The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

Higgs, Eric; Harris, J. Arthur; Murphy, Stephen D.; Bowers, Keith; Hobbs, Richard J.; Jenkins, Willis; Kidwell, Jeremy; Lopoukhine, Nik; Sollereder, Bethany; Suding, Katie; Thompson, Allen; Whisenant, Steven G.

doi:10.1111/rec.12821

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Adams et al, 2016), as compared to longer-term ecological cycles for restoration (at least 15-20 years are necessary to reach a reasonable level of tree cover in many temperate forests). Further disconnects arise when international bodies attempt to set standards in restoration applicable internationally, while not considering local realities and idiosyncrasies (Higgs et al, 2018).…”

Section: Collaboration Across Multiple Stakeholders and Multiple Temporal And Spatial Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration

Mansourian

Sgard²

2021

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Faced with ongoing forest loss and degradation, the world's decision-makers are turning to forest landscape restoration (FLR) as a solution to many land use challenges. At the same time, governance is being promoted as an important concept in relation to forests, landscapes, land use and increasingly, FLR. Yet, both terms -governance and FLR -are complex, and their association creates widely differing expectations. In this article, we analyse uses of the term' governance', and in particular, its use in relation to FLR in published articles, as well as related literature on forest governance, landscape governance and environmental governance. Our intention is to better understand how the term' governance' is used in the FLR literature and to demonstrate the diversity of interpretations and understandings, and subsequent fuzziness in its application. We explore the categories of meanings associated with governance, and also characterize trends in the use of the term in the FLR literature. Finally, we conclude by identifying specific challenges intrinsic to the concept of FLR related to the landscape, multiple objectives and the influence of multiple spatial and temporal scales, that in turn influence governance of FLR.

show abstract

Section: Collaboration Across Multiple Stakeholders and Multiple Temporal And Spatial Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration

Mansourian

Sgard²

2021

Land Use Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Principles and Standards document encourages a commitment to a one-size-fits-all approach to restoration, which may be useful on a general basis, as for example when learning about key terminology related to restoration such as the notion of reference ecosystem. However, significant diversity of ecosystems and cultures of practice push toward greater flexibility (Higgs et al 2018a(Higgs et al , 2018b). ( 4) The people we interviewed self-identified as restoration professionals who work in diverse settings ranging along the "restoration continuum" advanced in the Principles and Standards publication.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness and use of the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Canada

Voicescu

Lane

Cooke

et al. 2022

Restoration Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) published the second edition of its International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in 2019. We conducted a pan-Canadian study using semi-structured interviews with restoration professionals to explore the extent to which restoration practitioners are aware of the document and use it. Overall, we found that direct uptake of the document by practitioners was lower than expected, with approximately 37.7% of all participants that were both aware of and consulting the publication for guidance in their practice of ecological restoration. This is due in part to low awareness of the document itself, with only a small majority (56.5%) of interviewees being aware of it. Other reasons listed by practitioners such as the structure of the publication, its added value, and its suitability for on-the-ground work revealed why some individuals aware of the existence of the document still failed to consult it. Here, we present a more nuanced assessment of these observations and share our findings with the ecological restoration community to address this disconnection. With intensifying pressures to achieve restoration success internationally, SER's guidance is critical. We analyze why it seems guidance from SER is not being taken up as fully as it might, and ways in which future versions may be improved.

show abstract

“…While recognizing the valuable aspects of these documents, I have joined others in expressing concern regarding the focus, intent, and broad relevance of the standards (Hobbs 2017b;Evans & Davis 2018;Higgs et al 2018bHiggs et al , 2018c. Characteristically, these concerns have been met with replies that address the critiques Gann et al 2018), although perhaps not comprehensively (see Higgs et al 2018aHiggs et al , 2018bHiggs et al , 2018c.…”

Section: A Stoush Over Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoration Ecology's silver jubilee: innovation, debate, and creating a future for restoration ecology

Hobbs

2018

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At a time when the science and practice of restoration ecology is adapting to ongoing environmental and social change, innovations in both methods and concepts are essential. Encouraging innovation means allowing open debate about alternative approaches that may add to the toolbox available for restoration. Such approaches are usually being examined as additions to, rather than substitutes for, traditional restoration practices. Recent debate has focused on the scope and intent of restoration as defined in documents such as the Society for Ecological Restoration Standards. There is a mismatch between the default aim in the standards of full restoration to a native reference system and the goals of international restoration efforts that have a broader and more functional focus. The next generation of restoration scientists and practitioners will need to navigate these issues to ensure that restoration remains effective and relevant. This will require, amongst other things, ongoing learning, sharing information and insights, humility, objectivity, continuous examination of assumptions, and questioning current practices and perspectives.

show abstract

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

Cited by 9 publications

References 11 publications

Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration

Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration

Awareness and use of the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Canada

Restoration Ecology's silver jubilee: innovation, debate, and creating a future for restoration ecology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About