Integration of modelling and policy: Wolf reproductive-site model for Natura 2000 conservation measures in Italian Alps

Ecological knowledge is considered an important factor in environmental policy-making. However, the opportunity for ecologists to influence policy can often occur within discrete time policy windows, and seizing these opportunities has been heavily emphasized as a recent global conservation need. In 2017 the Natura 2000 Conservation Measures have been finalized in Italy, and delineated the management policy and institutional responsibilities of Natura 2000 Sites, after obligations of the EU Habitat Directive. In this timeframe, we developed a multi-scalar hierarchical habitat selection model for wolf reproductive-sites to identify potentially favorable habitat for wolf reproduction in the western Italian Alps, based on 19 years of data. This habitat suitability model was useful for the definition of species conservation requirements within the Natura 2000 Sites, and has been adopted in legislation processes, representing a successful example of ecological modelling fitting into a relevant policy window and informing legal instruments to achieve nature conservation goals.     

Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, ‘open-ended’ habitat creation projects: A journey rather than a destination

Ecological restoration frequently involves setting fixed species or habitat targets to be achieved by prescribed restoration activities or through natural processes. Where no reference systems exist for defining outcomes or where restoration is planned on a large spatial scale, a more ‘open-ended’ approach to defining outcomes may be appropriate. Such approaches require changes to the definition of goals and the design of monitoring and evaluation activities. We suggest that in open-ended projects restoration goals should be framed in terms of promoting natural processes, mobile landscape mosaics and improved ecosystem services. Monitoring can then focus on the biophysical processes that underpin the development of habitat mosaics and the provision of ecosystem services, on the way habitat mosaics change through time and on species that can indicate the changing landscape attributes of connectivity and scale. Stakeholder response should be monitored since an open-ended restoration approach is unusual and can encounter institutional and societal constraints. Evaluation should focus on reporting changing restoration impacts and benefits rather than on achieving a pre-defined concept of ecological success.     

Habitat Restoration—Do We Know What We’re Doing?

The term “habitat restoration” appears frequently in conservation and landscape management documents but is often poorly articulated. There is a need to move to a clearer and more systematic approach to habitat restoration that considers appropriate goals linked to target species or suites of species, as well as the ecological, financial, and social constraints on what is possible. Recommendations for particular courses of action need to be prioritized so that restoration activities can achieve the best result possible within these constraints. There is unlikely to be a generic set of recommendations that is applicable everywhere because actions need to be matched to the particulars of site and situation. However, there is a generic set of questions that can be asked, which can help guide the process of deciding which restoration actions are most important and contribute most to the reestablishment of desirable habitat characteristics within a given project area.     

The Scale of Successional Models and Restoration Objectives

Successional models are used to predict how restoration projects will achieve their goals. These models have been developed on different spatial and temporal scales and consequently emphasize different types of dynamics. This paper focuses on the restoration goal of self-sustainability, but only in the context of a long-term goal. Because of the temporal scale of this goal, we must consider the impact of processes arising outside of the restoration site as of greater importance than restoration itself. Because ecological systems are open, restoration sites will be subjected to many external influential processes. Depending on the landscape context, the impact of these processes may not be noticeable, or, at the other extreme, they may prevent the achievement of restoration objectives. A second issue is to emphasize the nature of processes in the long term, that they are a complex of characteristics such as magnitude, frequency, and extent. Ecological systems are only adapted to a range of values in each of these characteristics. Restoration often combines goals that are of different scales. Models appropriate to these goals need consideration.     

Restoring freshwater ecosystems in riverine landscapes: the roles of connectivity and recovery processes

1. This paper introduces key messages from a number of papers emanating from the Second International Symposium on Riverine Landscapes held in August 2004 in Sweden, focusing on river restoration. Together these papers provide an overview of the science of river restoration, and point out future research needs. 2. Restoration tests the feasibility of recreating complex ecosystems from more simple and degraded states, thereby presenting a major challenge to ecological science. Therefore, close cooperation between practitioners and scientists would be beneficial, but most river restoration projects are currently performed with little or no scientific involvement. 3. Key messages emanating from this series of papers are: The scope, i.e. the maximum and minimum spatial extent and temporal duration of habitat use, of species targeted for restoration should be acknowledged, so that all relevant stages in their life cycles are considered. Species that have been lost from a stream cannot be assumed to recolonise spontaneously, calling for strategies to ensure the return of target species to be integrated into projects. Possible effects of invasive exotic species also need to be incorporated into project plans, either to minimise the impact of exotics, or to modify the expected outcome of restoration in cases where extirpation of exotics is impractical. 4. Restoration of important ecological processes often implies improving connectivity of the stream. For example, longitudinal and lateral connectivity can be enhanced by restoring fluvial dynamics on flood‐suppressed rivers and by increasing water availability in rivers subject to water diversion or withdrawal, thereby increasing habitat and species diversity. Restoring links between surface and ground water flow enhances vertical connectivity and communities associated with the hyporheic zone. 5. Future restoration schemes should consider where in the catchment to locate projects to make restoration most effective, consider the cumulative effects of many small projects, and evaluate the potential to restore ecosystem processes under highly constrained conditions such as in urban areas. Moreover, restoration projects should be properly monitored to assess whether restoration has been successful, thus enabling adaptive management and learning for the future from both successful and unsuccessful restorations.     

Ecological restoration and creation: a review

A European-wide review of habitat restoration and creation is presented which identifies the substantial loss of habitats and the increasing fragmentation and isolation of those that remain as the key raison d'etre for initiatives to rehabilitate and re-establish habitats. Progress in this is exemplified by reference to the reinstatement of traditional management, the problems associated with reducing loadings, and the control of invasive alien species. Habitat repair after damaging activities is illustrated through discussion of advances in dwarf-shrub heath and grassland re-establishment. It is concluded that a wealth of knowledge is now available on which to base appropriate action, and that, provided the desired species persist, restoration is, to some extent, achievable. Some of the principles involved in habitat creation are outlined. Provided these are observed, such establishment can play a vital role in nature conservation, although there is scope for more innovative schemes and basic research into some of the issues involved.     

新加坡·南京生态科技岛滨江风光带（大江侧）示范区景观设计

新加坡·南京生态科技岛滨江风光带（大江侧）示范区景观设计旨在通过广泛的生态种植、森林保护、湿地恢复和栖息地创造等措施,提升自然环境的韧性,同时顺应当地的气候变化。项目组在确保生态不受干扰的前提下,结合现状对部分开放空间节点进行了细致的规划和设计,并在视野开阔的场地设置滨江观景平台。该项目的建成,为场地生态基础设施的建立奠定良好的基础,全面保护、保育长江滨水沿线12km的野生动植物栖息地,提高生态多样性并改善城市生态     

From Biodiversity to Ecodiversity: A Landscape-Ecology Approach to Conservation and Restoration

An environmental revolution is urgently needed that will lead to a post-industrial symbiosis between man and nature. This can be realized only if the present unrestrained biological impoverishment and neotechnological landscape degradation are replaced by the creation of healthy and attractive landscapes. Restorationists can fulfill a vital role in this process. They must broaden their scales from biodiversity restoration in small, protected nature islands to the large-scale restoration of natural and cultural landscapes. To achieve this they must restore not only the patterns of vegetation but also the processes that create these patterns, including human land uses. Their goal should be to restore the total biological, ecological, and cultural landscape diversity, or “ecodiversity,” and its intrinsic and instrumental values of highly valuable, endangered seminatural, agricultural and rural landscapes. For this purpose it is essential to maintain and restore the dynamic flow equilibrium between biodiversity, ecological, and cultural landscape heterogeneity, as influenced by human land uses, which occur at different spatial and temporal scales and intensities. Recent advances in landscape ecology should be utilized for broader assessment of ecodiversity, including proposed indices of ecodiversity, new techniques such as Intelligent Geographical Information Systems (IGIS), and Green Books for the holistic conservation and restoration of valuable endangered landscapes. Restoration ecology can make an important contribution to an urgently needed environmental revolution. This revolution should lead to a new symbiosis between man and nature by broadening the goal of vegetation restoration to ecological and cultural landscape restoration, and thereby to total landscape ecodiversity.     

A hierarchical approach to ecosystem assessment of restoration planning at regional,catchment and local scales in Japan

A hierarchical approach to restoration planning at the regional, catchment and local scales is proposed and examined. Restoration projects limited to a local scale and focused on habitat improvement for individual species ended in failure, which has led to the recognition that there is a need for ecosystem-based management at the landscape level. The first landscape-level restoration in Japan is under way in the Kushiro and Shibetsu River Basins, in northern Japan. However, public consensus on these large-scale restoration projects has not yet matured and there are very few projects that have progressed even as far as mapping to classify intact and disturbed ecosystems. Classification of habitat quality using physical and biological indicators appears to be the core element of analysis of ecological degradation at the regional scale (100–1,000 km²). This mass-screening process is critical to identify areas in potential need of restoration. The causes and mechanisms of ecosystem degradation are then examined at the catchment scale (10–100 km²) by linking material flows and habitat conditions. Direct environmental gradient analysis is useful to determine cause and effect relationships between species and habitat quality. Finally, we recommend implementation of field experiments with a clear hypothesis at the local scale (0.01–1 km²). At this stage, key variables causing degradation of the target ecosystem are manipulated to verify the hypothesis. Based on the results of local-scale analyses, the possibility of restoration success can be evaluated, which directs us to practical schemes for future restoration projects at larger scales.     

Spatial and Temporal Considerations in Restoring Habitat for Wildlife

An accumulated body of theory and empirical evidence suggests that habitat selection by animals is a scale‐dependent, hierarchical process. Hierarchy theory predicts that habitat suitability is influenced by the interaction of factors at multiple spatial scales from the microsite to the landscape and that higher‐order factors impose constraints at lower levels. For instance, large‐scale factors such as landscape context may make a site unsuitable for a species even if the vegetation structure and composition are appropriate. In addition, the spatial arrangement of habitat elements at all scales must be considered when planning restoration efforts. For example, the presence of snags does not ensure that the site will be suitable for snag‐dependent species. The size, age, and spacing of snags and their juxtaposition to other habitat elements must also be considered. Finally, all habitats are dynamic, and therefore the ecological processes that contribute to those dynamics must be maintained or suitable substitutes included in the recovery plan. When considering restoring habitat for wildlife, we recommend that managers: (1) identify the wildlife species they want to target for restoration efforts, (2) consider the size and landscape context of the restoration site and whether it is appropriate for the target species, (3) identify the habitat elements that are necessary for the target species, (4) develop a strategy for restoring those elements and the ecological processes that maintain them, and (5) implement a long‐term monitoring program to gauge the success of the restoration efforts.     

Ecological rehabilitation of the lowland basin of the river Rhine (NW Europe)

In this paper, the status of ecological rehabilitation of the Dutch lowland basin of the river Rhine has been reviewed. The historical perspective, mainly with regard to river regulation measures in the past, is given. The lower river Rhine comprises a man-dominated, strongly regulated catchment, polluted water and sediments, and annihilated and deteriorated ecosystems. During the past 25 years, the water quality and, to a lesser extent, the sediment quality, has improved considerably, hence leading to improvement of biotic diversity. The rehabilitation of lost and disturbed ecosystems started some 15 years ago. The non-refutable boundary conditions for restoration projects are protection against flooding and transport by cargo ships. Holistic ecological theories to promote river catchment management are available, but the rehabilitation projects dominantly rely on local and regional planning policies. The use and application of ecological criteria are increasingly playing a role in rehabilitation schemes. Ecological rehabilitation mainly focuses on nature conservation and restoration strategies, i.e. exploiting the hydrodynamic and morphodynamic potentials of the flowing river, and introducing a semi-natural grazing regime by large herbivores. Particularly the creation of new secondary channels contributes to the restoration of riverine habitat diversity and heterogeneity, and hence to the species diversity. The assessment of a number of rehabilitation projects has led to the conclusion that no general statement can be given concerning `success' or `failure' of specific restoration measures. The overall balance of 14 assessed projects out of approximately 30 running projects is positive. The highly dynamic river Waal offers the best possibilities for the restoration of natural sandy levees and back swamps. It will be very difficult to rehabilitate the hardwood floodplain forests under the present management conditions. Further recovery of the river biota depends on continued decrease of pollution, an increase of morphological dynamics, and the development of the original natural habitats.     

Local habitat restoration in streams: Constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota

Summary   The restoration of physical habitat has emerged as a key activity for managers charged with reversing the damage done by humans to streams and rivers, and there has been a great expenditure of time, money and other resources on habitat restoration projects. Most restoration projects appear to assume that the creation of habitat is the key to restoring the biota ('the field of dreams hypothesis'). However, in many streams where new habitat is clearly required if populations and communities are to be restored, there may be numerous other factors that cause the expected link between habitat and biotic restoration to break down. We discuss five issues that are likely to have a direct bearing on the success, or perceived success of local habitat restoration projects in streams: (i) barriers to colonization, (ii) temporal shifts in habitat use, (iii) introduced species, (iv) long-term and large-scale processes, and (v) inappropriate scales of restoration. The purpose of the study was primarily to alert ecologists and managers involved in stream habitat restoration to the potential impacts of these issues on restoration success. Furthermore, the study highlights the opportunities provided by habitat restoration for learning how the factors we discuss affect populations, communities and ecosystems.     

基于生态地租的生态环境补偿方案选择及效应

生态地租是反映生态资源利用的经济社会效果的超额利润。在将生态地租这一超额利润用于生态环境补偿的思路框架下,整个生产行业应获得的平均利润不会受到损害,因而具有较高的可行性。结合生态地租分配和调节的税收、收费、价格等手段,赋予不同经济主体收益享有权利以及生态环境保护责任,提出生态环境补偿的生态税、地租分享、受益负担和价格补偿等方案选择并作对比,然后以我国生态资源利用和经济产出为参照值模拟不同方案的效应。结果表明,不同补偿方案在补偿主体、补偿原则、补偿形式和适用范围方面存在明显差别,并且针对不同方案,分别在生态税税率达到8.6%、政府和集体享有13.4%的生态地租、受益者补偿支付额为5916元a-1人-1以及产品价格上升23.8%等不同补偿水平情形下,生态资源消耗和社会经济产出才能保持在资源生物承载力范围之内。同时,各补偿方案在责任主体以及调节手段上的差异,也会导致不同方案选择在社会福利、利益分配和技术创新等效应上的差异。因此,生态环境补偿实践中,具体补偿方案选择应根据当地实际情况进行综合决策,无差别化的方案将无法实现生态环境保护目标。     

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.     

城市野境： 城市区域中野性自然的保护与营造

城市野境是城市内部或周边区域中自然过程占主导的土地,其中人类开发和控制程度相对较低,允许在一定程度上发生自然演替和生态过程,各类野生生物能够与人类繁荣共存。城市野境在重新连接人与自然、促进人类身心健康、保护生物多样性、维持生态系统服务方面具有重要和独特的价值。基于文献综述与案例研究,提出并阐释了保护与营造城市野境的 4 种途径,包括保护、修复、设计与融合,即在城市保护地中保护野性自然、再野化部分城市区域、在城市公园中营造类荒野景观以及在城市空间中系统性融入野性自然。建议在中国城市规划与城市设计中,融入野性自然保护与修复的理念,进一步探索城市野境保护与营造的理论与方法。     

Ecological restoration of rich fens in Europe and North America: from trial and error to an evidence‐based approach

Fens represent a large array of ecosystem services, including the highest biodiversity found among wetlands, hydrological services, water purification and carbon sequestration. Land‐use change and drainage has severely damaged or annihilated these services in many parts of North America and Europe; restoration plans are urgently needed at the landscape level. We review the major constraints on the restoration of rich fens and fen water bodies in agricultural areas in Europe and disturbed landscapes in North America: (i) habitat quality problems: drought, eutrophication, acidification, and toxicity, and (ii) recolonization problems: species pools, ecosystem fragmentation and connectivity, genetic variability, and invasive species; and here provide possible solutions. We discuss both positive and negative consequences of restoration measures, and their causes. The restoration of wetland ecosystem functioning and services has, for a long time, been based on a trial‐and‐error approach. By presenting research and practice on the restoration of rich fen ecosystems within agricultural areas, we demonstrate the importance of biogeochemical and ecological knowledge at different spatial scales for the management and restoration of biodiversity, water quality, carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, especially in a changing climate. We define target processes that enable scientists, nature managers, water managers and policy makers to choose between different measures and to predict restoration prospects for different types of deteriorated fens and their starting conditions.     

Predicting restoration outcomes based on organizational and ecological factors

For restoration to be an effective strategy to reverse large‐scale habitat loss and land degradation, funding programs need policies that promote selection of and commitment to projects that can reasonably be expected to succeed. Programmatic project selection practices have received minimal formal evaluation, despite their importance. In this study, we considered the extent to which a program needs to consider both ecological and organizational factors during project selection in order to minimize the incidence of project failure. Our assessment of a long‐term program that funds ecological restoration efforts across Minnesota (U.S.A.), based on project records, manager surveys, and field surveys, yielded several broadly relevant insights. First, factors well understood to confer ecological resilience (level of landscape alteration and starting condition) were clearly associated with restoration outcomes, regardless of time‐since‐initiation of restoration. Second, restoration of low‐resilience ecosystems is typically a labor‐ and skill‐intensive enterprise for organizations that undertake them. Our analysis revealed four organizational limitations, in addition to insufficient funds, that hindered capacity to keep projects on‐track: lack of planning and goal‐setting, inadequate staffing, leadership change, and incomplete records. Third, to reduce risk, programs do not necessarily need to avoid challenging projects, but do need to consider whether organizations proposing restorations have adequate internal capacity to competently plan and to sustain actions for a duration sufficient to restore ecological resilience. If a restoration is degraded enough to require human intervention to recover, the outcome of a project is as likely to reflect its organizational reality as much as its ecological circumstances.     

景感生态学在流域生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用——以大凌河流域北票段为例

生态系统保护与修复已成为我国生态文明建设的一项核心内容,自2016年以来,在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）已开展了25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点工程。以大凌河流域北票段为研究区,探讨了景感生态学理论在山水林田湖草生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用。基于景感生态学理论,构建大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复综合治理框架,以保持、改善和提升生态系统服务,实现可持续发展为目标,构建了"一中心、二重点、五要素、六工程"的生态系统保护与修复景感空间体系,并基于此将大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复分为5个重要治理区域,形成"一带四区"的生态安全格局,提出了应用景感生态学理论,构建区域居民的共同行为规范,引导并实现人类对自然生态系统的有利影响,进一步提升生态系统保护与修复效果的对策建议。通过大凌河流域北票段的分析案例,以景感营造的理念开展区域生态系统保护与修复顶层设计,为促进区域可持续发展提供思路和途径。     

Ecological restoration of farmland: progress and prospects

Sustainable agricultural practices in conjunction with ecological restoration methods can reduce the detrimental effects of agriculture. The Society for Ecological Restoration International has produced generic guidelines for conceiving, organizing, conducting and assessing ecological restoration projects. Additionally, there are now good conceptual frameworks, guidelines and practical methods for developing ecological restoration programmes that are based on sound ecological principles and supported by empirical evidence and modelling approaches. Restoration methods must also be technically achievable and socially acceptable and spread over a range of locations. It is important to reconcile differences between methods that favour conservation and those that favour economic returns, to ensure that conservation efforts are beneficial for both landowners and biodiversity. One option for this type of mutual benefit is the use of agri-environmental schemes to provide financial incentives to landholders in exchange for providing conservation services and other benefits. However, further work is required to define and measure the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes. The broader potential for ecological restoration to improve the sustainability of agricultural production while conserving biodiversity in farmscapes and reducing external costs is high, but there is still much to learn, particularly for the most efficient use of agri-environmental schemes to change land use practice.     

Responses of riparian plant communities and water quality after 8 years of passive ecological restoration using a BACI design

This study investigated the consequences of passive ecological restoration on a riparian habitat and on water quality. The restoration plan consists of excluding livestock by constructing fences along an entire stream 1 m from the stream bed, with the assumption that recovering riparian habitat will restore their ecological processes (e.g., filtration, soil stabilization). We measured responses of riparian plant communities and physico-chemical water quality. We presented data from an 8-year before-after control-impact design across a reference stream and a restored stream in a rural landscape in Normandy, France. Restoration appeared to modify plant communities. After 8 years of restoration, the restored stream had a complex riparian bank, similar to that of the reference stream, with an increase in the number of trees, a decrease in bare soil, and an increase in habitat heterogeneity. Despite this modification, water quality did not improve. The same low water quality in the reference stream demonstrated the need for a watershed-scale approach and for actions to improve agricultural practices before implementing restoration practices at a smaller scale. Nonetheless, the lack of improved water quality does not necessarily mean that the restoration failed. Other functions and services can be provided by excluding livestock.