When is Open‐endedness Desirable in Restoration Projects?

Abstract

A low‐intervention approach to restoration that also allows restoration outcomes to be framed as trajectories of ecosystem change can be described as “open‐ended” restoration. It is an approach which recognizes that long‐term ecosystem behavior involves continual change at small and large spatial and temporal scales. There are a number of situations in which it is appropriate to adopt an open‐ended approach to restoration including: in remote and large areas, where ecological limiting factors will be changed by future climates, where antecedent conditions cannot be replicated, where there are novel starting points for restoration, where restoration relies strongly on processes outside the restoration area, in inherently dynamic systems, where costs are high and where the public demands “wildness.” Where this approach is adopted managers need to explain the project and deal with public expectations and public risk. Monitoring biotic and abiotic components of the project are very important as an open‐ended approach does not equate to “abandon and ignore it.”

Making rewilding fit for policy

“…For example, “passive restoration” of forests is common in tropical landscapes (e.g. Melo et al., ) and the recently coined term “open‐ended restoration” refers to minimal intervention and the reduction or removal of human influence, as well as acceptance of future trajectories of ecological change (Hughes, Adams, & Stroh, ). Altogether, the diversity of rewilding definitions and recent adaptations of restoration ecology, such as “renewal ecology” (Bowman et al., ), have resulted in a lack of clarity on what rewilding is, how it should be managed, and what it should achieve.…”

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

“…The greater awareness of complexity and contingency in ecology led to suggestions that references and endpoints should be viewed as dynamic (Norgaard et al 2009, Hiers et al 2012 or even that ecosystems could be allowed to develop without being directed at a particular endpoint (Hughes et al 2012). Hence, there has been a growing call for future-focused goals that are dynamic, process-based and functional but that still account for historical knowledge, a socalled ''Restoration v2.0'' (Higgs et al 2014), goals that align with anticipative management (e.g., Rogers et al 2015).…”

Drivers of songbird productivity at a restored gravel pit: Influence of seasonal flooding and rainfall patterns and implications for habitat management

“…The original vision of habitat creation after aggregate extraction followed a common model, in which very specific goals were set for a wetland community. However, these goals may have been unrealistic and may be increasingly so given the important factors outside the control of managers (Hilderbrand et al 2005, Hughes et al 2012). …”