The concept of real-world experiments is a framework to understand environmental design projects under real world conditions. Contrary to laboratory experiments that are generally thought to exclude the public, real-world experiments involve combinations of social and natural factors. In this paper the theory of real-world experiments is applied to the fieldwork of ecological restoration. The case discussed here is an ecological design process at Montrose Point, a peninsula built on landfill in Lake Michigan on the North Side of Chicago. It illustrates how, in the practice of ecological restoration, the idea of experiment can be understood as being built on processes of recursive learning that include different parts of the wider society and nature. The paper outlines a concept of robust implementation strategies in which public involvement is a pivotal part of a more encompassing activity of ecological practice. This is undertaken to aim at a better understanding of learning processes taking place in natural and social systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (eds) (2001) Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Gender, and the State in Community-based Conservation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press .
2.
Asdonk, J., Bredeweg, U. and Kowol, U. (1991) “Innovation als rekursiver Prozess. Zur Theorie und Empirie der Technikgenese am Beispiel der Produktionstechnik” [Innovation as a Recursive Process: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations of Development in Production Technology], Zeitschrift für Soziologie 20(4): 290-304.
3.
Baldwin, A.D. , de Luce, J. and Pletsch, C. (eds) (1994) Beyond Preservation: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
4.
Campbell, D.T. (1988) Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science: Selected Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
5.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-experimental Design for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally .
6.
Campbell, L.M. and Vainio-Mattila, A. (2003) “Participatory Development and Community-based Conservation: Opportunities Missed for Lessons Learned?,”Human Ecology31(3): 417-437 .
7.
Collins, H.M. (1988) “Public Experiments and Displays of Virtuosity: The Core-set Revisited,”Social Studies of Science18(4): 725-748 .
8.
Collins, H.M. and Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies in Expertise and Experience,”Social Studies of Science32(2): 235-296 .
9.
Constant, E.W. (2000) “Recursive Practice and the Evolution of Technological Knowledge,” in J. Ziman (ed.) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, pp. 219-233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
10.
Cook, T.D. (2004) “Recent American Experience with Social Experiments,” Presentation at the workshop on Real-World Experiments: Combining Ecological Research and Design, September, Bielefeld University, Germany.
11.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979) Quasi-experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin .
12.
Cook, T.D. and Shadish, W.R. (1994) “Social Experiments: Some Developments over the past Fifteen Years,”Annual Review of Psychology45: 545-580 .
13.
Egan, D. and Howell, E. (eds) (2001) Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press .
14.
Fleck, L. (1979 [1935]) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
15.
Friederici, P. (ed.) (2003) Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Covelo, CA: Island Press .
16.
Furnweger, K. (1997) “The Magic Hedge at Montrose Point: Plans for Development,”Compass(Chicago Audubon Society)11(7/8): 1-4 .
17.
Gobster, P.H. (1997) “The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics III—the other Side: A Survey of the Arguments,”Restoration & Management Notes15(1): 33-38 .
18.
Gobster, P.H. (2001) “Visions of Nature: Conflict and Compatibility in Urban Park Restoration,”Landscape and Urban Planning56(1-2): 35-51 .
19.
Gobster, P.H (2002) “Nature in Four Keys: Biographies of People and Place in Urban Park Restoration,” Paper presented at a workshop on Socially Robust Ecological Design, October, Bielefeld, Germany.
20.
Gobster, P.H. and Barro, S.C. (2000) “Negotiating Nature: Making Restoration Happen in an Urban Park Context,” in P.H. Gobster and B. Hull (eds) Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities, pp. 185-207. Covelo, CA: Island Press .
21.
Gobster, P.H. and Hull, B. (eds) (2000) Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Covelo, CA: Island Press .
22.
Gross, M. (2001) “Unexpected Interactions: Georg Simmel and the Observation of Nature,”Journal of Classical Sociology1(3): 395-414 .
23.
Gross, M. (2002) “New Natures and Old Science: Hands-on Practice and Academic Research in Ecological Restoration,”Science Studies15(2): 17-35 .
24.
Gross, M. (2003a) Inventing Nature: Ecological Restoration by Public Experiments. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books .
25.
Gross, M. (2003b) “Sociologists of the Unexpected: Edward A. Ross and Georg Simmel on the Unintended Consequences of Modernity,”The American Sociologist34(4): 40-58 .
26.
Gross, M. , Hoffmann-Riem, H. and Krohn, W. (2003) “Realexperimente: Robustheit und Dynamik ökologischer Gestaltungen in der Wissensgesellschaft” [Real-world Experiments: Robustness and Dynamics of Ecological Design Projects in a Knowledge Society] , Soziale Welt54(3): 241-258 .
27.
Helford, R.M. (1999) “Rediscovering the Presettlement Landscape: Making the Oak Savanna Ecosystem ‘Real,’”Science, Technology, & Human Values24(1): 55-79 .
28.
Helford, R.M. (2000) “Constructing Nature as Constructing Science: Expertise, Activist Science, and Public Conflict in the Chicago Wilderness,” in P.H. Gobster and B. Hull (eds) Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities, pp. 119-142. Covelo, CA: Island Press .
29.
Herbold, R. (1995) “Technologies as Social Experiments: The Construction and Implementation of a High-tech Waste Disposal,” in A. Rip , T.J. Misa and J. Schot (eds) Managing Technology in Society, pp. 185-197. London: Pinter .
30.
Hester, R.T. (1996) “Wanted: Local Participation with a View,” in J.L. Nasar and B.B. Brown (eds) Public and Private Places, pp. 42-52. Edmond, OK: The Environmental Design Research Association .
31.
Higgs, E.S. (2003) Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
32.
Hoffmann-Riem, H. (2003) Die Sanierung des Sempachersees: Eine Fallstudie über ökologische Lernprozesse [The Rehabilitation of Lake Sempach: A Case Study in Ecological Learning Processes]. Munich: Ökom Verlag .
33.
Holling, C.S. (1986) “The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems—Local Surprise and Global Change,” in W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn (eds) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, pp. 292-317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
34.
Huntington, H.P. (2000) “Using Traditional Knowledge in Science: Methods and Application,”Ecological Applications10(5): 1270-1274 .
35.
Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
36.
Jordan, W.R. (2003) The Sunflower Forest: Ecological Restoration and the New Communion with Nature. Berkeley: University of California Press .
37.
Jordan, W.R. , Gilpin, M.E. and Aber, J.D. (eds) (1987) Restoration Ecology: A Synthetic Approach to Ecological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
38.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextualist Nature of Science. Oxford: Clarendon .
39.
Kowol, U. (1998) Innovationsnetzwerke: Technikentwicklung zwischen Nutzungsvisionen und Verwendungspraxis [Innovation Networks: Technology Development between Visions of Usability and the Practice of Application]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag .
40.
Krohn, W. (1997) “Rekursive Lernprozesse: Experimentelle Praktiken in der Gesellschaft. Das Beispiel Abfallwirtschaft” [Recursive Learning Processes: Experimental Practice in Society: the Example of Waste Management], in W. Rammert and G. Bechmann (eds) Technik und Gesellschaft. Jahrbuch 9, pp. 65-89. Frankfurt am Main: Campus .
41.
Krohn, W. (2003) “Waste Sites as Experiments: Producing Knowledge about Waste,” Paper presented at the conference on New Directions in Interdisciplinary Research: A Conference in Real World Experiments, October, Penn State University, University Park.
42.
Krohn, W. and van den Daele, W. (1998) “Science as an Agent of Change: Finalization and Experimental Implementation,”Social Science Information37(1): 191-222 .
43.
Krohn, W. and Weingart, P. (1986) “Tschernobyl: Das größte anzunehmende Experiment” [Chernobyl: The Largest Thinkable Experiment] , Kursbuch85: 1-25 .
44.
Krohn, W. and Weingart, P. (1987) “Nuclear Power as a Social Experiment—European Political ‘Fall Out’ from the Chernobyl Meltdown,”Science, Technology & Human Values12(2): 52-58 .
45.
Krohn, W. and Weyer, J. (1994) “Society as a Laboratory: The Social Risks of Experimental Research,”Science and Public Policy21(3): 173-183 .
46.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970 [1962]) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
47.
Lachmund, J. (2004) “Knowing the Urban Wasteland: Ecological Expertise as Local Process,” in S. Jasanoff and M. Long Martello (eds) Earthly Politics: Local and Global Environmental Governance, pp. 241-261. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
48.
Larson, C. (1998) “The Magic Hedge—Chicago,”Chicago Wilderness Magazine2(3): 19 .
49.
Latour, B. (2004 [1999]) Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
50.
Law, J. and Mol, A. (eds) (2002) Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices. Durham: Duke University Press .
51.
Merton, R.K. (1968 [1949]) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press .
52.
Moore, K. (2004) “Naturalizing Society, Socializing Nature: Contemporary Ecological Restoration in San Francisco,” Paper presented at the 99th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA), August, San Francisco.
53.
Nassauer, J.I. (1997) “Cultural Sustainability: Aligning Aesthetics and Ecology,” in J.I. Nassauer (ed.) Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology, pp. 65-83. Washington, DC: Island Press .
54.
Park, P. (1992) “The Discovery of Participatory Research as a Scientific Paradigm,”The American Sociologist23(4): 29-42 .
55.
Park, R.E. and Burgess, E.W. (1972 [1921]) Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
56.
Perrow, C. (1984) Normal Accidents: Living with High-risk Technologies. New York: Basic Books .
57.
Reichenbach, H. (1938) Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
58.
Riecken, H.W. , Boruch, R. , Campbell, D.T. , Caplan, N. , Glennan, T. , Pratt, J. , Rees, A. and Williams, W. (1974) Social Experimentation: A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention. New York: Academic Press .
59.
Robertson, D.P. and Hull, R.B. (2003) “Public Ecology: An Environmental Science and Policy for Global Society,”Environmental Science & Policy6(5): 399-410 .
60.
Ross, L.M. (1997) “The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics, I—the other Side: A Coalition for Urban Conservation,”Restoration & Management Notes15(1): 17-24 .
61.
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L.J. (2004) “Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda,”Science, Technology, & Human Values29(4): 512-557 .
62.
Ryan, R.L. (2000) “A People-centered Approach to Designing and Managing Restoration Projects,” in P.H. Gobster and B. Hull (eds) Restoring Nature: Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities, pp. 209-228. Covelo, CA: Island Press .
63.
Salter, L. (1988) Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers .
64.
Science & Policy Working Group (2002) “The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration” [online]. URL: http://www.ser.org
65.
Sharp, L. (2002) “Public Participation and Policy: Unpacking Connections in one UK Local Agenda 21,”Local Environment7(1): 7-22 .
66.
Shore, D. (1997) “The Chicago Wilderness and its Critics, II—Controversy Erupts over Restoration in the Chicago Area,”Restoration & Management Notes15(1): 25-31 .
67.
Siewers, A. (1998) “Making the Quantum-culture Leap: Reflections on the Chicago Controversy,”Restoration & Management Notes16(1): 9-15 .
Teherani-Krönner, P. (1992) Human-und kulturökologische Ansätze zur Umweltforschung [Approaches in Human-and Cultural Ecology for Environmental Research]. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag .
70.
Walters, C.J. (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: Macmillan .
71.
Weingart, P. (1991) “Large Technical Systems, Real-life Experiments and the Legitimation Trap of Technology Assessment,” in T.R. La Porte (ed.) Social Responses to Large Technical Systems, pp. 5-17. Dordrecht: Kluwer .
72.
Weyer, J. (1994) “Actor Networks and High Risk Technologies: The Case of the Gulf War,”Science and Public Policy21(5): 321-334 .
