Restoration dialogues: improving the governance of ecological restoration

Richardson, Benjamin J.; Lefroy, EC

doi:10.1111/rec.12391

Cited by 30 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These contributions explicitly acknowledge that setting goals for restoration requires people to articulate what it is about ecosystems that are valued. In light of these and related changing viewpoints on the concept, science, and practice of ecological restoration (Suding et al ; Hobbs ; Richardson & Lefroy ; Rohwer & Marris ), how we define ecological restoration needs revisiting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century

Martin

2017

Restoration Ecology

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forty years ago, ecological restoration was conceptualized through a natural science lens. Today, ecological restoration has evolved into a social and scientific concept. The duality of ecological restoration is acknowledged in guidance documents on the subject but is not apparent in its definition. Current definitions reflect our views about what ecological restoration does but not why we do it. This viewpoint does not give appropriate credit to contributions from social sciences, nor does it provide compelling goals for people with different motivating rationales to engage in or support restoration. In this study, I give a concise history of the conceptualization and definition of ecological restoration, and I propose an alternative definition and corresponding viewpoint on restoration goal‐setting to meet twenty‐first century scientific and public inquiry.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century

Martin

2017

Restoration Ecology

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different organizations or administrative units are responsible for different management areas, and information exchange between these programs and levels of organization can be restricted due to geographical distance, administrative structures, or other constraints in time, vocabulary, and culture. 49,50 Lack of exchange can result in an independent development of multiple and often highly specialized ME programs, with approaches and jargon reflecting particular disciplines. Furthermore, separate programs might be interested in similar topics, but might apply different indicators to evaluate them.…”

Section: Principle 3: Coordinate With Related Activitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goals and principles for programmatic river restoration monitoring and evaluation: collaborative learning across multiple projects

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

River restoration is a relatively recent undertaking, with high levels of complexity and uncertainty involved. Many restoration projects have been monitored over the past three decades, however, results have rarely been compared across projects thereby limiting our ability to identify factors that influence restoration outcomes. Programmatic monitoring and evaluation (ProME) that builds on standardized surveys and systematic cross-project comparison allows for collaborative learning, transfer of results across restoration projects and for adaptive management and monitoring. We present a conceptual framework for ProME consisting of four goals and nine principles. First, ProME accounts for complexity, uncertainty, and change in order to contribute to sustainable river management over the long term. Second, ProME promotes collaborative learning and adaptation by standardizing the sampling design for the field surveys at multiple projects and by disseminating findings across stakeholders. Third, ProME verifies to what extent restoration has been achieved, i.e., it must quantify the size and direction of change. Fourth, ProME identifies why the observed effects were present, thereby improving our mechanistic understanding of river functioning. We conclude with potential extensions of the framework (e.g., evaluating cumulative effects of projects within a catchment). Our conceptual framework presents a structured approach toward a more systematic learning and evidence-based action in river restoration, while taking into account the wider picture of environmental change within which river restoration projects will inevitably operate.

show abstract

“…Could the restoration moniker become a liability for the field? It is possible that the definitional mismatch will negatively affect the social and cultural acceptability that has been identified by Ted Lefroy as one of the preconditions for successful restoration (Richardson & Lefroy ). The potential confusion could lead to reduced support for restoration because stakeholders may become less interested in local historical fidelity in the face of global climate change and their support thus wanes because they think restorationists are vainly trying to hold back the tide.…”

Section: Should We Rename Restoration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Renaming restoration: conceptualizing and justifying the activity as a restoration of lost moral value rather than a return to a previous state

Rohwer

Marris

2016

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A significant percentage of contemporary restoration work, while informed by history, aims for a novel state rather than an exact simulacrum of any particular historical state. However, the lay definition of "restoration" is to return something to its original state, and this influences public perceptions-and perhaps perceptions inside the field-about what the goals of restoration are. Relying on history to justify the proposed end state of a restoration project is problematic because of climate change, knowledge gaps, and the fact that ecosystems are dynamic and have no single historical state. Restorationists should be open to discussing whether the name of their field is inaccurate and considering alternatives. The process productively forces them to think about, articulate, and justify their values. One possible outcome of this process is a redefinition of "restoration" to mean a restoration of moral value rather than a restoration of a historical state. Restorationists will need to be comfortable talking about choices, intentions, values, and justifications in a world where historical fidelity no longer reigns supreme.

show abstract

Restoration dialogues: improving the governance of ecological restoration

Cited by 30 publications

References 43 publications

Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century

Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty‐first century

Goals and principles for programmatic river restoration monitoring and evaluation: collaborative learning across multiple projects

Renaming restoration: conceptualizing and justifying the activity as a restoration of lost moral value rather than a return to a previous state

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About