On principles and standards in ecological restoration

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) has long debated how to define best practices. We argue that a principles‐first approach offers more flexibility for restoration practitioners than a standards‐based approach, is consistent with the developmental stage of restoration, and functions more effectively at a global level. However, the solution is not as simple as arguing that one approach to professional practice is sufficient. Principles and standards can and do operate effectively together, but only if they are coordinated in a transparent and systematic way. Effective professional guidance results when standards anchored by principles function in a way that is contextual and evolving. Without that clear relation to principles, the tendency to promote performance standards may lead to a narrowing of restoration practice and reduction in the potential to resolve very difficult and diverse ecological and environmental challenges. We offer recommendations on how the evolving project of restoration policy by SER and other agencies and organizations can remain open and flexible.     

Rays of Hope from the Ecological Restoration Alliance of Botanic Gardens,following its recent meeting in Amman,Jordan

In the spring of 2015, the Ecological Restoration Alliance (ERA) of Botanic Gardens held its fourth international meeting in Amman, Jordan, hosted by the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan. Three regional working groups were launched, for the Middle East, East Africa, and Latin America, and new partnerships were forged to support ecological restoration initiatives led by botanic gardens in Jordan, Oman, and elsewhere. A one‐day public symposium, attended by over 100 people, was also held—the most significant public meeting on ecological restoration held to date in the Middle East. A communications strategy for regional outreach was agreed upon starting with the translation of several Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) foundation documents into Arabic. A peer‐reviewed translation of the SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration has already been produced by staff of the Royal Botanic Garden of Jordan and posted on the SER website. Further efforts will be made to promote public awareness in Jordan and regionally, in support of existing conservation and restoration programs, and to promote greater integration of ecological restoration programs in national and regional development schemes and government policies. Key action points were agreed upon to promote the practice of ecological restoration and the role of botanic gardens globally vis‐à‐vis policy makers and funders.     

Awareness and use of the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Canada

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) published the second edition of its International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in 2019. We conducted a pan-Canadian study using semi-structured interviews with restoration professionals to explore the extent to which restoration practitioners are aware of the document and use it. Overall, we found that direct uptake of the document by practitioners was lower than expected, with approximately 37.7% of all participants that were both aware of and consulting the publication for guidance in their practice of ecological restoration. This is due in part to low awareness of the document itself, with only a small majority (56.5%) of interviewees being aware of it. Other reasons listed by practitioners such as the structure of the publication, its added value, and its suitability for on-the-ground work revealed why some individuals aware of the existence of the document still failed to consult it. Here, we present a more nuanced assessment of these observations and share our findings with the ecological restoration community to address this disconnection. With intensifying pressures to achieve restoration success internationally, SER's guidance is critical. We analyze why it seems guidance from SER is not being taken up as fully as it might, and ways in which future versions may be improved.     

Promoting ecological restoration in France: issues and solutions

Ecological restoration has developed greatly over recent decades. Promoting harmonious relationships between scientists and practitioners, between restoration ecology and ecological restoration, is essential to improving restoration projects. These relationships are difficult to achieve at a global scale, although international action remains essential. Therefore, regional and national networks are attempting to take up the challenge. With several European countries planning to create their own network in the coming years, insights from current practice are helpful. Here, we (1) describe the context in which ecological restoration is developing in France and (2) present the French restoration network, Réseau d'Echanges et de Valorisation en Ecologie de la Restauration (REVER). Most public policies related to restoration in France are derived from European Union (EU) directives, such as those on water, ecological networks, biodiversity, and protected species and natural habitat. Restoration can also be undertaken through Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or subsequent to damage. Following the model of the International Society for Ecological Restoration, the French network for ecological restoration (REVER) aims at accompanying and promoting restoration by facilitating relationships between the various stakeholders: practitioners, scientists, site managers, etc. To encourage exchange of knowledge and experience, REVER manages a website, organizes workshops, and provides links with SER‐Europe and Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI). This article provides information that will be of interest to other countries trying to meet the Aichi targets of the convention on biological diversity: the restoration of 15% of degraded ecosystems by 2020.     

Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on‐the‐ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER's attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER‐defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long‐term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self‐sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well‐being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.     

Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?

The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.     

Toward a post‐conflict Colombia: restoring to the future

At an historic moment, when Colombia is emerging from 60 years of armed conflict, the 7‐year‐old Colombian Network for Ecological Restoration (Red Colombiana de Restauración Ecológica [REDCRE]) has created four subnational nodes, and is actively developing several more. All of this is taking place in the context of the Ibero‐American and Caribbean Society for Ecological Restoration (Sociedad Ibero‐Americana y del Caribe de la Restauración Ecológica [SIACRE]). In mid‐November 2014, over 200 representatives of government agencies, academia, private enterprises, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from the entire country attended a symposium to launch the Antioquia Province node, and take stock and plan the way forward. There are bright prospects of transdisciplinary and public–private collaborations in Colombia for ecological restoration and restoration of natural capital as part of a strategy to transition smoothly to a post‐conflict era. We suggest some goals and guidelines to help move forward an ambitious agenda to mainstream ecological restoration.     

Insights from a Cross‐Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological Restoration

Restoration ecology is a deepening and diversifying field with current research incorporating multiple disciplines and infusing long‐standing ideas with fresh perspectives. We present a list of 10 recent pivotal papers exemplifying new directions in ecological restoration that were selected by students in a cross‐disciplinary graduate seminar at the University of California, Berkeley. We highlight research that applies ecological theory to improve restoration practice in the context of global change (e.g. climate modeling, evaluation of novel ecosystems) and discuss remaining knowledge gaps. We also discuss papers that recognize the social context of restoration and the coupled nature of social and ecological systems, ranging from the incorporation of cultural values and Traditional Ecological Knowledge into restoration, to the consideration of the broader impacts of markets on restoration practices. In addition, we include perspectives that focus on improving communication between social and natural scientists as well as between scientists and practitioners, developing effective ecological monitoring, and applying more integrated, whole‐landscape approaches to restoration. We conclude with insights on recurrent themes in the papers regarding planning restoration in human‐modified landscapes, application of ecological theory, improvements to restoration practice, and the social contexts of restoration. We share lessons from our cross‐disciplinary endeavor, and invite further discussion on the future directions of restoration ecology through contributions to our seminar blog site http://restecology.blogspot.com .     

The rise of the Brazilian Network for Ecological Restoration (REBRE): what Brazilian restorationists have learned from networking

As ecological restoration is gaining importance worldwide, researchers, practitioners, and interested people are beginning to self‐organize, in order to exchange knowledge and experiences in this growing area. Latin America has recently shown some examples, and the Brazilian Network for Ecological Restoration (REBRE) is one of them. Working on a nonhierarchical basis, its members, some of whom are important actors in the proposing and implementing of public policies, are able to freely express their doubts and share experiences, thereby contributing to legislative improvements, developing relevant restoration initiatives, and adopting novel approaches and paradigms. Through its three main communication platforms (website, Google Groups, and Facebook), REBRE has reached more than 2,300 members, and although a more equitable distribution through Brazilian regions should still be reached, it is gradually becoming stronger and more representative. In this scenario, REBRE will act with its branch organization, SOBRE (Brazilian Society for Ecological Restoration), to host the next Society for Ecological Restoration Conference, to be held in Brazil, in 2017, exchanging relevant experiences and welcoming restorationists from all over the world.     

A world of possibilities: six restoration strategies to support the United Nation's Decade on Ecosystem Restoration

Ecological restoration is practiced worldwide as a direct response to the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. In addition to its ecological impact it has enormous potential to improve population health, socioeconomic well‐being, and the integrity of diverse national and ethnic cultures. In recognition of the critical role of restoration in ecosystem health, the United Nations (UN) declared 2021–2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. We propose six practical strategies to strengthen the effectiveness and amplify the work of ecological restoration to meet the aspirations of the Decade: (1) incorporate holistic actions, including working at effective scale; (2) include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); (3) collaborate with allied movements and organizations; (4) advance and apply soil microbiome science and technology; (5) provide training and capacity‐building opportunities for communities and practitioners; and (6) study and show the relationships between ecosystem health and human health. We offer these in the hope of identifying possible leverage points and pathways for collaborative action among interdisciplinary groups already committed to act and support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Collectively, these six strategies work synergistically to improve human health and also the health of the ecosystems on which we all depend, and can be the basis for a global restorative culture.     

Low‐tech riparian and wet meadow restoration increases vegetation productivity and resilience across semiarid rangelands

Restoration of riparian and wet meadow ecosystems in semiarid rangelands of the western United States is a high priority given their ecological and hydrological importance in the region. However, traditional restoration approaches are often intensive and costly, limiting the extent over which they can be applied. Practitioners are increasingly trying new restoration techniques that are more cost‐effective, less intensive, and can more practically scale up to the scope of degradation. Unfortunately, practitioners typically lack resources to undertake outcome‐based evaluations necessary to judge the efficacy of these techniques. In this study, we use freely available, satellite remote sensing to explore changes in vegetation productivity (normalized difference vegetation index) of three distinct, low‐tech, riparian and wet meadow restoration projects. Case studies are presented that range in geographic location (Colorado, Oregon, and Nevada), restoration practice (Zeedyk structures, beaver dam analogs, and grazing management), and time since implementation. Restoration practices resulted in increased vegetation productivity of up to 25% and increased annual persistence of productive vegetation. Improvements in productivity with time since restoration suggest that elevated resilience may further enhance wildlife habitat and increase forage production. Long‐term, documented outcomes of conservation are rare; we hope our findings empower practitioners to further monitor and explore the use of low‐tech methods for restoration of ecohydrologic processes at meaningful spatial scales.     

The SER primer and climate change

The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration provides a succinct introduction to, and overview of, the rapidly growing field of ecological restoration. The Primer was issued initially in 2002 by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) and reissued verbatim 2 years later in a more attractive format ( http://www.ser.org/resources;resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration ). A SER committee recently began deliberations to update the Primer, and much discussion is underway. As two of the Primer's principal authors, we were invited to share our views on how the Primer can be advantageously revised in the light of any changes or new insights since 2002. In particular, we were asked how the Primer might be modified to reflect the ways that ecological restoration address conservation issues raised by climate change and other rapid environmental shifts and global changes. We also touch on questions relating to the benefits of ecological restoration to human society, as this is an area where the Primer needs sharper focus. We have structured the following in a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ format to highlight issues raised in the recent literature and to focus attention on other issues that merit consideration in the Primer revision process.     

What about cultural ecosystems? Opportunities for cultural considerations in the “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration”

The Society for Ecological Restoration's 2016 (SER) “International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration” is a living document intended to guide restoration projects “anywhere in the world.” Given its intended global scope and in hopes of informing future editions, this document is critically assessed in light of the role people have played in ecosystems around the world. We argue that the Standards has an underlying nature–culture dichotomization that limits its applicability; in qualifying what it calls “cultural ecosystems” for rehabilitation, rather than restoration, the Standards privileges colonial visions of ecological restoration. We also discuss the Standards' representation of the ecological impacts and practices of indigenous groups. Whereas the Standards claims that preindustrial cultural ecosystems exist in states similar to unmodified areas, many historians, anthropologists, and paleoecologists would point out that preindustrial people sometimes had massive environmental impacts through agriculture, hydrological engineering, over‐hunting, living in dense urban environments, transporting species, burning on a scale capable of changing the climate, and other practices. Furthermore, the Standards does not discuss how the cultural goals of indigenous groups fit into the overall picture of ecological restoration. Future drafts of the Standards should more accurately frame the diverse roles people play in nature, and create global standards that account for the validity of cultural goals for ecological restoration.     

The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

In response to a critique by Higgs et al., this article clarifies the content and intent of the Society for Ecological Restoration's (SER) International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Higgs et al. expressed concern that the SER Standards are not sufficiently underpinned by principles and risk disenfranchising some practitioners by narrowing what qualifies as ecological restoration. To demonstrate that these concerns are unfounded, we discuss the policy context and principles on which the Standards are based, its organizational structure, the innovative and inclusive approach used for development, and highlight significant errata by Higgs et al.     

Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

Primed for Change: Developing Ecological Restoration for the 21st Century

Restoration is a young and swiftly developing field. It has been almost a decade since the inception of one of the field's foundational documents—the Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological Restoration (Primer). Through a series of organized discussions, we assessed the Primer for its currency and relevance in the modern field of ecological restoration. We focused our assessment on the section entitled “The Nine Attributes of a Restored Ecosystem” and grouped each of the attributes into one of four categories: species composition, ecosystem function, ecosystem stability, and landscape context. We found that in the decade since the document's inception, the concepts, methods, goals, and thinking of ecological restoration have shifted significantly. We discuss each of the four categories in this light with the aim of offering comments and suggestions on options for updating the Primer. We also include a fifth category that we believe is increasingly acknowledged in ecological restoration: the human element. The Primer is an important document guiding the practice of restoration. We hope that this critical assessment contributes to its ongoing development and relevance and more generally to the development of restoration ecology, particularly in our current era of rapid environmental change.     

Academic family medicine in Canada.

Fifty years ago family practice in Canada had no academic presence. Stimulated by a number of general practitioners and with the support of the Canadian Medical Association, the College of General Practitioners of Canada (CGPC) was founded in 1954. In 1962, conferences on education for general practice attended by the Association of Canadian Medical Colleges and the CGPC led to pilot postgraduate residencies in family practice supported by Department of National Health and Welfare. The first certification examination was held in 1969 and, by 1974, all Canadian medical schools had a family medicine residency program. Today departments of family medicine contribute substantially to undergraduate education in all 16 schools. In Canada, the medical profession, governments and the medical schools have demonstrated the importance they place on appropriate education for family physicians.     

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.     

The evolution of Society for Ecological Restoration's principles and standards—counter‐response to Gann et al.

In response to our recent article (Higgs et al. 2018) in these pages, George Gann and his coauthors defended the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Standards, clarified several points, and introduced some new perspectives. We offer this counter‐response to address some of these perspectives. More than anything, our aims are in sharpening the field of restoration in a time of rapid scaling‐up of interest and effort, and support further constructive dialogue going forward. Our perspective remains that there is an important distinction needed between “Standards” and “Principles” that is largely unheeded by Gann et al. (2018). We encourage SER to consider in future iterations of its senior policy document to lean on principles first, and then to issue advice on standards that meet the needs of diverse conditions and social, economic, and political realities.