Using performance standards to guide vernal pool restoration and adaptive management

Although many restoration projects now include monitoring and evaluation in an adaptive management approach, a failure to employ distinct performance standards can lead to inconsistent and unclear results that may hinder learning from project outcomes and complicate large‐scale assessments of restoration success. Such is the case with vernal pool restoration projects in California, where performance standard guidelines are vague and inconsistently applied across agencies implementing restoration projects. However, positive steps have been made in recent years to develop wetland functional assessments and monitoring protocols in California to reduce inconsistencies and promote ecologically meaningful restoration. Additional work is needed to develop specific guidelines for vernal pool restoration performance standards and define their role within an adaptive management framework. We provide a case study of a vernal pool restoration project in central California to illustrate some of the challenges in using currently available vernal pool performance standard guidelines and propose suggestions for increasing their ecological relevance and clarity.     

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.     

Factoring restoration practitioner perceptions into future design of mechanical direct seeders for native seeds

The methods used to distribute seeds influence the success of a restoration project. We surveyed 183 restoration practitioners from across the globe with the aim of identifying common limitations to the effective use of mechanical direct seeding in large‐scale restoration practice to highlight avenues for design improvement to mechanized seeding equipment. Results from this survey show that direct seeding methods are commonly used for ecological restoration and agree with other studies that suggest the method can achieve results much quicker and cheaper than the alternative of distributing nursery‐grown tube stock. However, this study indicates that current mechanical direct seeding methods lack adequate control of seed sowing depth and spatial distribution and highlight that the inability to sow seeds of varying morphology over complex topography are common limitations to direct seeding. To improve restoration success, engineering improvements to mechanical direct seeders used in large‐scale restoration should focus in particular on addressing issues of precision of delivery for diverse seed types and landscapes.     

On the need of legal frameworks for assessing restoration projects success: new perspectives from São Paulo state (Brazil)

Despite growing worldwide commitment to large‐scale ecosystem restoration, national public policies on restoration are few, and those that exist tend to be vague. Brazil and especially São Paulo state stand out. In a pioneering attempt to improve restoration projects and their outcomes, the Secretariat for the Environment of the State of São Paulo has enacted a legal instrument to drive planning and to assess whether the goals and targets of mandatory ecological restoration are being achieved. Regardless of the restoration techniques applied, the effectiveness of mandatory or public‐funded projects will henceforth be assessed by using three ecological indicators: (1) ground coverage with native vegetation; (2) density of native plants spontaneously regenerating; and (3) number of spontaneously regenerating native plant species. We analyze how this science‐based legal framework is expected to promote greater restoration success, improve cost‐effectiveness, and help bridge the all‐too‐familiar knowledge‐action gap in environmental policies. Notably, scientists, professionals, public agents, and stakeholders from different institutions have collaborated to advance the refinement and rolling out of this legal instrument. By 2037, it is expected that more than 300,000 restoration projects will be carried out in São Paulo state and monitored using this set of indicators. We also suggest that this approach could be usefully applied to the growing number of ecological restoration programs being carried out worldwide, especially in the context of offset policies intended to achieve serious compensation for environmental degradation or loss of biodiversity.     

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.     

Linking ecological theory with stream restoration

1. Faced with widespread degradation of riverine ecosystems, stream restoration has greatly increased. Such restoration is rarely planned and executed with inputs from ecological theory. In this paper, we seek to identify principles from ecological theory that have been, or could be, used to guide stream restoration. 2. In attempts to re‐establish populations, knowledge of the species’ life history, habitat template and spatio‐temporal scope is critical. In many cases dispersal will be a critical process in maintaining viable populations at the landscape scale, and special attention should be given to the unique geometry of stream systems 3. One way by which organisms survive natural disturbances is by the use of refugia, many forms of which may have been lost with degradation. Restoring refugia may therefore be critical to survival of target populations, particularly in facilitating resilience to ongoing anthropogenic disturbance regimes. 4. Restoring connectivity, especially longitudinal connectivity, has been a major restoration goal. In restoring lateral connectivity there has been an increasing awareness of the riparian zone as a critical transition zone between streams and their catchments. 5. Increased knowledge of food web structure – bottom‐up versus top‐down control, trophic cascades and subsidies – are yet to be applied to stream restoration efforts. 6. In restoration, species are drawn from the regional species pool. Having overcome dispersal and environmental constraints (filters), species persistence may be governed by local internal dynamics, which are referred to as assembly rules. 7. While restoration projects often define goals and endpoints, the succession pathways and mechanisms (e.g. facilitation) by which these may be achieved are rarely considered. This occurs in spite of a large of body of general theory on which to draw. 8. Stream restoration has neglected ecosystem processes. The concept that increasing biodiversity increases ecosystem functioning is very relevant to stream restoration. Whether biodiversity affects ecosystem processes, such as decomposition, in streams is equivocal. 9. Considering the spatial scale of restoration projects is critical to success. Success is more likely with large‐scale projects, but they will often be infeasible in terms of the available resources and conflicts of interest. Small‐scale restoration may remedy specific problems. In general, restoration should occur at the appropriate spatial scale such that restoration is not reversed by the prevailing disturbance regime. 10. The effectiveness and predictability of stream ecosystem restoration will improve with an increased understanding of the processes by which ecosystems develop and are maintained. Ideas from general ecological theory can clearly be better incorporated into stream restoration projects. This will provide a twofold benefit in providing an opportunity both to improve restoration outcomes and to test ecological theory.     

Fighting pathophobia: how to construct constructive public engagement with biocontrol for nature without augmenting public fears

Social networks of stakeholders are necessary to foster public support for classical biological control for nature. Drawing from recent scholarship in policy-relevant social science fields, this article describes two key concepts that can improve science communication strategies to support invasive species management and biocontrol: lay public risk perception, and public engagement with science. This article then recommends a fundamental communication strategy: construct public trust in invasive species control efforts using public engagement processes that link trustworthy messengers and appropriate messages with the public. It draws examples from biocontrol projects that used pathogens as the natural enemy of choice, but more broadly seeks to inform efforts to engage the public about the use of classical biocontrol agents in nature conservation efforts.     

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.     

Post‐Project Appraisals of River Restoration in Advanced University Instruction

Post‐project appraisals (PPAs) are systematic assessments of built restoration projects, which provide feedback on performance of restoration approaches to improve future restoration efforts. Unfortunately, most restoration projects are not subject to systematic assessment because of lack of institutional arrangements to sustain long‐term evaluation and the orientation of most funding agencies towards project implementation rather than “studies.” As semester‐long courses on river restoration increasingly appear in university curricula at the graduate and advanced undergraduate level, independent student research projects for such courses can provide a mechanism for building a database of PPAs (and components thereof) and providing the students with a powerful learning experience. In two UC Berkeley courses, we require independent student projects involving original field research, peer review of first drafts, instructor (and often outside) review of second drafts, and presentation of results to a public symposium. Since 1995, the revised, final papers have been added to the University of California library, where they constitute one of the largest collections of restoration‐related studies currently available for any region: over 300 restoration‐related studies, of which 80 are PPAs or components thereof. Since 2003, the papers have been posted on‐line, with 40,000 full text downloads through 2010. Some term projects have directly influenced river restoration programs, inducing changes in salmon habitat enhancement project design, documenting failure of projects based on inappropriate restoration approaches, and contributing to systematic assessments of step‐pool and compound channel designs in urban areas. Student evaluations cite the term projects as valuable learning experiences.     

Protected area stewardship in the Anthropocene: integrating science,law, and ethics to evaluate proposals for ecological restoration in wilderness

Every year, the four federal agencies that manage designated wilderness in the United States receive proposals to implement small‐ and large‐scale ecological restorations within the National Wilderness Preservation System. The combination of climate change with other landscape stressors is driving ecological restoration to be one of the single most important, challenging, and potentially litigious wilderness stewardship issues. In addition, different stakeholders may have strongly divergent views about what the right decision should be, and decisions need to go beyond routine technical and scientific analyses to incorporate a broader range of legal and ethical considerations. We present a framework based on a comprehensive, structured set of scientific, legal, and ethical questions to guide the evaluation of proposals for ecological restoration and other types of ecological intervention in wilderness. This framework of questions is a voluntary tool designed to increase communication and transparency among scientists, managers, and interested publics regarding the trade‐offs and uncertainties of ecological restoration, and promote informed public deliberation in managing the public resource of wilderness.     

Motivations,success, and cost of coral reef restoration

Coral reef restoration is an increasingly important part of tropical marine conservation. Information about what motivates coral reef restoration as well as its success and cost is not well understood but is needed to inform restoration decisions. We systematically review and synthesize data from mostly scientific studies published in peer‐reviewed and gray literature on the motivations for coral reef restoration, the variables measured, outcomes reported, the cost per hectare of the restoration project, the survival of restored corals, the duration of the project, and its overall spatial extent depending on the restoration technique employed. The main motivation to restore coral reefs for the projects assessed was to further our ecological knowledge and improve restoration techniques, with coral growth, productivity, and survival being the main variables measured. The median project cost was 400,000 US$/ha (2010 US$), ranging from 6,000 US$/ha for the nursery phase of coral gardening to 4,000,000 US$/ha for substrate addition to build an artificial reef. Restoration projects were mostly of short duration (1–2 years) and over small spatial extents (0.01 ha or 108 m²). Median reported survival of restored corals was 60.9%. Future research to survey practitioners who do not publish their discoveries would complement this work. Our findings and database provide critical data to inform future research in coral reef restoration.     

An Ecosystem Model for Exploring Lake Restoration Effects on Fish Communities and Fisheries in Florida

Developing quantitative ecosystem–scale expectations of habitat restoration projects and examining trade‐offs associated with alternative approaches has been a challenge for restoration ecology. Many of the largest freshwater lake restoration projects have occurred in Florida to remediate degradation to vegetated littoral habitats resulting from stabilized water levels, but effects across lake food‐webs have not been assessed. We developed an ecosystem model using Ecopath with Ecosim and Ecospace for a generalized large, eutrophic Florida Lake to explore how simulated restoration activities could influence fish communities with emphasis on sport fish abundance. We modeled three habitat restoration scenarios: (1) “no control,” (2) a “10‐year control” that restored littoral habitat every 10 years, and (3) a “combined control” scenario that restored littoral habitat every 10 years with maintenance controls between 10‐year periods. Our “combined control” scenario provided the largest long‐term habitat restoration benefits for sport fish abundance and the fisheries they support. In Ecospace, we simulated a littoral habitat restoration project that reduced lake‐wide tussock coverage from 30 to 15%. Ecospace predicted positive benefits to sport fish and fisheries following the restoration simulation and highlighted the importance of habitat edge effects, spatial design of habitat restoration projects, and sampling designs for evaluating restoration projects.     

The Use of Case Studies in Establishing Feasibility for Wetland Restoration

Establishing restoration feasibility is a multifaceted process that requires consideration of the ecological, social, and economic conditions of a given site. Examining completed restoration projects that report successes and failures may enhance this complex decision‐making process. We describe five completed wetland restoration projects and identify commonalities among them to inform the process of establishing feasibility for proposed restoration projects. Most of the case studies identified the need to gather preexisting and historical information, develop scenarios through hydrologic modeling, study the restoration materials, use best professional judgement for unanswered questions, establish multigroup collaboration, gain public support from stakeholders, and monitor postrestoration. We applied these lessons to a study that evaluated the feasibility of restoring Dyke Marsh Preserve, a tidal freshwater marsh in Virginia that the National Park Service is mandated to preserve. We found that the use of case studies substantially increased confidence in the decision‐making process by focusing discussions on the most important ecological, social, and economic aspects of a potential restoration.     

The role of wildlife science in wetland ecosystem restoration: Lessons from the Everglades

There has been little discussion of how and when to integrate wildlife science into ecological restoration projects. The recent emergence of wetland ecosystem restoration offers an opportunity to use wildlife science to increase the probability of a project being successful. This paper traces the evolution of wetland ecosystem restoration in North America and proposes three roles for wildlife science in wetland ecosystem restoration: (1) contribute to conceptual ecosystem models, (2) develop quantitative performance measures and restoration targets that track the progress of restoration, and (3) achieve social feasibility by sustaining long-term public support for a project. The extensive knowledge base for many species of wildlife makes them especially useful for contributing to conceptual ecosystem models. Wildlife species are often the subject of long-term monitoring and research because they have commercial value, are conspicuous, or have aesthetic appeal. Wildlife parameters can be good performance measures for large-scale restoration projects because some species integrate information over large spatial scales and are long-lived. Parameters associated with threatened or endangered wildlife species should get special consideration as performance measures because the information will meet multiple needs rather than just those of the conceptual ecosystem model. Finally, wetland ecosystem restoration projects need to sustain funding over decades to ensure the restored system is self-sustaining. Wildlife are a valued resource that can help achieve the social feasibility of a project by providing a way to communicate complex science in terms that society understands and values.     

Restoration of coastal habitats: expectation and reality

Restoration today must satisfy a wide array of societal goals. In the past, success or failure of a project was dependent on minimal, measurable criteria. Simplistic designs and compliance criteria are being replaced by technically sophisticated projects and design goals that have variable criteria for success. Instead of a being static target, success criteria can be altered through a process termed Adaptive Management. Natural resource damage can be assessed accurately through a Habitat Equivalency Analysis. Acceptable progress toward compliance criteria is best measured by trends approaching a desired end point. An approach using natural variation of similar habitats also shows promise as a means of assessing compliance. Large-scale restoration projects are underway, directly and indirectly underwritten by the public. If the public is to continue support for restoration it must be a part of the decision-making process. This can be best accomplished through landscape management plans with clear objectives and goals that the public understands and that benefit the public at large. Technical problems in accomplishing and evaluating restoration projects will be solved if the experience gained at each site is used in future projects.     

Lessons learned and challenges for environmental management in Colombia: The role of communication,education and participation strategies

Environmental management has increasingly focused on promoting social engagement in biodiversity and ecosystem services conservation as a way to foster sustainability. However, a critical challenge that still remains is the adequate implementation of strategies of communication, education, and participation (CEPA) oriented to reconnect the social and ecological dimensions in the systems. This study analyzed the main features and types of CEPA implemented by the Colombian Regional Autonomous Corporations in environmental management projects that consider ecosystem services. We found a variety of CEPA focused on a wide range of stakeholders. Communication and education were the most frequently implemented in the projects. Within communication, spreading information about the projects was the most common, while education focused on instrumental training of local communities. Participation, the less frequently implemented, mainly aimed to ensure government and decision-makers involved in the initial phases of the projects. We conclude that there is a need to increase and improve education strategies in conservation projects to make decisions based on critical and reflective thinking, and foster the engagement of a broader set of stakeholders in the processes.     

Predicting response to reassurances and uncertainties in bioterrorism communications for urban populations in New York and California

Recent national plans for recovery from bioterrorism acts perpetrated in densely populated urban areas acknowledge the formidable technical and social challenges of consequence management. Effective risk and crisis communication is one priority to strengthen the U.S.'s response and resilience. However, several notable risk events since September 11, 2001, have revealed vulnerabilities in risk/crisis communication strategies and infrastructure of agencies responsible for protecting civilian populations. During recovery from a significant biocontamination event, 2 goals are essential: (1) effective communication of changing risk circumstances and uncertainties related to cleanup, restoration, and reoccupancy; and (2) adequate responsiveness to emerging information needs and priorities of diverse populations in high-threat, vulnerable locations. This telephone survey study explored predictors of public reactions to uncertainty communications and reassurances from leaders related to the remediation stage of an urban-based bioterrorism incident. African American and Hispanic adults (N=320) were randomly sampled from 2 ethnically and socioeconomically diverse geographic areas in New York and California assessed as high threat, high vulnerability for terrorism and other public health emergencies. Results suggest that considerable heterogeneity exists in risk perspectives and information needs within certain sociodemographic groups; that success of risk/crisis communication during recovery is likely to be uneven; that common assumptions about public responsiveness to particular risk communications need further consideration; and that communication effectiveness depends partly on preexisting values and risk perceptions and prior trust in leaders. Needed improvements in communication strategies are possible with recognition of where individuals start as a reference point for reasoning about risk information, and comprehension of how this influences subsequent interpretation of agencies' actions and communications.     

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.     

Ice-covered Lake Onega: effects of radiation on convection and internal waves

The effects of river restoration on hydromorphological conditions and variability are often documented immediately following the restoration, but rarely properly monitored in the long term. This study assesses outcomes of 20 restoration projects undertaken across central and northern Europe for a comprehensive set of hydromorphological parameters, quantified at both larger and smaller spatial scales. For each project, we compared a restored river section to an upstream degraded section. Ten pairs of large projects were contrasted to ten similar but less extensive projects, to address the importance of restoration extent for the success of each project. Overall, river restoration increased habitat diversity through changes in channel morphology. Our results indicated that restoration particularly improved macro- and mesohabitat diversity, but had a limited effect on microhabitat conditions, including the diversity of substrates. We found no significant difference in effects between large and small restoration projects. Our results reveal the need to assess hydromorphological parameters which reflect processes occurring at different spatial scales, including indicators of larger-scale hydromorphological processes such as bank erosion, to monitor restoration effects effectively and accurately. Additionally, our results demonstrate the importance of developing terrestrial parameters, to assess the lateral dimension of river restoration.     

Behavior change and sustainability of ecological restoration projects

Addressing socio‐economic factors in ecological restoration projects is critical for the effectiveness of restoration practices and scaling of restoration efforts. To achieve sustainability of restoration projects, the drivers of human activity leading to the degradation need to be addressed. An under‐researched concept in ecological restoration is the impact of behavior change of stakeholders and communities involved, despite the strong link prior research has shown to exist between environmental quality and human behavior. This article explores the importance of addressing the behavioral change of stakeholders engaged in restoration to achieve sustainability of efforts; it investigates how behavior change models are linked and represented in global environmental governance documents, and it discusses how behavioral intervention and policy instruments could be included in ecological restoration projects. For future work, the article proposes the integration of behavior change interventions in the design of restoration projects and policies.