Restoring Ecosystems Around the Mediterranean Basin: Beyond the Frontiers of Ecological Science

Based on concrete examples gathered from the Mediterranean region, this article shows why restoration ecology around the Mediterranean Basin must go beyond ecological science to embrace a contrasting local vision which integrates social and political realities. By taking into account the growing gap between the northern and southern/eastern shores of the Mediterranean, we propose the adoption of a double agenda for restoration around the Mediterranean to overcome the fact that restoration objectives are often jeopardized by political decisions initially aimed to promote conservation and lack of available technical means (even when appropriate scientific and political means are secured), and to enhance local actions with lasting impacts on the ecosystems. Our discussion illustrates how current ecological problems have become extremely complex and how the success of restoration projects depends on effective social interactions. Here, the simple juxtaposition of disciplines is no longer sufficient. We suggest going beyond existing ecological and socioeconomic frontiers to fill three main gaps. To fill the “design gap” it is important from the outset to promote a full debate for correct definition of the project's objectives and success indicators. Second, to fill the “implementation gap” ecological restoration science should be linked to information technology and cognition science to develop tools adapted for ecological debate. Third, to fill the “evaluation gap” aesthetic, social, cultural, and economic indicators should be defined during the debate process.     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World—Response to Cabin (2007)

Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an “ivory tower” mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using “square grids” placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin’s critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small‐scale and truly haphazard successes without well‐designed studies that can provide peer‐reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise ( Sagan 1996 ), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures.     

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.     

What motivates ecological restoration?

Ecological restoration projects are motivated by diverse environmental and social reasons. Motivations likely vary between stakeholders or regions, and influence the approach taken to plan, implement, and monitor restoration projects. We surveyed 307 people involved in the restoration of native vegetation across Australia to identify their underlying motivations. We also elicited information on planning, implementation, and monitoring of restoration projects. We found that biodiversity enhancement is the main motivation for undertaking restoration, with biodiversity offsetting, water quality improvements, and social reasons as important secondary motivations. Motivations varied significantly by stakeholder type and region. Restoration projects primarily motivated by ecosystem service provision (e.g. water quality improvements and social reasons) sought less pristine ecological outcomes than projects motivated by biodiversity enhancement or offsetting. Rigorous monitoring designs (e.g. quantitative, repeatable surveys, and use of performance indicators) were rarely used in restoration projects, except for projects motivated by scientific research. Better alignment of different restoration motivations with the planning and monitoring of restoration projects should deliver greater benefits through setting appropriate objectives and evaluating outcomes against these objectives. These improvements will increase the capacity of the restoration practice to meet international biodiversity commitments and communicate restoration outcomes to stakeholders.     

Bridging Restoration Science and Practice: Results and Analysis of a Survey from the 2009 Society for Ecological Restoration International Meeting

Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on‐the‐ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.     

Systematic Postproject Appraisals to Maximize Lessons Learned from River Restoration Projects: Case Study of Compound Channel Restoration Projects in Northern California

We conducted systematic postproject appraisals (PPAs) of seven compound channel restoration projects, supplementing available data with new field data and analyses to produce comparable datasets for all seven projects. We describe how systematic PPAs can be developed and illustrate a systematic PPA for compound channel projects organized around performance with respect to geomorphic, habitat, and conveyance objectives. We found that preexisting monitoring programs for a group of similar restoration projects can be supplemented with relatively low‐effort data collection and analyses to produce lessons on a “class” of restoration projects. Using this approach to assess a set of seven compound channel projects, we found that two fully achieved geomorphic objectives, three appear likely to achieve geomorphic objectives with additional time and/or minor interventions, and two did not achieve geomorphic objectives. Further, four projects achieved habitat objectives and three projects appeared likely to achieve objectives if given more time to develop and/or a minor intervention to mitigate limitations on critical ecological processes. Finally, four of the projects satisfied conveyance objectives, and the remaining three appeared likely to satisfy objectives with minor interventions to maintain design roughness and geometry conditions. Based on observations from our new systematic PPA approach applied to compound channels in Mediterranean climates, we suggest application of systematic PPAs for other classes of river restoration projects to evaluate scale and geomorphic setting issues in project design, to refine postproject monitoring guidelines, and to predict vegetation recruitment, growth, and succession patterns to avoid potential vegetation problems.     

新时期我国国土空间生态修复理念与模式探讨

国土空间生态修复以地理学、景观生态学理论为基础,是推进生态文明、建设美丽中国的重要举措。我国国土空间生态修复呈现理论体系多学科化、工作模式多元化、技术方法融合化、实践探索多样化的特征,工作总体成效显著与任务艰巨并存。本文基于国土空间生态修复的新挑战,对国土空间生态修复研究的总体框架和技术路径、区域国土空间生态修复的工作机制与模式、国土空间生态修复的内容体系和技术标准进行综述。新时期,我国国土空间生态修复顶层设计应重点围绕工作体系、业务边界和制度体系3项内容,明确各类业务流程的职责边界,从理论、制度、工程、技术全域视角实现工作全链条闭合管理。乡村聚落区、城镇建成区、工矿聚集区、生态功能区、蓝色海洋区是区域尺度国土空间的5大组成要素,分别对应全域土地综合整治、城市更新与城市双修、矿山地质环境修复治理、山水林田湖草系统修复、蓝色海湾修复整治5种差别化生态修复模式。应综合运用“三个集成”(信息、技术、流程)思维,构建一套涵盖调查监测评价、国土空间规划、工程项目实施、工程项目验收、生态系统监测评价一体化的区域国土空间生态修复工作模式。     

Planning for Implementation: Landscape‐Level Restoration Planning in an Agricultural Setting

The conservation of biodiversity in highly fragmented landscapes often requires large‐scale habitat restoration in addition to traditional biological conservation techniques. The selection of priority restoration sites to support long‐term persistence of biodiversity within landscape‐scale projects however remains a challenge for many restoration practitioners. Techniques developed under the paradigm of systematic conservation planning may provide a template for resolving these challenges. Systematic conservation planning requires the identification of conservation objectives, the establishment of quantitative targets for each objective, and the identification of areas which, if conserved, would contribute to meeting those targets. A metric developed by systematic conservation planners termed “irreplaceability” allows for analysis and prioritization of such conservation options, and allows for the display of analysis results in a way that can engage private landowners and other decision makers. The process of systematic conservation planning was modified to address landscape‐level restoration prioritization in southern Ontario. A series of recent and locally relevant landscape ecology studies allowed the identification of restoration objectives and quantitative targets, and a simple algorithm was developed to identify and prioritize potential restoration projects. The application of an irreplaceability analysis to landscape‐level restoration planning allowed the identification of varying needs throughout the planning region, resulting from underlying differences in topography and settlement patterns, and allowed the effective prioritization of potential restoration projects. Engagement with rural landowners and agricultural commodity groups, as well as the irreplaceability maps developed, ultimately resulted in a substantial increase in the number and total area of habitat restoration projects in the planning region.     

Mangrove Restoration: Do We Know Enough?

Mangrove restoration projects have been attempted, with mixed results, throughout the world. In this paper, I first examine goals of existing mangrove restoration projects and determine whether these goals are clear and adequate, and whether or not they account for the full range of biological diversity and ecological processes of mangrove ecosystems. Many restored mangrove forests resemble forest plantations rather than truly integrated ecosystems, but mangrove plantations can be a first step toward mangrove rehabilitation. Mangrove restoration projects that involve associated aquaculture or mariculture operations tend to be more likely to approximate the biological diversity and ecological processes of undisturbed mangrove ecosystems than are projects that focus only on the trees. These integrated restoration projects also provide a higher economic return than do silvicultural projects alone. Second, I briefly assess whether existing ecological data are sufficient to undergird successful restoration of mangal and define criteria for determining whether or not a mangrove ecosystem has been restored successfully. These criteria include characteristics of vegetation (forest) structure, levels of primary production, composition of associated animal communities, and hydrology. Finally, I suggest ways to improve mangrove restoration projects and identify key research needs required to support these efforts. Ecological theories derived from other wetland and upland systems rarely have been applied to either “basic” or “applied” mangrove forest studies, to the detriment of restoration projects, whereas lessons from restoration of the relatively species‐poor mangrove ecosystems could be beneficially applied to restoration projects in other contexts. An international database of mangrove restoration projects would reduce the likelihood that unsuccessful restoration projects would be repeated elsewhere. Clear criteria for evaluating success, greater accessibility of information by managers in the developing world, intensified international cooperation, and application of relevant ecological theories will improve the success rate of mangrove restoration projects.     

“Active” and “passive” ecological restoration strategies in meta‐analysis

One of the means of creating a more robust methodology for ecological restoration involves reducing the gap between ecological theory and restoration practices. A common strategy to do so is using meta‐analysis to understand key drivers of restoration outcomes. “Active” and “passive” is a dichotomy often used to separate restoration strategies in such meta‐analyses. We investigate previously raised concerns about selection bias and subjective categorization of strategies. We promote a paired experimental design in future empirical research and propose the use of three categories of restoration strategy in lieu of “passive” and “active” to alleviate inconsistency in definitions and categorization.     

The SER Standards,cultural ecosystems,and the nature‐culture nexus—a reply to Evans and Davis

Evans and Davis claim the SER Standards use a “pure naturalness” model for restoration baselines and exclude most cultural ecosystems from the ecological restoration paradigm. The SER Standards do neither. The SER Standards consider both “natural” ecosystems (that are unequivocally not cultural) and “similar” cultural ecosystems as suitable reference models. Furthermore, Evans and Davis propose assessing whether a cultural ecosystem exhibits “good, bad, or neutral impacts from humans on ecosystems” as the basis for reference models. We argue that such an approach would overlook the indispensability of native ecosystem benchmarks to measure human impacts and provide a springboard for social‐ecological restoration.     

Conservation planning and Indigenous governance in Australia's Indigenous Protected Areas

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) recognize that “country” constitutes land and waters that have enduring cultural, social, and economic linkages for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that extend over millennia, and which are critical to sustainable Indigenous futures. Within Australia's conservation system, IPAs become part of the National Reserve System (NRS) when Indigenous peoples voluntarily announce their intention to manage “country,” in accordance with their law, custom, and culture, and consistently with national and international conservation guidelines. The NRS requirement is that land is managed “in perpetuity” which highlights a potential tension between with the conservation goals and the voluntary character of IPAs. Ecological restoration in IPAs also raises contested ideas about what is “natural,” the relevant “baseline” for restoration, and what are the objectives to be achieved—ecological or cultural sustainability? Experience from Healthy Country Planning in IPAs indicates that restoration of traditional owner decision‐making, as well as respectful use and valuing community knowledge, is central to the sustainability of outcomes. Ecological restoration is most effectively achieved by restoring governance processes that support Indigenous peoples given the inseparability of cultural, social, economic, and ecological objectives.     

Science, Art, or Application—the "Karma" of Restoration Ecology

The present state of restoration ecology is far away from Bradshaw’s “acid test for ecology.” The conclusions drawn from the series of papers in this issue and from the Jena workshop suggest some directions in which the field may progress. More attention must be paid to the degraded state, which should be evaluated by its specific features and carefully analyzed before any restoration plan is laid down. Restoration goals have to be realistic, which includes the appreciation of globally changing conditions, resulting in a paradigm‐shift toward “forward‐restoration.” Basically, the transition from the degraded state conditions to the target state is a kind of succession that is manipulated by the application of goal‐orientated and system‐specific disturbances. Whenever possible, restorationists should step back and make use of naturally occurring succession, which requires a sophisticated restoration strategy, involving flexible management responses, multiple alternative target states, robust measurements for the restoration progress, and careful long‐term monitoring. The unique feature of restoration ecology is the involvement of socioeconomic decisions, and conceptual frameworks for ecological restoration have to implement the specific links to natural succession. To bridge the gap between ecological theory and on the ground restoration, it is essential that restoration practice is translated into the vocabulary and thinking of basic ecology. If all these aspects are integrated, ecological restoration as an application—and restoration ecology as an applied science—may develop into an acid test for our understanding of interactions between people and their environment, rather than for pure ecology.     

Wilderness Restoration: The Paradox of Public Participation

Recent trends in ecological restoration complicate the job of wilderness managers. An emphasis on volunteer participation in restoration designed to foster human/nature relationships often conflicts with the mandate to leave land untrammeled. We frame this conflict as the “participation paradox.” Higgs’ (2003) Nature by Design contains a response to the paradox that includes a strong defense of participatory focal restoration and a related critique of wilderness. After identifying the limitations of Higgs’ arguments, we address the paradox by showing how an appeal to the moral virtues of humility, self‐restraint, and altruism supports a restrictive conception of wilderness and a healing metaphor for wilderness restoration. The virtue‐informed healing metaphor provides an argument for restricting volunteer participation and long‐term restoration projects in wilderness areas. It also identifies the general conditions in which damaged wilderness should be allowed to “heal itself.” The upshot of our approach to the paradox is that some standards for good restoration should be contextualized to land use designations. In particular, the emphasis on participatory restoration is appropriate in humanized landscapes but not in wilderness.     

Plant phenological research enhances ecological restoration

While phenology data (the timing of recurring biological events) has been used to explain and predict patterns related to global change, and to address applied environmental issues, it has not been clearly identified as pertinent for restoration. This opinion article thus aims to raise awareness of the potential of phenology to enhance the quality of restoration projects and ecological restoration theory. We based our analysis on a systematic literature survey carried out in February 2014, searching the words “phenology” or “phenological” in books dealing with restoration, the term “phenolog*” in the journal Restoration Ecology, and the terms “restoration” and “phenolog*” in the database Web of Science until February 2014. We finally selected 149 studies relevant to our goals, and first classified them according to the context in which phenology was addressed. We then analyzed them within the framework of the five key steps of restoration projects: (1) the reference ecosystem; (2) biotic resources; (3) restoration methods; (4) monitoring; and (5) adaptive management. The literature survey showed that phenological information improved decision‐making in the few restoration projects in which it was incorporated. We thus advocate taking phenological data into account at all stages of restoration when appropriate: from the acquisition of baseline data on the reference ecosystem to treatment design, and from restoration action planning and timing to monitoring. Phenological data should at minimum be collected for sown, keystone, dominant, and/or rare species to improve restoration quality. Phenology studies and monitoring should be promoted in future restoration guidelines.     

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.     

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands in Central Kalimantan,Indonesia

Indonesia declared an ambitious plan to restore its degraded and fire‐prone peatlands, which have been a source of significant greenhouse gas and haze. However, the progress has been slow and the plan cannot succeed without sustained social supports and political will. Although many previous studies argued for the need to see ecological restoration in socio‐economic contexts, empirical assessments have been lacking for how restoration is operationalized on the ground. We interviewed 47 key informants involved in four different projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, and assessed their definitions, goals, and practices of peatland restoration. Most of the actors we interviewed defined peatland restoration primarily in an ecological context following the global concept of ecological restoration. However, all four restoration projects were designed without determining reference and trajectory conditions. Their intermediate goals and practices were more focused on engaging local communities and developing sustainable livelihood options than improving the ecological conditions of peatlands. To be internally consistent, peatland restoration needs to recognize a social dimension in its process, as well as in its goal. Setting clear trajectory conditions is also important to clarify achievable goals and measurable intermediate outcomes. We propose the following definition of peatland restoration: a process of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve the appropriate trajectories defined through multi‐stakeholder collaboration within social‐ecological contexts. We hope to generate healthy debates to further refine the definition that encompasses both social and ecological dimensions to generate broader support for sustaining and expanding peatland restoration projects in Indonesia.     

自然湿地生态恢复研究综述

湿地由于具有丰富的资源、独特的牛态结构和功能而享有“自然之肾”之称。为了更好地保护和开发利用湿地,世界各国都在积极采取措施阴止湿地的退化或消失,湿地的生态恢复与重建问题已成为生态学和环境科学的研究热点,在全面综述国内外湿地生态恢复研究进展的基础上,对湿地乍态恢复研究的重点和热点进行了探讨和分析,指出我国为做好湿地生态恢复工作尚需进一步加强湿地生态恢复的方法学、基础理论、应用技术和示范推广等方面的研究。     

A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified restoration goals and targets; this may seem “obvious” but in our experience, this step is often elided. Indicators or proxy variables are the typical vehicle for monitoring; these must be justified in the context of goals and targets and ultimately compared against those to allow for an evaluation of outcome (e.g. success or failure). The monitoring phase is critical in that a project must consider how the monitoring frequency and overall design will allow the postrestoration trajectories of indicators to be analyzed. This allows for real‐time management adjustments—adaptive management (sensu lato)—to be implemented if the trajectories are diverging from the targets. However, as there may be large variation in early postrestoration stages or complicated (nonlinear) trajectory, caution is needed before committing to management adjustments. Ideally, there is not only a goal and target but also a model of the expected trajectory—that only can occur if there are sufficient data and enough knowledge about the ecosystem or site being restored. With so many possible decision points, we focus readers' attention on one critical step—how to choose indicators. We distinguish generalizable and specific indicators which can be qualitative, semiquantitative, or quantitative. The generalizable indicators can be used for meta‐analyses. There are many options of indicators but making them more uniform would help mutual comparisons among restoration projects.