 719731 in R. Boyd, P. Gasper, and J. D. Trout, editors. The philosophy of science. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Weesie, P., and J. van Andel. 2003. On biodiversity and its valuation. The CDS Research Report Series. Centre of Development Studies, The University of Groningen, the Netherlands. Williams, P. H. 1993. Choosing conservation areas: using taxonomy to measure more of biodiversity. Pages 194227 in T.-Y. Moon, editor. Manus. Col. ISBC KEI. Korean Entomological Institute, Seoul, Korea. Young, T. P. 2000. Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biological conservation 92:7383.

MARCH 2006

Restoration Ecology

111