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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Developing a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects

Representatives from agencies involved in natural resource management in the Murray‐Darling Basin gathered for a workshop in November 2010 to develop a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects. The resounding message from this workshop was that the effectiveness of riparian restoration depends on having sound, documented and agreed evidence on the ecological responses to restoration efforts. Improving our capacity to manage and restore riparian ecosystems is constrained by (i) a lack of ecological evidence on the effects of restoration efforts, and (ii) short‐termism in commitment to restoration efforts, in funding of monitoring and in expected time spans for ecosystem recovery. Restoration at the effective spatial scope will invariably require a long‐term commitment by researchers, funding agencies, management agencies and landholders. To address the knowledge gaps that constrain riparian restoration in the Basin, participants endorsed four major fields for future research: the importance of landscape context to restoration outcomes; spatio‐temporal scaling of restoration outcomes; functional effects of restoration efforts; and developing informative and effective indicators of restoration. To improve the monitoring and restoration of riparian zones throughout the Basin, participants advocated an integrated approach: a hierarchical adaptive management framework that incorporates long‐term ecological research.     

Monitoring attributes for ecological restoration in Latin America and the Caribbean region

Ecological restoration is becoming mainstreamed worldwide but target ecosystems' responses to restorative interventions are not sufficiently monitored, in terms of the wide range of ecological, social, and economic attributes available. In order to highlight and better understand this problem, we conducted a literature review of the ecological, social, and economic attributes cited in the scientific literature used for monitoring the success of ecological restoration projects in Latin America and the Caribbean region, where no regional study of this kind has previously been conducted. In 84 of the 91 articles retained for the study, ecological indicators were evaluated, while only seven articles included measurements of socioeconomic indicators. Regarding the Society for Ecological Restoration Primer attributes of restored ecosystems, we only found indicators measuring attributes 1–6, with attribute 1 (species assemblages) predominating (73%), followed by physical conditions (54%) and ecological functions (51%). Brazil was the country in the region where most monitoring was being carried out (51% of the articles), and tropical rainforest (33%) and tropical dry forest (25%) were the ecosystem types where ecological restoration was most frequently monitored. Highly vulnerable ecosystems such as mangroves and paramos were underrepresented. Attributes related to ecosystem stability or to governance and education of communities were not monitored at all. More real long‐term monitoring, instead of chronosequences, is needed, especially where understanding socioeconomic implications of, and barriers to, effective ecological restoration is a top priority.     

Exploring the potential of food forestry to assist in ecological restoration in North America and beyond

Food forests—edible, perennial, polyculture systems—are of increasing interest in North America and the United Kingdom, as reflected in projects ranging from urban food initiatives to integrated conservation and restoration planning. To examine emerging food forestry (FF) against the backdrop of ecological restoration (ER), we conducted semi‐structured interviews with eight experts each from the fields of FF and ER in conjunction with observations of food forests in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Using content analysis, our study builds a FF model that encompasses the underlying goals of emerging FF—forest function; diversity of yields; education and culture sharing; healthy habitats for people and other species; and sustainability. We argue that FF has potential as an urban restoration tool in terms of enhancing the multifunctionality of heterogeneous landscapes undergoing significant changes. This will require meaningful consideration of ethical issues (e.g. commodification of nature), landscape contexts, ecological integrity, integration of historical knowledge, and resilience for interdependent, dynamic social and ecological systems. Moreover, systematic, long‐term monitoring of different types of food forests will be crucial in order to mindfully apply FF in ER. This research provides one of the first in‐depth analyses of how emerging FF might contribute to restoration in the time of the Anthropocene, especially outside traditional tropic regions where most FF has been practiced.     

Assessing,with limited resources,the ecological outcomes of wetland restoration: a South African case

Resources for evaluating the ecological outcomes of ecosystem restoration projects are often limited, especially within government‐funded programs. In order to rapidly assess the ecological outcomes of wetland restoration, an improved approach has been developed, which was applied in the assessment of the ecological outcomes at nine restoration sites of South Africa's Working for Wetlands program. The sites encompass a diversity of restoration problems and land use contexts. The approach begins by distinguishing hydrogeomorphic (HGM) units, for which ecological condition is assessed and reported for hydrology, geomorphology, and vegetation pre‐ and post‐restoration. These three components are closely linked but, as demonstrated at some of the sites, may respond differentially to restoration interventions. For most HGM units, overall ecological condition was improved by between 10 and 30%, with the greatest contribution of restoration generally being to the hydrology component. Having determined the integrity and costs of the interventions, cost‐effectiveness is then reported in South African Rands per hectare equivalent restored, which was found to vary by more than an order of magnitude across the HGM units assessed. Cost‐effectiveness must be interpreted in the light of the long‐term integrity of the interventions, the site's landscape context, and the contribution of restoration to ecosystem services provision. Some sites may be considerably less cost‐effective than others, but the cost may nonetheless be justified if the sites make key contributions to ecosystem services provision. The study was conducted in the context of a formative evaluation and the findings are envisaged to improve wetland restoration practice.     

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.     

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.     

Negotiating multiple motivations in the science and practice of ecological restoration

Summary In a recent piece in EMR, Burbidge et al. discussed some major impediments to linking research and practice in ecological restoration and management. They identified a lack of collaboration between research and practice, poor communication, inappropriate funding and political timelines, change inertia and a lack of capacity as major barriers to improving restoration praxis. They suggest capacity building, communication, collaboration and involving key stakeholders through an iterative cycle of research to management will improve the translation of research into practice (Ecological Management and Restoration 12, 2011, 54). While we agree with the barriers and recommendations identified, they did not consider how the multifaceted motivations embodied in the practice and social context of restoration shape the research–practice nexus. Given the diversity of actors involved in conservation activities, and the focus on conservation on private land and landscape‐scale connectivity in government policy, this is a significant oversight. We suggest it is vital to draw attention to these multifaceted motivations when discussing implementation challenges. This piece draws on our collective insights from three doctoral research projects examining the science, practice and social dimensions of ecological restoration and management in Australia. Our intention is to outline some of the social and contextual influences shaping restoration practice to demonstrate the importance of dialogue between researchers, practitioners and landholders around the goals and expectations of restoration and management interventions. We suggest this is an important aspect of improving the conversation between the actors involved in restoration research, policy and practice.     

山水林田湖草生态保护修复试点工程布局及技术策略

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

Social perspectives on the use of reference conditions in restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes

As approaches to ecological restoration become increasingly large scale and collaborative, there is a need to better understand social aspects of restoration and how they influence land management. In this article, we examine social perspectives that influence the determination of ecological reference conditions in restoration. Our analysis is based on in‐depth interviews with diverse stakeholders involved in collaborative restoration of fire‐adapted forest landscapes. We conducted interviews with 86 respondents from six forest collaboratives that are part of the U.S. Forest Service's Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Collaboratives use a variety of approaches to develop reference conditions, including historic, contemporary, and future scenarios. Historical conditions prior to European settlement (nineteenth century or “pre‐settlement” conditions), or prior to more recent grazing, logging, and exclusion of fire, were the predominant type of reference used in all sites. Stakeholders described benefits and limitations of reference conditions. Primary benefits include (1) providing a science‐based framework for bringing stakeholders together around a common vision; (2) gaining social understanding and acceptance of the underlying need for restoration; and (3) serving to neutralize otherwise value‐laden discussions about multiple, sometimes competing, resource objectives. Limitations stem from (1) concerns over social conflict when reference conditions are perceived to contradict other stakeholder values and interests, (2) differing interpretations of reference condition science, (3) inappropriate application or over‐generalization of reference information, and (4) limited relevance of historical references for current and future conditions in some ecosystems. At the same time, collaboratives are adopting innovative strategies to address conceptual and methodological limitations of reference conditions.     

A unique role for citizen science in ecological restoration: a case study in streams

Citizen science has the potential to generate valuable biologic data for use in restoration monitoring, while also providing a unique opportunity for public participation in local restoration projects. In this article, we describe and evaluate a citizen science program designed to monitor the effect of stream restoration construction disturbance on the macroinvertebrate community. We present the results of a 7‐year stream restoration study conducted by citizen scientists utilizing a Before‐After‐Control‐Impact (BACI) design. Trait‐based macroinvertebrate data showed a strong response to restoration construction disturbance and return to pre‐restoration conditions within 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that citizen science can generate meaningful BACI‐oriented data about ecological restoration; however, until more research is conducted, citizen data should only be used to augment professional data intended to demonstrate restoration success.     

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.     

Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects

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

On the teaching of ecological restoration in Brazil: an analysis of postgraduate courses

Several ambitious restoration targets have been set for recovering degraded ecosystems in Brazil (21 million hectares with a legal deficit of native vegetation). The development of scientific knowledge and skilled professionals is necessary to meet this demand and is fundamental for achieving success in medium‐ and long‐term restoration. In this study, we describe the availability and profile of postgraduate courses on ecological restoration in Brazil. We surveyed 272 postgraduate programs, comprising six specific areas of concentration (forestry, soil sciences, botany, environmental engineering, ecology, and environmental science). We analyzed all selected courses in terms of location, approach (economic, social, and legal), and restoration techniques. Only 27% of the postgraduate programs analyzed offer ecological restoration courses, and 49% of these are offered in the southeast region of the country. Regions covered by nonforest ecosystems, such as Pampas, Caatinga, and Pantanal, were poorly represented. Legal aspects were considered in 51% of the courses, whereas social and economic approaches were only considered in 2.7 and 11% of the courses, respectively. Seedling planting (85%) and nucleation (68%) were the most frequently cited techniques of active restoration, and passive restoration was mentioned in 63% of the courses. Our findings highlight the need for increasing postgraduate courses in areas with nonforest ecosystems, especially due to a lack of knowledge about restoration of these areas. The incorporation of economic and social approaches is highly recommended, considering the importance of these attributes in achieving success in large‐scale restoration initiatives.     

基于生态监管的生态保护修复工程实施成效评估指标体系

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

重点脆弱生态区生态恢复综合效益评估指标体系

生态恢复是扭转由人类活动引起的生态环境退化和生物多样性损失,并保证生态系统服务可持续供给的一项主要战略措施。20世纪90年代以来我国针对重点脆弱生态区(北方风沙区、黄土高原区、西北干旱区、青藏高原区和西南喀斯特地区)实施了一系列的生态恢复工程。科学合理地评估重点脆弱生态区生态恢复综合效益,对生态恢复措施的进一步优化调整具有重要的理论与实践意义。然而,在重点脆弱生态区生态恢复综合效益评估的集成研究方面,由于缺乏统一的指标体系,阻碍了区域内综合性和长期性的生态恢复综合效益评估和监测,因此亟需构建一套面向我国重点脆弱生态区的生态恢复综合效益评估指标体系。以我国5个重点脆弱生态区为研究区,根据"生态恢复-生态系统结构-质量-服务-效益"级联式概念框架,在指标筛选原则和方法的指导下,参考现有的生态恢复评估成果,构建科学化、系统化和规范化的生态恢复综合效益评估指标体系。研究结果以期为重点脆弱生态区生态恢复评估研究和管理应用提供理论与技术支撑。