Denmark is widely recognised for its democratic approach to planning and the idea of planning for the common good. This interest in the common good and common values seems also to be reflected in the way which nature restoration is planned and managed – one common nature directed by the public authorities. But nature restoration is far from being a neural undertaking. Just like any other type of heritage production it can be the source of dissonance – ‘our’ nature is not necessary ‘their’ nature. Often this dissonance is managed in ways, which are not particular sensitive to site-specificity. As exemplified by the Skjern River Restoration Project (1999-2003), one interpretation of the landscape sometimes suppresses other valid interpretations neglecting its diverse history. However, evidence from Switzerland suggests that planning for the common good, in the case of nature restoration, does not necessary mean planning for a one common nature. As exemplified by the River Aire Re-naturalization Project (2002-2015), landscape architecture might provide an alternative approach to nature restoration that is more site specific and allows for multiple interpretations to coexist. In the presentation, this idea of ‘pluralizing’ nature will be unfolded by three student projects, which explore how the Skjern River with a more landscape architectural approach could have been restored without jeopardizing its diverse history – Skjern River Restoration Counterfactual.