An Evaluation of the Short‐Term Progress of Restoration Combining Ecological Assessment and Public Perception

Abstract

Ecological restoration centers on the reestablishment of ecological processes and the integrity of degraded ecosystems, but its success also depends on public acceptance and support. In this study, we evaluated the short-term ecological effects of different restoration treatments in Iceland. Furthermore, we tested the public perception of aesthetic and recreational values of these revegetated areas. Predefined soil and vegetation indicators were measured, and a survey, based on a questionnaire and photographs of the different areas, was used for gauging public perception.Our results indicate that different restoration treatments triggered different succession trajectories. The vegetation composition of areas seeded with grasses seemed to be on a trajectory toward relatively undisturbed reference ecosystems, whereas areas seeded with nonnative lupine seemed to be developing a novel ecosystem. Results of the survey demonstrated that people valued the appearance of revegetated areas higher than that of the eroded control areas, with the exception of areas seeded with lupine. The visual perception of each restoration treatment corresponded well with the ecological factors and revealed both a social and an ecological rationale against the use of lupine in land restoration. The results indicate that the design of restoration projects should be based on both an analysis of sociocultural priorities and an understanding of possible trajectories of ecosystem development associated with the available restoration methods to avoid results that are neither socially acceptable nor ecologically feasible.

Advances in restoration ecology: rising to the challenges of the coming decades

“…There are two main arguments for embracing participation: on the one hand democratic rights and public skepticism about science, and on the other involvement of stakeholders leading to greater quality, durability and ownership of decisions (Reed 2008). There is surprisingly little empirical research to test these arguments (e.g., van Marwijk et al 2012, Petursdottir et al 2013), but decision making quality appears to be strongly dependent on the processes involved, especially highly skilled facilitation (Reed 2008). Community restoration/conservation projects that perceive local people as the solution to habitat degradation, and involve them at all stages of project development, appear to perform better than large scale 'integrated conservation and development projects' (Horwich and Lyon 2007).…”

Avian abundance and communities in areas revegetated with exotic versus native plant species

“…Where invasive plants invade meadow bird communities, these communities have been shown to greatly decrease in bird species richness (Skórka et al 2010). When deciding between reclamation of native vegetation and revegetating with an introduced N-fixating plant, it may be important to consider that using lupin might have a lower initial cost but has uncertain ecological trajectories (Petursdottir et al 2012) and can result in extreme coverage by alien vegetation in the future (Thoroddsen et al 2009). …”

“…In the process of restoration of native communities, modification of environmental factors can be necessary to overcome environmental barriers and speed up natural succession. Application of fertilizers, sowing of seeds and providing of safe sites for seedlings are methods used to speed up succession or to turn around the actual degradation and thus aiding the recovery of the degraded land (Elmarsdottir et al 2003, Petursdottir et al 2012, especially in Iceland where harsh winds, a short growing season and frequent freeze-thaw cycles causing ice needles all considerably hinder or slow the natural revegetation of barren land.…”

“…In addition, the introduced (from N America) nitrogenfixating Nootka lupin (Lupinus nootkatensis Donn ex Sims, hereafter referred to as lupin) has been extensively used for revegetation in Iceland (Halldorsson et al 2011a). The lupin is an economical and effective tool for revegetating barren land where other methods are uneconomical or logistically difficult (IINH & SCS 2010), even if its use has increasingly been questioned in recent years (IINH & SCS 2010, Petursdottir et al 2012. It has been shown to disperse over native heathland (Magnusson et al 2001) and has been recognized as an invasive species in Iceland (Magnusson 2010) and potentially invasive in Finland (NOBANIS 2013).…”

A protocol to prioritize wetland restoration and creation for water quality improvement in agricultural watersheds

“…This protocol integrates social and economic 354 any ecological-restoration project (Comín et al, 2005;Petursdottir et al, 2012 (Bystrom, 1998;Kadlec et al, 2000), 370 with no allowance for land purchasing. The cost per hectare may 371 triple easily if land purchase is required (Newbold, 2005).…”