Environmental restoration is emerging as a major driver in the repair and reversal of some of the world’s most severely degraded landscape systems, with growing interest in the status and composition of restoration efforts. Although much has already been written about the theory and practice of environmental restoration, both positive and negative, hitherto the literature has tended to overlook the complexity bound up in defining restoration discourses, and perhaps more importantly, the physical, material consequences instilled through such human choice. The mutability of discourses of environmental restoration means that it can be moulded and (re-)shaped by different actors and contexts, with different values and meanings attached to ‘nature’. There exist multiple and contested natures of environmental restoration - nature(s) both in the sense o f the properties of restoration, and also that which is restored to a site. In this doctoral thesis, I demonstrate how discourses of environmental restoration are defined and interpreted, which discourses (if any) appear to dominate, and how these are mobilised to produce ‘restored nature’. Attention is also awarded to the environmental implications incurred when such discourses are played out on the ground. The research is grounded empirically through reference to the case studies o f the Eden Project (Cornwall, UK), the National Forest Company (Derbyshire, UK), and the Walden Woods Project (Lincoln, MA) and their adoption of restoration practices. Analysing the processes and practices of environmental restoration within a framework of social nature and cultural landscapes serves to destabilise the dualism distancing nature from society - a preserve of environmental ethics and philosophy - for such synergy not only highlights how ideas of (restored) nature are socially constructed, but also addresses the material production of nature, reinforcing the interactions between natural and societal actors.

Open space planning has been present within the United States for over a century. Traditionally, open space planning efforts tend to focus more exclusively on either socially-based (e.g., recreational, scenic, or park planning) or ecologically-based (e.g., preserves, habitat networks or more general conservation planning) planning efforts. This separation of ecological and social frameworks in open space planning is reinforced by a persistent cultural model, where community and conservation are seen as opposing forces instead of partners. While recent open space planning efforts have begun to integrate social and ecological frameworks into one plan, the majority of our knowledge on integrated open space planning comes from individual case studies. Thus, a synthesized toolbox for how to practice this planning field is lacking. Given this lack of synthesized knowledge of integrated open space planning, an exploratory effort was undertaken to begin to view this newer planning field through a comprehensive lens. The goal of this research was to identify the state of integrated open space planning and begin to assess whether this state was leading toward "landscape integrity," which suggests that healthy social and ecological systems must function together to be sustainable. Framed within an adapted Pressure-State-Response framework, this thesis employed mixed methods and multiple perspectives to engender a holistic framework that identifies the pressures, state of, and potential responses surrounding integrated open space planning. Pressures synthesized from practice and theory include key barriers and facilitators to achieving integration. For the first time, the state of integrated open space planning has been identified from a synthesis of thirty planning processes, practices, and tools utilized in this new planning field. This framework provides planners with a framework upon which sharing and communication can now take place regarding how integrated open space planning can be institutionalized. Finally, this understanding of the pressures and state reveals potential responses for this newer planning field, including the need for increased collaboration to build this new field of open space planning into a mainstream planning field and increased research into bridging the gaps between theory and practice identified through this thesis. This study found two integrated open space planning models and a breadth of literature supporting a movement away from the community versus conservation dichotomy. While this movement is not yet mainstream, both paradigm shifts and the rapidly changing landscapes in which we live are reinforcing this trend. With the expanded view and holistic framework illustrated by this research, planners are afforded a similar language upon which they can discuss the tools and processes central to integrated open space planning.