The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.     

River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well‐designed and ‐implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.     

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners

Despite expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars annually, there is little information available about project motivations, actions, and results for the vast majority of river restoration efforts. We performed confidential telephone interviews with 317 restoration project managers from across the United States with the goals of (1) assessing project motivations and the metrics of project evaluation and (2) estimating the proportion of projects that set and meet criteria for ecologically successful river restoration projects. According to project managers, ecological degradation typically motivated restoration projects, but post‐project appearance and positive public opinion were the most commonly used metrics of success. Less than half of all projects set measurable objectives for their projects, but nearly two‐thirds of all interviewees felt that their projects had been “completely successful.” Projects that we classified as highly effective were distinct from the full database in that most had significant community involvement and an advisory committee. Interviews revealed that many restoration practitioners are frustrated by the lack of funding for and emphasis on project monitoring. To remedy this, we recommend a national program of strategic monitoring focused on a subset of future projects. Our interviews also suggest that merely conducting and publishing more scientific studies will not lead to significant improvements in restoration practice; direct, collaborative involvement between scientists, managers, and practitioners is required for forward progress in the science and application of river restoration.     

Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects

There is a clear need to apply better and more effective management schemes to coastal ecosystem restoration projects. It is very common for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects not to meet their goals. Poor performance has led to a high degree of uncertainty about the potential success of any restoration effort. Under adaptive management, the knowledge gained through monitoring of the project and social policies is translated into restoration policy and program redesign. Planners and managers can utilize the information from the monitoring programs in an effective way to assure that project goals are met or that informed and objective decisions are made to address both ecological and societal needs. The three main ingredients of an effective adaptive management plan in a restoration project are: (1) a clear goal statement; (2) a conceptual model; and (3) a decision framework. The goal ‘drives’ the design of the project and helps guide the development of performance criteria. The goal statement and performance criteria provide the means by which the system can be judged. With the conceptual model, the knowledge base from the field of ecological science plays an active and critical role in designing the project to meet the goal. A system-development matrix provides a simple decision framework to view the alternative states for the system during development, incorporate knowledge gained through the monitoring program, and formulate a decision on actions to take if the system is not meeting its goal.     

Multidimensional training among Latin America's restoration professionals

The ambitious restoration commitments made by Latin American countries have increased the demand for professionals having multidimensional training in ecological restoration; however, little is known about the kind of training that professionals are currently receiving. Through an online survey, we explored whether restoration professionals in Latin America have been trained on the ecological, socioeconomic, and management dimensions of ecological restoration, and their perceptions of training constraints and curricula needs. Half of the 411 respondents simultaneously work in academia, governments, and nongovernmental organizations, lessening the typical division between the science and practice of restoration, and suggesting the need for stronger multidimensional training to adequately respond to different needs and expectations. Over 80% received formal academic training in fields relevant for restoration and most respondents also reported attending interdisciplinary courses. Training was more focused on the ecological dimension of restoration compared to socioeconomic or management dimensions. Respondents have similar education levels (i.e. most respondents have postgraduate degrees), independently from the organization type in which respondents work, and multidimensionality among organization types was slight. Professionals expressed a need for training opportunities not demanding full‐time dedication. Although increasing training opportunities in socioeconomic and management dimensions is needed, we highlight opportunities to reinforce multidimensional training on restoration through organizational and institutional training, and collaborations among organizations.     

Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis of Interviews with Project Managers

Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are spent on river restoration in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), but little is known about the effectiveness of this effort. To help address this gap, we analyzed a database containing 23,000 projects at 35,000 locations in the region. We selected a subset of these projects for interviews using a survey instrument developed by a national team of scientists. In total, 47 project contacts in the PNW were interviewed to learn from the individuals directly involved in restoration. At least one‐third of the projects surveyed (34%) did not conduct sufficient monitoring to evaluate effectiveness. More than two‐thirds (70%) of all respondents reported their projects were successful, but 43% either have no success criteria or are unaware of any criteria for their project. Although almost two‐thirds (66%) of respondents anticipate a need for ongoing project maintenance, less than half (43%) have maintenance funds available. These findings suggest that establishing a connection between effectiveness monitoring and project implementation is not a usual component of project design. Consequently, we can only assess the benefits in a few isolated projects and cannot quantify the cumulative benefits of restoration on a larger scale. These findings highlight the need for (1) planning prior to implementation of restoration projects that accounts for monitoring design; (2) coordinated effectiveness monitoring to assess cumulative effects of restoration; and (3) management and maintenance of projects based on real measures of project performance.     

Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+

The Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism has the potential to provide the developing nations with significant funding for forest restoration activities that contribute to climate change mitigation, sustainable management, and carbon‐stock enhancement. In order to stimulate and inform discussion on the role of ecological restoration within REDD+, we outline opportunities for and challenges to using science‐based restoration projects and programs to meet REDD+ goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and storing carbon in forest ecosystems. Now that the REDD+ mechanism, which is not yet operational, has expanded beyond a sole focus on activities that affect carbon budgets to also include those that enhance ecosystem services and deliver other co‐benefits to biodiversity and communities, forest restoration could play an increasingly important role. However, in many nations, there is a lack of practical tools and guidance for implementing effective restoration projects and programs that will sequester carbon and at the same time improve the integrity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Restoration scientists and practitioners should continue to engage with potential REDD+ donors and recipients to ensure that funding is targeted at projects and programs with ecologically sound designs.     

Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?

Despite the evidence that fauna play complex and critical roles in ecosystems (e.g. pollination and nutrient cycling) and the knowledge that they need to be considered in restoration, fauna often remain poorly represented in restoration goal setting, monitoring and assessments of restoration success. Fauna clearly are integral to the aspirations of achieving full ecosystem recovery. However, over‐reaching assumptions about the unassisted return of fauna to restored sites, low investment in fauna monitoring, and minimal consideration of the requirements for fauna monitoring in regulatory guidance and standards appear to have led to the historically vegetation‐centric approaches to rehabilitation and ecological restoration. We argue that ecological complexities render assumptions of unassisted fauna return inappropriate in many situations and may represent a missed opportunity to enhance ecological outcomes and improve restoration trajectories. We advocate for greater consideration of fauna as facilitators of ecological restoration and, particularly for well‐funded projects, for monitoring to place greater emphasis on examining the behaviour and resilience of restored fauna communities. There is a clear need for both industry and regulators to recognise that fauna can be crucial facilitators of restoration and appreciate that the return and monitoring of functional faunal communities can be costly, challenging and may require detailed study across a wide range of taxonomic groups. Failure to advance from business as usual models may risk leaving a legacy of ostensibly functional, but biodiversity‐depauperate, restored ecosystems.     

Restoring Stream Ecosystems: Lessons from a Midwestern State

Reach‐scale stream restorations are becoming a common approach to repair degraded streams, but the effectiveness of these projects is rarely evaluated or reported. We surveyed governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations in the state of Indiana to determine the frequency and nature of reach‐scale stream restorations in this midwestern U.S. state. For 10 attempted restorations in Indiana, questionnaires and on‐site assessments were used to better evaluate current designs for restoring stream ecosystems. At each restoration site, habitat and water quality were evaluated in restored and unrestored reaches. Our surveys identified commonalities across all restorations, including the type of restoration, project goals, structures installed, and level of monitoring conducted. In general, most restorations were described as stream‐relocation projects that combined riparian and in‐stream enhancements. Fewer than half of the restorations conducted pre‐ or post‐restoration monitoring, and most monitoring involved evaluations of riparian vegetation rather than aquatic variables. On‐site assessments revealed that restored reaches had significantly lower stream widths and greater depths than did upstream unrestored reaches, but riparian canopy cover often was lower in restored than in unrestored reaches. This study provides basic information on midwestern restoration strategies, which is needed to identify strengths and weaknesses in current practices and to better inform future stream restorations.     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点工程布局及技术策略

习近平总书记提出的山水林田湖草生命共同体理念对我国新时代生态保护修复工作具有重要的指导意义,开展山水林田湖草整体保护、系统修复、综合治理是解决我国生态环境问题的重要途径,也是推进生态文明建设的必然要求。2016以来,财政部、原国土资源部、原环境保护部在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）共安排25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点,对现有试点工程布局和技术策略进行全面剖析,能够为全面推进生态保护修复工作提供依据。在介绍山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程概念和主要任务的基础上,揭示试点工程布局特征,总结生态保护修复技术策略,同时探讨试点目前已经取得的效益、工程实施所存在的问题,并提出相关的建议。研究表明,25个试点大多分布于我国生态安全战略格局骨架区域,并且基本都属于国家重点生态功能区,对维护国家生态安全、提升区域生态功能具有重要意义;总结25个试点实施措施可以发现,工程技术策略主要包含了重要生态系统保护修复、生物多样性保护、流域水环境保护治理、污染与退化土地修复治理、矿山生态修复、土地综合整治等内容。试点工程的实施,开始取得生态、社会和经济等多重效益,但也存在工程宏观布局不尽完善、生态系统理念没能贯彻、自然恢复策略有待实施、监测评价管理缺乏科学、区域全面发展尚需提升等问题。未来应从完善国家宏观生态战略格局保障体系、加强区域生态系统状况和恢复力调查评价、优化工程项目实施规模和时序、研究和实践自然恢复标准与技术、开展长期跟踪监测与进行适应性管理等方面构建山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程技术和制度体系。     

Science‐Driven Restoration: A Square Grid on a Round Earth?

Is formal science necessarily an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs? My experience as an ecologist in Hawaii suggests that even when scientific research programs are explicitly designed to guide and facilitate restoration, the culture of science, heterogeneity of nature, and real‐world complexities of implementing land management practices often limit the practical relevance of conventional scientific research. Although alternative models such as adaptive management and transdisciplinary science may facilitate research that more robustly models the real world, there is often little professional support or incentive to orient even these nonconventional research approaches toward actually solving on‐the‐ground problems. Thus, if one’s goal is to accomplish ecological restoration as quickly and efficiently as possible, a trial‐and‐error/intelligent tinkering–type approach might often be better than using more rigorous, data‐intensive scientific methodology. However, the sympatric implementation of ecological restoration and scientific research programs can lead to valuable synergies such as mutual logistical and financial support and the exchange of distinct forms of knowledge. The professional activities and mere presence of scientists can also greatly enhance a program’s prestige and visibility, which in turn can indirectly promote more and better ecological restoration. Improving our understanding of when formal science can directly assist restoration projects and when its value will more likely be synergistic and indirect could lead to better science, better ecological restoration, and better relationships between these two cultures.     

Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews

River restoration is an integral part of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS), we conducted 47 independent interviews with stream restoration project managers randomly selected from a database of 4,700 projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Here we present results from those interviews and characterize patterns in project goals, design, and expenditures, trends in project evaluation, and characterize project success as reported by interviewees. Interviewed practitioners reported that the majority of their projects were designed by private consultants. One‐third of projects were part of a watershed management plan and 70% were linked to other projects within the same watershed. Most interviewees considered their projects to be successful, and 76% of projects had conducted some form of project‐associated monitoring. Although most interviewees based their evaluation of success on observations or monitoring data, respondents indicated that very few projects had explicitly stated quantifiable project objectives within their design plans. Many interviewed practitioners specifically commented at the end of the surveys on the important role of stakeholder involvement and the need for initiatives to fund project monitoring.     

基于生态监管的生态保护修复工程实施成效评估指标体系

生态监管是保障生态保护修复工程有效实施的重要途径，生态保护修复监督评估是我国当前维护生态环境安全的迫切需求和生态监管开展的有力抓手。在对国内外已有生态保护修复成效评估相关理论方法进行分析的基础上，围绕生态保护修复工程实施目标，结合生态监管要求，统筹考虑“山水林田湖草生命共同体”理念、生态保护修复工程类型、指标可操作性和兼容性等因素，综合运用频度分析法、专家咨询法和层次分析法等方法，提出了生态保护修复工程实施成效评估指标体系，构建了包括生态环境成效和工程管理成效的指标体系。其中，生态环境成效指标由共性指标和个性指标组成，共性指标包括生态系统格局、生态系统功能、生态干扰等方面的具体指标，个性指标包括森林保护修复工程、草原保护修复工程、湿地保护修复工程、矿山修复工程、防沙治沙工程、石漠化治理工程、水土流失治理工程、地质灾害治理工程、流域综合治理工程等不同工程类型的具体指标。工程管理成效指标主要包括工程绩效、工程实施及公众满意等方面的具体指标。在对各项指标评估的基础上，通过综合评估计算对生态保护修复工程实施成效进行评估。基于生态系统格局指数、生态系统功能指数、生态干扰指数、工程管理成效指数及不...     

River Restoration in Victoria, Australia: Change is in the Wind, and None too Soon

Stream restoration has become a multibillion dollar industry worldwide, yet there are few clear success stories and the scientific basis for effective stream restoration remains uncertain. We compiled data on completed river restoration projects from four management authorities in Victoria, Australia, to examine how the available data could inform the science of restoration ecology in rivers, and thus improve future restoration efforts. We found that existing data sources are limited and much historical information has been lost through industry restructuring and poor data archiving. Examining records for 2,247 restoration projects, we found that riparian management projects were the most common, followed by bank stabilization and in‐stream habitat improvement. Only 14% of the project records indicated that some form of monitoring was carried out. It is evident that overall there is little scientific guidance and little or no monitoring and evaluation of the projects for which we had information. However, recent advances with mandatory, statewide reporting and an increased emphasis on project design and monitoring strongly suggest that the design, implementation, monitoring, and reporting of stream restoration projects have improved in recent years and will continue to do so.     

The need for broader ecological and socioeconomic tools to evaluate the effectiveness of coral restoration programs

Coral reef restoration initiatives are burgeoning in response to the need for novel management strategies to address dramatic global declines in coral cover. However, coral restoration programs typically lack rigor and critical evaluation of their effectiveness. A review of 83 peer‐reviewed papers that used coral transplantation for reef restoration reveals that growth and survival of coral fragments were the most widely used indicators of restoration success, with 88% of studies using these two indicators either solely (55%) or in combination with a limited number of other ecological factors (33%). In 53% of studies, reef condition was monitored for 1 year or less, while only 5% of reefs were monitored for more than 5 years post‐transplantation. These results highlight that coral reef restoration science has focused primarily on short‐term experiments to evaluate the feasibility of techniques for ecological restoration and the initial establishment phase post‐transplantation, rather than on longer‐term outcomes for coral reef communities. Here, we outline 10 socioecological indicators that comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness of coral reef restoration across the four pillars of sustainability (i.e. environmental, sociocultural, governance, and economic contributions to sustainable communities). We recommend that evaluations of the effectiveness of coral restoration programs integrate ecological indicators with sociocultural, economic, and governance considerations. Assessing the efficacy of coral restoration as a tool to support reef resilience will help to guide future efforts and ensure the sustainable maintenance of reef ecosystem goods and services.     

River and Riparian Restoration in the Southwest: Results of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project

Restoration activity has exponentially increased across the Southwest since 1990. Over 37,000 records were compiled into the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) database to summarize restoration trends and assess project effectiveness. We analyzed data from 576 restoration projects in the Southwest (NRRSS‐SW). More than 50% of projects were less than or equal to 3 km in length. The most common restoration project intent categories were riparian management, water quality management, in‐stream habitat improvement, and flow modification. Common project activities were well matched to goals. Conservative estimates of total restoration costs exceeded $500 million. Most restoration dollars have been allocated to flow modification and water quality management. Monitoring was linked to 28% of projects across the Southwest, as opposed to just 10% nationwide. Mean costs were statistically similar whether or not projects were monitored. Results from 48 telephone interviews provided validation of NRRSS‐SW database analyses but showed that project costs are often underreported within existing datasets. The majority of interviewees considered their projects to be successful, most often based upon observed improvements to biota or positive public reaction rather than evaluation of field data. The efficacy of restoration is difficult to ascertain given the dearth of information contained within most datasets. There is a great need for regional entities that not only track information on project implementation but also maintain and analyze monitoring data associated with restoration. Agencies that fund or regulate restoration should reward projects that emphasize monitoring and evaluation as much as project implementation.     

Gondwana Link: connecting people,landscapes, and livelihoods across southwestern Australia

The Gondwana Link (GL) program spans some 1,000 km and includes organizations, businesses, and individuals working to improve ecological function across the most intact large areas of habitat remaining in southwestern Australia (SWA). Noncompetitive leadership plus a focus on tangible achievement have been critical to providing the cohesion and initial momentum needed to support and inspire increased effort from those involved. Ongoing success rests on the responses of people working together, having respect for the integrity of the collective effort and for the specific roles of others across differing but complementary roles. Significant achievements have been secured, with progress in scientific knowledge generally following initial implementation of key actions. Lasting improvements in ecological health and resilience will only occur through larger‐scale actions, which require more effort and time. The GL program has been an important initiative in strengthening the awareness of the distinctive ecological systems across SWA and the intertwined characteristics of resilience and fragility that characterize the region and its people. It has also had a role in inspiring and informing growth in large‐scale connectivity programs nationally and internationally.     

The role of trust in restoration success: public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in a complex social‐ecological system

The social dimensions of river restoration are not well understood especially in the context of large‐scale restoration projects embedded in a complex social‐ecological system. This study used in‐depth interviews with diverse stakeholders to examine perceptions of restoration success on the Clark Fork River Superfund project in Western Montana. Trust emerged as critical to restoration success and was influenced by public engagement, and by spatial and temporal scale. At this large scale, multiple relationships between agencies, NGOs, businesses, landowners, and other stakeholders meant that building trust was a complicated endeavor. The large spatial scale and long time frame made public engagement challenging, and landowners in particular were critical of the project, expressing mistrust in both agencies and the project as a whole. However, projects focused on smaller spatial scales, such as particular stream reaches, appeared to inspire more effective collaboration. Relationships between organizations were important at this large scale, but inter‐organizational conflict affected trust across the project. Further, because trust requires accepting vulnerability, recognizing the differential vulnerability that particular groups and communities experience, based on the risks and benefits they accrue relative to the project, is important.     

Cultural Ecosystem Services and Popular Perceptions of the Benefits of an Ecological Restoration Project in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

It is essential to understand how ecological restoration (ER) improves human well‐being in order to justify more investments and upscaling in this emergent field of action. As part of a 22‐year‐old, 80 ha ER project being carried out around a water reservoir that supplies drinking water to the city of Iracemápolis (population 19,700), in the mega‐diversity Atlantic Forest biome of Brazil, we assessed local community perceptions of the tangible and intangible benefits expected to arise from this project. A detailed questionnaire was completed for 292 members of the local community to gauge perceptions of benefits arising from various cultural and provisioning ecosystem services (ESs; especially safe and clean drinking water) provided by the 80 ha forest restoration project. A striking 94% of those interviewed wanted more ER projects in their community. Participants reported an appreciation for cultural ESs such as esthetic landscape improvement, tourism, recreation, as well as various religious, spiritual, and educational services. In addition, 87% of interviewees believed that the restoration project improved the quality of their drinking water, and 63% said they would agree to an increase in water tariffs if the proceeds were to be invested in more forest restoration. Judging from this study, investigation and subsequent communication of popular perceptions of the various benefits of ER projects could promote consensus‐building and support for projects among stakeholders, and inform governmental and societal investments in restoration .     

Organizational capacity and ecological restoration

Organizations entrusted with responsibilities and resources to repair ecosystems have for many decades pursued their defining purpose against long odds created by a host of inherent challenges, notably the long time frames required for ecological recovery and landscape-level stressors. Global change compounds these challenges, increasing shocks to the operating environments of these organizations. Interest in assessing organizational capacity to respond to system shocks (i.e. resilience) productively has been strong in many fields, though not in the restoration arena. The objectives of this paper are to build awareness of the importance of organizations for achieving the aims of restoration and to spur organizational research to strengthen the restoration sector. I summarize research on organizations relevant to the restoration sector and with this foundation propose a framework for assessing the capacity of restoration organizations. The proposed framework is an adaptation of models used in other sectors, based on five critical capacities: situation awareness, governance and leadership, internal resources, external relations, and change readiness. We can assess the extent to which an organization possesses each capacity by eliciting feedback about functions linked to each capacity. Devising assessment tools from this framework requires attention to key realities of the restoration sector including prevalence of short-term funding, effect of externalities on restoration outcomes, dependence on partnerships of multiple organizations for complex and large restorations. Exploration into assessment approaches for restoration organizations highlights a major knowledge gap that, if addressed, could enhance the reliability of restoration as a global and local strategy for improving ecosystems services.