  Sylvan argues that Elliot and Katz have illicitly extended the notion of an artifact, which is widely and wrongfully deployed in such descriptions of restored natural areas and what they (especially Katz) have failed to grasp is the value-enhancing role that restoration plays in the many situations where the damage has already been done. Such restoration “is an addition, an attempt … to claim back much more of what has [already] been grabbed and degraded or ruined” (Ibid., 75). In many cases restoration assists nature in reasserting itself and taking control once more. What results lacks certain properties of the original, to be sure, especially natural continuity, but contributing to the restoration of something to close-to-original value (as opposed to some low-value fake) is, Sylvan argues, worthwhile and can result in near-natural areas of enormous value. That is value enough.