Evaluating Ecological Restoration Success a Review of the Literature

Copyright © 2016 by the writer(due south). Published here under license by The Resilience Brotherhood.
Go to the pdf version of this article

The following is the established format for referencing this article:
Nilsson, C., A. Fifty. Aradottir, D. Hagen, Chiliad. Halld�rsson, Yard. H�egh, R. J. Mitchell, Chiliad. Raulund-Rasmussen, K. Svavarsd�ttir, A. Tolvanen, and S. D. Wilson. 2016. Evaluating the process of ecological restoration. Ecology and Social club 21(1):41.
http://dx.doi.org/ten.5751/ES-08289-210141

Inquiry, office of a special characteristic on Ecological Restoration, Ecosystem Services, and State Use

Evaluating the process of ecological restoration

ⁱUmeå University, ²Agricultural University of Republic of iceland, ^threeNorwegian Institute for Nature Research, ^ivSoil Conservation Service of Republic of iceland, ⁵Kujalleq Municipality, ^sixThe James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Uk, ⁷Section of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, ⁸Natural Resources Institute Finland, Section of Ecology, University of Oulu Finland, ⁹Department of Biology, University of Regina

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Responses to this article
• Acknowledgments
• Literature cited

ABSTRACT

We developed a conceptual framework for evaluating the process of ecological restoration and applied it to 10 examples of restoration projects in the northern hemisphere. Nosotros identified iii major phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, in the restoration process. We plant that evaluation occurred both within and between the three phases, that it included both formal and informal components, and that information technology often had an bear upon on the performance of the projects. Almost evaluations were short-term and just some parts of them were properly documented. Poor or brusk-term evaluation of the restoration process creates a risk that inefficient methods will continue to be used, which reduces the efficiency and effectiveness of restoration. To improve the restoration process and to transfer the knowledge to time to come projects, we argue for more than formal, sustained evaluation procedures, involving all relevant stakeholders, and increased and improved documentation and dissemination of the results.

Key words: ecological restoration; evaluation; Northern Hemisphere; restoration implementation; restoration monitoring; restoration planning

INTRODUCTION

The accelerating degradation of the world's ecosystems has fostered a counter-movement to mitigate destructive impacts (Le Houerou 2000, Novacek and Cleland 2001, Lal 2004, Bernhardt and Palmer 2011). The topics of ecosystem restoration and ecological restoration take thus received increasing attention worldwide (east.chiliad., Erwin 2009, Schmutz et al. 2014, Barral et al. 2015). For the final two decades the Web of Science (WoS) reports 2876 scientific papers on "ecological restoration" by 7 Dec 2015, but merely 36 papers earlier that time. Papers addressing "ecological restoration" combined with "evaluation" are, withal, much less common—merely 177 according to the WoS, by 7 December 2015; the kickoff one from 1995. All the same, ecological restoration, defined as an "intentional action that initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability" (SER 2004), requires evaluation to document progress and inform adaptive management strategies (Williams 2011) in terms of the price-efficiency of the restoration process and the positive effects on the recovery of degraded ecosystems. This is particularly important in complex systems (Gunderson and Light 2006). If many years pass before a restoration is evaluated, and if the restoration has failed, it follows that recovery volition be delayed or failed. Ecosystems often require decades or centuries to recover later on restoration has been initiated, especially in high breadth and high acme ecosystems with curt growing seasons (Forbes and McKendrick 2002, Campbell and Bergeron 2012). Under such circumstances, failures may be costly if repeated trials are required to restore the ecosystem (Aradóttir et al. 2013). To avoid problems arising from flawed pattern and implementation of restoration, the monitoring and evaluation of restoration should exist given high priority.

A recent review of restoration in the Nordic countries indicates that ecological restoration projects in the region often completely lack formal evaluation (Halldórsson et al. 2012, Hagen et al. 2013). Other studies too bear witness this to be the case in other parts of the world (e.g., Bernhardt et al. 2005, Suding 2011), although the number of empirical evaluations has increased during recent years (Wortley et al. 2013). If evaluation steps are properly described and justified, restoration processes can be improved in terms of price-efficiency and ecosystem furnishings, and the lessons learned tin be more easily transferred to other projects (Nilsson et al. 2015). Traditionally, evaluation has been equated to the monitoring of the postrestoration outcome, and such monitoring has frequently been restricted to a single or a few events (Kondolf and Micheli 1995, Zedler and Callaway 2000, Suding 2011). Such express efforts are unlikely to provide a full motion picture of the restoration process and its outcomes. For more than accurate and reliable results, restoration evaluation should be a continual action that is an ongoing part of the unabridged restoration process (Allen et al. 2002). In other words, evaluation could consist of unlike subactions or steps during the entire restoration process from the beginning to the accomplishment of the restoration goal (Jungwirth et al. 2002, Hughes et al. 2011, Pander and Geist 2013). Some other drawback is that the evaluations may often exist also simple to allow reliable conclusions (Suding 2011, Morandi et al. 2014). These problems may backfire on the restoration itself in that projection goals may not be reached and cost efficiency not secured, and futurity restorations not conducted.

The restoration procedure can be seen as consisting of iii phases: planning, implementation, and monitoring (Hobbs and Norton 1996, Tischew et al. 2010). Actors responsible for each of these three phases should evaluate and better their "within-phase" piece of work, at to the lowest degree informally, to guide adaptive conclusion making, thus reducing take a chance of failure (Williams 2011, Loftin 2014). In addition, the interactions between restoration phases can also be evaluated. For case, the implementation of restoration requires that planners communicate with practitioners, i.e., the people responsible for the practical work ("This is how we want to restore"). Similarly, the monitoring benefits from communication betwixt practitioners and monitoring experts ("This is how nosotros restored"), and the monitoring teams need to pass on their findings to the planners ("This is what happened"). We propose that all these iii restoration phases can be improved past appropriate, within-stage as well as betwixt-phase vi-step evaluation (Fig. 1). In this paper, we hash out the relevance and usefulness of these 6 steps by analyzing ten restoration projects in 8 northern countries. We enquire the following questions: (1) Does the selected data set up of 10 projects include examples of evaluation at each of the 6 steps?; (2) Are there examples, among the cases, of steps at which evaluation had an impact with respect to modification of current or future restoration projects?; (3) Based on the selected cases, what are the major limitations in the evaluation of restoration projects?

METHODS

We took inspiration from the newspaper past Hagen et al. (2013) who discussed ecosystem restoration in the Nordic countries. Nosotros searched for large, completed, or well-established, long-term restoration projects representing different ecosystem types, and added Greenland, Scotland, and Canada to cover a larger and more diverse surface area with such restoration projects. Amongst the preselected projects we chose 10 projects that fulfilled our criteria (Box one). Nosotros included a variety of ecosystems typical of the northern hemisphere. Nosotros then analyzed the projects with respect to how evaluation had been made at the six steps, within-stage equally well as between-phase as presented in Fig. 1. This assay was made during an expert workshop where criteria for identifying the different evaluation steps were produced. We agreed that any blazon of value-laden information exchange inside and between restoration phases could be categorized equally evaluation. Because there were no previous frameworks available for such analyses, we constructed a new framework to assist in the data collection (Table 1). Our assay then relied on data from scientific literature, reports, websites, oral advice with the restoration community, and our own noesis well-nigh the specific projects. It should be noted that the selected case studies were chosen to illustrate the tool rather than to assess them per se. Given the diversity of restoration projects examined, we practise non await another choice of examples to produce very dissimilar results.

Box 1: Restoration projects analyzed in this paper.

Alpine heathland, Dovre Mountains, Kingdom of norway. In 1999 the decision was taken to restore a 165 km² large military expanse of alpine heath, mires, and shrub vegetation, including the removal of 90 km of roads, 100 buildings, and large armed services installations to "reset the expanse for civilian use and to restore the ecosystem to its original state and for future nature conservation (National Park)" (Ministry building of Defence 1998). The Norwegian Defence Estates Agency is responsible, and is both project possessor and planner. Advisors in ecological restoration, pollution control, and construction work have been involved in planning, implementation, and monitoring during all parts of the project. The project period is 2008–2020 and this is and so far the largest restoration projection in Norway (Martinsen and Hagen 2010, Hagen and Evju 2013).

Alpine heathland, Nalunaq Goldmine, Greenland. Nalunaq Gilded Mine, in southernmost Westward Greenland, was canonical in 2003, and was operational to the finish of 2013 (Dominy et al. 2006, Bell and Kolb 2013). A monitoring program mainly concentrated on the eventual pollution of different harmful elements. By November 2013, the mine airtight and a local contractor from the town of Qaqortoq conducted a make clean-up and restoration of the area, which was completed during the summertime of 2014. The restoration of the mining area was mainly a visible make clean-upward of the site, meaning removal of all houses and physical installations, including bridges and drainage pipes. Restoration of vegetation was non conducted, therefore the areas with former activities and concrete installations were still arid by the cease of 2014. Environmental monitoring will continue for at least 3 years after the closure (2014–2016).

Birch woodland, Hekluskógar, Iceland. This projection aims at restoring natural woodlands on about 900 km² of degraded state in the vicinity of the volcano Mt Hekla in Due south Republic of iceland, to increment the resilience of the area against fall-out and secondary distribution of volcanic ash (Aradottir 2007, Óskarsson 2009a,b). Around 200 landowners participate in the project and the restoration takes place partly on their backdrop, but besides to a large extent on public land. Actions involve establishment of plant cover and strategic establishment of seed sources of native birch and willows to facilitate natural distribution of woodlands. Restoration activities and results are regularly monitored and discussed with participating landowners (Óskarsson 2009a,b, 2011).

Rangeland, Farmers Heal the state (FHL), Iceland. This is a toll-share revegetation project aimed at enhancing restoration and improving rangeland direction and stewardship (Arnalds 2005). Most 600 landowners participate in the project and the restoration takes place on their backdrop. FHL is organized by the Soil Conservation Service of Republic of iceland (SCSI), which provides extension services, seed and funding to buy fertilizers, while the farmers provide land, machinery, labor, and in some cases boosted fertilizers and mulch. SCSI officers make annual or biennial visits to all participating farms, during which restoration activities are planned, discussed, and subjectively assessed (Arnalds 2005, Berglund et al. 2013). Thus, the FHL operates as an "umbrella," but much of the planning and monitoring are done on an individual farm basis. Data virtually restoration activities is kept in the SCSI database and has been used in ad hoc studies that involve more in-depth evaluation on a subset of the FHL. Examples involve studies on stakeholder interactions and experiences (Schmidt 2000, Berglund et al. 2013, Petursdottir et al. 2013a), vegetation succession (Elmarsdottir et al. 2003, Petursdottir et al. 2013b), and carbon sequestration (Aradóttir et al. 2000).

Woods and peatland in the Dark-green Chugalug of Finland. Light-green Belt LIFE project encompassed restoration of 600 ha of forest, 362 ha of peatland, forest roads, and quarries in 13 Natura 2000 areas in the eastern Finnish region of the Fennoscandian Greenish Chugalug zone during 2004–2008. Established restoration methods developed for protected areas were principally used, and some alternative methods were experimentally tested. Intensive scientific monitoring was an essential part of the project, requiring continuous discussion between managers, planners, and scientists. The projection is representative of LIFE projects targeted to woods and peatland restoration in Finland. Information on the project was compiled from scientific (Laine et al. 2011, Similä and Junninen 2012, Tarvainen et al. 2013, Hekkala et al. 2014a,b, Similä et al. 2014, Hägglund et al. 2015, Tarvainen and Tolvanen 2015) and public papers (Similä and Junninen 2012, Similä et al. 2014), projection proposals, restoration plans, maps, and applied experiences.

Grasslands, northern Peachy Plains, Canada. Millions of ha of central North America have been planted to low-diversity, high-productivity introduced grasses, on both private lands (farms, ranches) and public areas (parks, common pastures, roadsides). Restoring diversity involves removing or decreasing these species and introducing native species. Ongoing annual evaluation revealed the surprising persistence of the introduced grasses (Bakker et al. 2003, Wilson and Pinno 2013). This challenge was addressed past a change in mental attitude: instead of completely removing introduced grasses, grazing was used to decrease their cover and incorporate them at a low abundance into the diverse community.

Montane grassland, Trotternish, Skye, Scotland. In response to Scottish Authorities concerns that excessive numbers of sheep were causing gradient erosion on montane grassland, and were overgrazing grasslands within the Trotternish Ridge Special Area of Conservation, a vegetation and erosion monitoring program was ready in 1998. Modest experimental plots were established on the steep slopes to enable monitoring of the furnishings of different grazing treatments on vegetation structure and erosion. The response to grazing removal was found to exist very slow, with monitoring extended after xi years for a further six years. During the fourth dimension of this projection other factors were also influencing the results: decline in number of farmers due to aging population and decline in sheep numbers due to changes in European union subsidies (Brown and Birnie 2012, Hewison et al. 2016).

Peatland, Caithness and Sutherland, Scotland. Restoration of peatlands and blanket bogs is occurring in many areas in Caithness and Sutherland. The restoration usually involves some form of drainage blocking to restore hydrological regimes, and where the area has been planted with commercial forestry, removal of the trees. Changes in hydrological regimes demand to be carefully planned and the impacts on neighboring state taken into account. Some of this work has been funded past Eu-LIFE projects with the evaluation of the project occurring in part during the reporting process of the projects (Lunt et al. 2010).

River, Skjern River, Denmark. In the 1960s the Skjern River was channelized and nearby meadows were ditched to increment agricultural production. Subsequently a few decades pollution due to N and P leaching and mobilization of ochre became obvious and it was decided to restore the river with a focus on pollutant removal. Different methods were much debated in the mid-1980s. The parliament decided in 1987 on a big restoration project focusing not just on cleaning processes but likewise on habitat improvements and recreation. The physical work, based on a construction law and environmental impact assessment from 1998, was implemented 1999–2002. Later stakeholders discussed the use of the area and scientists evaluated the outcome. The unabridged project is so far the largest restoration project in Denmark (Pedersen et al. 2007a,b, Pedersen 2010).

River, Vindel River LIFE, Sweden. This projection, located in northern Sweden, restores the river network after the impact of timber-floating between the mid-1800s and 1976. Restoration measures include removal of structures similar piers and dams, recreation of fish spawning beds, and diversification of channel morphology by putting back coarse sediment and tree trunks in channels. In some areas, experimental restoration has introduced big boulders from adjacent uplands into the channels (Gardeström et al. 2013). The results of the restoration are monitored, especially with respect to riparian vegetation and fish (Helfield et al. 2007, Palm et al. 2007, Polvi et al. 2014, Hasselquist et al. 2015, Nilsson et al. 2015).

RESULTS

We summarize our major findings on how the evaluation was made in the 10 chosen restoration projects (Box 1, Appendix 1), following the 6 steps in the conceptual framework model (Fig. 1, Table 1). For consistency, nosotros standardized the names of the actors identified in each of the three phases of restoration, although we recognize that their bodily roles and denotations varied between projects and countries. Thus, in brusque, planners planned, practitioners implemented, and monitoring teams monitored. Our framework for the evaluation of restoration (Tabular array 1) was designed to maximize the information gained from the restoration projects that tin exist used to maximize the effectiveness of hereafter restorations. We are aware that some evaluations encompass two or more of the vi steps. For the sake of simplicity, even so, nosotros assigned them to the step where they had their main focus. It was not possible to consistently collect data on the types of evaluation metrics or qualitative information types used in the different projects. For this reason, the assignment of scores or ratings for the quality of evaluations was not possible. On the other mitt, a scoring framework could add substantial value to the evaluation process. To make such a framework meaningful, however, restoration actors would be required to document their evaluation steps very carefully, and this was not the case in the chosen examples. Irrespective of the type of evaluation data, withal, oral interaction betwixt actors was the most common and effective way of sharing information. Information technology should likewise be stated that our goal was not to provide detailed descriptions of the evaluations that had been washed. Our main goal was to describe when and how evaluation should be washed, with examples of how information technology influenced restoration.

Step 1: Evaluation within planning

All projects included some form of evaluation and adjustment of original ideas during planning. Nevertheless, the choice of partners in this procedure differed between projects. In well-nigh cases evaluation involved interaction between restoration practitioners and landowners. In a few cases evaluation and aligning of plans were fabricated past restoration practitioners and experts together (e.g., Dovre Mountains in Norway and Green Belt LIFE in eastern Finland; LIFE is the European union's fiscal musical instrument supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects throughout the EU). There were examples when restoration practitioners involved more partners in add-on to landowners, such equally governmental bodies, funding agencies, NGOs, scientists, and conservationists (e.g., Skjern River in Denmark). There were several examples of changes fabricated to the plan based on the evaluation. In the Vindel River LIFE restoration project in Sweden, a dialogue with landowners resulted in (temporary) withdrawal of some landowners from the project. In the Hekluskógar project in Iceland, some areas were excluded from the project because of farmers existence concerned virtually connected employ of grazing commons. In the Skjern River restoration projection, negotiations with landowners and NGOs resulted in modifications of plans to protect migrating salmon and trout. In the Northern Neat Plains restoration project in Canada, scientists were involved to deal with questions well-nigh seed origin, seed types, seed nativeness, and sowing practices. In the Green Belt forest restoration project, a dialogue with scientists resulted in establishment of control sites and specific studies on the touch of reindeer grazing on establish regeneration.

Stride ii: Evaluation between planning and implementation

Many projects used meetings, workshops, and media to share information about the practical implementation and to receive feedback on the techniques and location of restoration and its anticipated outcome. For instance, in the peatland restoration projects in eastern Finland (Light-green Belt LIFE) and Scotland (Caithness and Sutherland), feedback from landowners influenced the planning if restoration jeopardized the economic benefits from forestry or grazing on neighboring, private country. The restoration plans were so modified or restoration activities moved elsewhere. The example from the Vindel River LIFE restoration project shows that information and visits to restored sites stimulated landowners, who earlier had rejected restoration actions on their country, to modify their determination. Restoration could thereafter be implemented on their land. Interestingly, even more radical practices than those originally suggested were then used because implementation practices had adult over years based on previous evaluations. On the other hand, restoration projects initiated at loftier governmental levels, such equally parliamentary decisions, may restrict the flexibility of restoration plans as seen in the example from the Skjern River. Only pocket-sized adjustments were made following the mandatory environmental affect cess after the initial project programme. Although the Dovre Mountains project has articulate obligations to the Norwegian parliament, and the Norwegian Defense Estate Agency had been fully responsible for the project, both proficient knowledge and stakeholder opinions were incorporated into the final implementation. In the Northern Great Plains grassland restoration project, scientific experts were partners with the National Park staff and collaborated on the technique and location of restoration, as well as evaluation of its effectiveness. Technical evaluation of whether the projection was implemented equally planned varied amid projects. The Green Belt project applied like procedures to the Canadian project to make certain that the size and number of restoration sites and the applied practices followed the restoration programme.

Step three: Evaluation within implementation

Most projects used already established ("best-practice") restoration practices. However, considering of evaluation during the implementation step ("learning by doing"), adjustments were too common. In the Northern Great Plains grassland restoration example, observations during implementation suggested a demand to permit soil-seed contact past removing extant vegetation, which led to higher success of reintroduced plants. Improved scientific methods were also tested: in the Green Chugalug peatland restoration project, a new and more than expensive method of woods removal was practical past the implementer (a researcher) without extra toll to the project owner. In cases of insufficient experience, possibilities for adjustments were incorporated into the implementation plan. For example, in the long-term Skjern River restoration project, tenders were fabricated stepwise to comprise initial experiences in afterwards phases of implementation. Evaluations took place in the field or as regular meetings and included project owners, planners, and contractors. This likewise occurred in the Dovre Mountains where the projection owner and experts regularly met with the machine operators in the field. This was as well the case when public officers and farmers in the projection Farmers Heal the State discussed field methods. Such evaluations were oftentimes informal and produced limited documentation. The effect of evaluation was seen as modifications on a practical level, e.g., in several projects where distribution of plants, turf size, selected blazon of gravel, and technical equipment used, led to changes in implementation. Large-scale modifications were likewise made, as in the Skjern River example where modifications in the planned movement of soil led to an enlargement of an already planned lake.

Footstep four: Evaluation between implementation and monitoring

In this pace practitioners passed information to the monitoring teams well-nigh the accomplished work and its location. Deviations from the original program were highlighted then that monitoring could exist conducted in the areas where it made most sense. For example, in the restoration of montane grassland in Scotland, maps showing which type of fence (sheep but, or sheep and rabbit) and their locations were passed on to the monitoring team. In the Light-green Belt wood restoration project, monitored sites had to be moved because of mistakes made in the placement of restoration. In the Vindel River, practitioners updated the monitoring squad on changes in methods to facilitate monitoring. The bulk of information flow in this stride went from the practitioners to the monitoring teams. However, the monitoring could besides feed back to the practitioners, potentially resulting in direct modification of ongoing piece of work on the site. This was the case at the alpine heathland restoration project in Dovre Mountains, and in the rangeland restoration projection in Iceland, where there were articulate avenues for breezy dialogue between the practitioners and the people conveying out the monitoring. When the restoration work was conducted as role of an experiment, such equally the montane grassland restoration in Scotland, the monitoring squad had to communicate with the practitioners to ensure that the layout of the plots provided sufficient replication. Evaluation in this step was often ongoing throughout the project. There were also examples when monitoring started before implementation of the restoration to gather baseline data, e.g., in the Green Belt peatland and forest restoration projects. In these cases the implementation activities such as ditch-endmost and logging were planned to avoid dissentious the groundwater sampling wells and monitoring gear.

Step v: Evaluation inside monitoring

Formal monitoring usually started afterward the practical work was finished. Some exceptions were establish, nevertheless, as in the Dovre Mountains alpine heathland restoration project where monitoring started four years before the full-scale restoration was implemented in guild to back up the project with relevant background information and allow "earlier and after" comparisons. In some cases, the called variables did not evidence much change. For instance, very little biotic change was institute in the Vindel River during the first two decades later restoration. To ensure that monitoring succeeded in detecting an extremely slow response, monitoring was continued using the same variables. In the montane grassland restoration project in Scotland, a similar state of affairs was solved past adding 6 more monitoring years to the original eleven. Long-term monitoring also allowed the documentation of restoration failure, e.g., the grassland restoration project in Canada in which native species were replaced by successional waves of exotic invaders over 18 years. To ensure that a lack of response was not caused by monitoring the incorrect variables, additional variables were sometimes called for monitoring, but monitoring of the original variables was maintained. In the Canadian grassland restoration project, the unexpected flowering of prominent target species was quantified. In other cases, the restoration led to emergence of new microhabitat types, such equally those in ditches post-obit restoration of drained peatlands in Finland. In these cases, new plots were established in add-on to the original ones in order not to miss whatsoever modify in the restored site.

Step 6: Evaluation betwixt monitoring and planning

Monitoring teams often had double roles in that they reported back to both restoration practitioners and planners. In both these cases, information could be evaluated (steps four and 6, respectively). An of import office of the reports consisted of more than or less standardized documentation of the project results. Reports to planners suggested modifications of the plans and project designs that could either exist ignored, left for consideration in future projects, or assimilated in current projects. We found several examples of monitoring results beingness adopted in current and time to come projects. For case, in the Vindel River, studies showed that water was not slowed downward during high flows because of the lack of big elements such as big boulders and tree trunks. The large elements were consequently incorporated in the project and suggested to planners for inclusion in hereafter projects. A like example comes from the removal of war machine roads in the Dovre Mountains where monitoring provided hands-on advice on how to change the plans, a modification that was also implemented. In the grassland restoration in Canada, monitoring showed that the original program to eliminate nonnative plants was unrealistic, and the agreed compromise was to go along them only manage the land in such a style that they were kept at a lower affluence than before. In the Skjern River, monitoring led the projection owners to conform the boundaries of the restored site and to compensate the landowners economically. Monitoring also led to changed grazing strategies in the restored area. In the Finnish wood restoration and other similar forest restoration projects, monitoring showed that tree cutting was an inefficient method to initiate succession or bring back the desired threatened species and this information was used to make subsequent plans.

Our results indicate that evaluation could take an impact in all of the steps, only that the importance varied among steps (Fig. 2). Although the first four evaluation steps were most important for ongoing restoration projects, the concluding ii evaluation steps were most probable to impact future projects.

Discussion

Our assay conspicuously demonstrates that ecological restoration projects can include evaluation throughout the restoration procedure. In our 10 instance studies, the iii basic restoration phases, planning, implementation, and monitoring, all involved components of evaluation and reflection, within equally well equally between phases. Thus, we got a clear "yes" reply to our start question on whether the selected data set includes examples of evaluation at each of the six steps. Our case studies also demonstrated that evaluations can be formal also every bit informal, and in many projects both kinds occurred. Formal evaluations were usually linked to mandatory processes such as environmental affect assessments, hearings or land-utilise planning, inquiry and scientific publication, or strict protocols. Examples of breezy evaluation included discussions and other substitution of data between actors involved in restoration, but also critical thinking by private actors. No actor was formally excluded from the evaluation procedure, but the combinations of actors involved varied amongst phases and projects. In general, informal evaluations were poorly documented, if at all, but still built up of import experiences and noesis among the actors involved.

In many of the case studies, the informal evaluation processes also led to important modification of the restoration work. This means that also the second question on whether in that location are steps at which evaluation led to modification of projects can be answered "yes." In general, the big EU projects Dark-green Chugalug LIFE in Finland and Vindel River LIFE in Sweden had more than mandatory evaluation processes than the other projects, which is reasonable given that large projects are expensive and may affect many peoples' lives. This does not necessarily mean, yet, that the evaluation is always satisfactory. For example, Morsing et al. (2013) analyzed 13 completed LIFE projects in Kingdom of denmark and found that their evaluation was focused on ecosystem structures, which was non considered sufficient to assess the recovery of ecosystem processes. Measuring structures is often the primal to evaluate processes because direct quantification of processes can be rather difficult, although non incommunicable (Muotka and Laasonen 2002, Ruiz-Jaén and Adjutant 2005). Ecosystem processes related to the nutrient cycling, such as decomposition and mineralization rates were in fact monitored in the Green Chugalug LIFE project (Tarvainen et al. 2013), but these evaluations were made using other sources than the European union funding. As the basic knowledge on the restoration impacts on the ecosystem structure is continuously increasing, restoration projects can directly more funding to the evaluation of ecosystem processes in the future.

Evaluations in the analyzed projects had three aims: (1) to assist the restoration process, (2) to judge the effect of the restoration works, and (3) to gather data that could serve equally a ground for deciding whether experiences from recent projects could exist used in future projects. With respect to the event, evaluations could either identify which restoration projects had achieved their goals, or identify weaknesses that could lead to changes in one or more than of the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases, for future projects. To fully evaluate the outcomes, all relevant variables, including the social ones, should be included. Barthélémy and Armani (2015) noted that social processes and local experiences are often ignored in restoration projects and Aronson et al. (2010) and Blignaut et al. (2013, 2014) found that the benefits of restoration for lodge were non given due attention. In virtually of our instance studies, however, the social component was fairly well included in the projects. Information used in the process of planning evaluation is peculiarly interesting to the public, considering people tend to resist alter, including changes wrought by restoration (Oreg 2003). Yet, although most projects dealt with social processes, these processes were seldom quantified. Instead, the information available for judging the success of projects were biotic in most of the example studies. This is a potential weakness considering many studies have found that biotic variables exhibit a poor recovery and that an early sentence can lead to biased conclusions (Palmer et al. 2010, Nilsson et al. 2015). In such cases, information technology is probable that restoration actors will have to wait longer before they can draw whatsoever conclusions from the evaluation. Irrespective of the results of evaluations, their quality may vary considerably. For example, in an analysis of 62 European evaluation studies, Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) showed that many evaluations were too poorly designed to allow any conclusions about whether projects had reached their goals. To avert such failures, well-designed, standardized protocols are needed (Palmer et al. 2005, Kurth and Schirmer 2014).

Our terminal question was about limitations to the evaluation of restoration. A major challenge with regard to evaluation is how it is documented and reported, if at all. It is true that very few restoration projects undergo formal evaluation (e.yard., Kondolf and Micheli 1995, Bernhardt et al. 2005, Brooks and Lake 2007), only if they do, it unremarkably results in some kind of written documentation or photographs. Our analysis corroborated this view. Most of the investigated projects included components of informal evaluation and these were rarely documented or reported, which means that lessons learned cannot fully benefit future projects unless they are properly communicated betwixt the respective groups of restoration actors. Such communication between for example scientists who have generated knowledge and practitioners who are expected to employ it is an intricate job (Hulme 2014). In our analysis, however, we were able to uncover much informal evaluation simply considering we had personal noesis about the projects and expanded our knowledge by collecting more information from restoration actors involved. Even if restoration actors do non document or report their findings, results can withal be preserved if in that location are interested terminate-users. This means that the results of some kinds of evaluation can be gleaned from end-users and the public by mode of field visits, websites, media articles, teacher teaching, school visits, roadside interpretive displays, and museum exhibits. Such evaluations are also of import to share with actors in time to come restoration projects.

We were also able to get access to hidden examples of documented evaluation. The fact that evaluations are documented does not necessarily mean that they are made public. If published, this may accept been washed in reports or other gray literature that is poorly accessible to the wider scientific community (Aradottir and Hagen 2013). To make dissemination of all documented information possible, it should ideally be archived in open, searchable databases.

Fifty-fifty if restoration projects undergo evaluation and result in published reports, we found it difficult to get a grasp of entire projects past reading the disseminated piece of work from the 10 studied cases. Our analysis suggests that but the about "interesting" and "successful" outcomes of the dissimilar evaluation steps are widely disseminated to the public. This is a general issue that leads to underrepresentation of "failed" restoration projects in the literature (cf. Zedler 2007). The low acceptance rates of scientific journals, and the time required to prepare and submit a paper, discourage publication, especially of local and statistically nonsignificant results or of seemingly failed projects. Therefore, making projection evaluations public is a major claiming.

Our example studies also provided examples of the importance of public education along-side evaluation. In the Vindel River restoration projection landowners who were reluctant to restore their streams changed their minds after having seen the effect of other restoration projects (Gardeström et al. 2013). In addition, it too suggests that confidence between restoration actors and landowners can be built if restoration projects are non rushed or imposed on people (cf. Bunn et al. 2010). Other examples of education include information about the role of ecological restoration and the importance of native biodiversity (Hulme 2006) and stricter controls on introductions of nonnative species (van Wilgen and Richardson 2014).

Some other important claiming is the persistence of an evaluation issue. Formal evaluations, if carried out, commonly apply to monitoring results gathered in footstep 5. Generally, such evaluations are based on short-term monitoring datasets because most monitoring programs do non supply the resources necessary to expect the long-term furnishings of restoration (Suding 2011, Nilsson et al. 2015). Evaluations based on restricted time periods may miss considerable amounts of information that, properly used, could accept led to modification of the entire restoration process and hopefully ameliorate restoration practices in the futurity, i.e., adaptive management (Williams 2011). Instead, cookbook solutions (Hilderbrand et al. 2005, Fryirs and Brierley 2009), ofttimes nonoptimal, are likely to become overused. To solve this trouble, a revised approach to funding and monitoring is required. An example of such an approach tin can exist found in northern Sweden, where a court verdict over a disputed railway structure through a Natura 2000 area led to the funding of a 100-year monitoring programme (Länsstyrelsen Västerbotten 2015). The objectives of this program are to evaluate the long-term furnishings of the railway and a number of compensation measures on the wild fauna in the area, but also to manage the surface area then information technology tin can maintain its wildlife values. A special foundation board with representatives from landowners, NGOs, public authorities, and scientists is responsible for the management of the monitoring and evaluation and as well makes sure that the collected information is stored and fabricated available to interested users (Länsstyrelsen Västerbotten 2015).

We conclude that ecosystem restoration practices are developing, although slowly, because the actors involved evaluate and change their practices throughout the restoration process. In the majority of cases, however, the evaluation is informal and not documented, meaning that lessons learned can only exist forwarded if communicated amongst actors involved or if restoration is implemented by the same actor who developed an evaluation step. To speed upwards the effectiveness of ecological restoration, we recommend that actors reflect about their practices, document their experiences and spread the discussion nearly their findings, both successes and failures. In addition to more traditional ways of interaction, the mod digital globe offers numerous possibilities for sharing the lessons learned. Another of import development would be an economical assay of the toll-efficiency of monitoring and evaluation. Increased noesis in this respect has the potential to foster a ameliorate understanding of the significance of budgeting for evaluation in every restoration project.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was conducted under the project EvRest - Evaluation of Ecological Restoration in the N, funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers. Nosotros thank iii reviewers for valuable comments.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, C. D., Yard. Savage, D. A. Falk, K. F. Suckling, T. W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P. B. Stacey, P. Morgan, G. Hoffman, and J. T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern ponderosa pino ecosystems: a wide perspective. Ecological Applications 12:1418-1433. http://dx.doi.org/x.1890/1051-0761(2002)012[1418:EROSPP]2.0.CO;2

Aradottir, A. L. 2007. Restoration of birch and willow woodland on eroded areas. Pages 67-74 in G. Halldorsson, E. S. Oddsdottir, and O. Eggertsson, editors. Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and rural development. TemaNord 2007:508, Reykholt, Iceland, June xviii-22, 2005. http://world wide web.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2007-508/

Aradottir, A. Fifty., and D. Hagen. 2013. Ecological restoration: approaches and impacts on vegetation, soils and society. Advances in Agronomy 120:173-222. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1016/B978-0-12-407686-0.00003-8

Aradóttir, Á. L., T. Petursdottir, Thousand. Halldorsson, K. Svavarsdottir, and O. Arnalds. 2013. Drivers of ecological restoration: lessons from a century of restoration in Iceland. Ecology and Guild 18(4):33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05946-180433

Aradóttir, Á. L., Grand. Svavarsdóttir, Þ. H. Jónsson, and G. Guðbergsson. 2000. Carbon accumulation in vegetation and soils by reclamation of degraded areas. Icelandic Agricultural Sciences 13:99-113.

Arnalds, A. 2005. Approaches to landcare—a century of soil conservation in Iceland. Country Deposition and Development sixteen:113-125. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1002/ldr.665

Aronson, J., J. Northward. Blignaut, S. J. Milton, D. Le Maitre, K. J. Esler, A. Limouzin, C. Fontaine, M. P. de Wit, West. Mugido, P. Prinsloo, L. van der Elst, and Due north. Lederer. 2010. Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta-assay of recent papers (2000-2008) in Restoration Environmental and 12 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18:143-154. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x

Bakker, J. D., S. D. Wilson, J. M. Christian, 10. Li, L. Grand. Ambrose, and J. Waddington. 2003. Contingency of grassland restoration on year, site, and competition from introduced grasses. Ecological Applications 13:137-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0137:COGROY]2.0.CO;2

Barral, Yard. P., J. M. R. Benayas, P. Meli, and N. O. Maceira. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: a global meta-assay. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 202:223-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009

Barthélémy, C., and G. Armani. 2015. A comparison of social processes at three sites of the French Rhône River subjected to ecological restoration. Freshwater Biology 60:1208-1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/fwb.12531

Bell, R. Yard., and J. Kolb. 2013. Various amending stages in the Nalunaq gold eolith, south Greenland. Mineral Deposit Enquiry for a High-Tech Globe one-4:1093-1096.

Berglund, B., 50. Hallgren, and Á. 50. Aradóttir. 2013. Cultivating communication: participatory approaches in land restoration in Iceland. Ecology and Society eighteen(2):35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05516-180235

Bernhardt, E. S., and M. A. Palmer. 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing reaches to opposite catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications 21:1926-1931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/x-1574.ane

Bernhardt, E. S., Yard. A. Palmer, J. D. Allan, G. Alexander, Chiliad. Barnas, S. Brooks, J. Carr, C. Dahm, J. Follstad-Shah, D. Galat, S. Gloss, P. Goodwin, D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, S. Katz, K. M. Kondolf, P. S. Lake, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano, B. Powell, and Eastward. Sudduth. 2005. Synthesizing U.Due south. river restoration. Science 308:636-637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769

Blignaut, J., J. Aronson, and M. De Wit. 2014. The economics of restoration: looking back and leaping forwards. Annals of the New York University of Sciences 1322:35-47. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/nyas.12451

Blignaut, J., G. J. Esler, M. P. de Wit, D. Le Maitre, S. J. Milton, and J. Aronson. 2013. Establishing the links between economic development and the restoration of natural upper-case letter. Electric current Opinion in Ecology Sustainability 5:94-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.12.003

Brooks, Southward. S., and P. S. Lake. 2007. River restoration in Victoria, Commonwealth of australia: modify is in the wind, and none likewise presently. Restoration Ecology 15:584-591. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00253.ten

Brown, Due east. C., and R. 5. Birnie. 2012. Trotternish Ridge SAC: long-term monitoring of vegetation and erosion, historic modify and management recommendations. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 505, Inverness, Great britain. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/505.pdf

Bunn, S. E., E. G. Abal, M. J. Smith, South. C. Choy, C. Due south. Fellows, B. D. Harch, M. J. Kennard, and F. Sheldon. 2010. Integration of science and monitoring of river ecosystem health to guide investments in catchment protection and rehabilitation. Freshwater Biology 55:223-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02375.x

Campbell, D., and J. Bergeron. 2012. Natural revegetation of winter roads on peatlands in the Hudson Bay lowland, Canada. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research 44:155-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1657/1938-4246-44.2.155

Dominy, Southward. C., East. J. Sides, O. Dahl, and I. Thousand. Platten. 2006. Estimation and exploitation in an secret narrow vein gold functioning: Nalunaq Mine, Greenland. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series 2006:29-44.

Elmarsdottir, A., A. Fifty. Aradottir, and M. J. Trlica. 2003. Microsite availability and establishment of native species on degraded and reclaimed sites. Journal of Applied Environmental xl:815-823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2003.00848.10

Erwin, K. 50. 2009. Wetlands and global climate change: the role of wetland restoration in a changing world. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17:71-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11273-008-9119-one

Forbes, B. C., and J. D. McKendrick. 2002. Polar tundra. Pages 355-375 in 1000. Perrow and A. J. Davy, editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Fryirs, M., and G. J. Brierley. 2009. Naturalness and place in river rehabilitation. Ecology and Society 14(one):twenty. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art20/

Gardeström, J., D. Holmqvist, L. E. Polvi, and C. Nilsson. 2013. Demonstration restoration measures in tributaries of the Vindel river catchment. Environmental and Society eighteen(three):eight. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05609-180308

Gunderson, 50., and Due south. Southward. Low-cal. 2006. Adaptive management and adaptive governance in the Everglades ecosystem. Policy Scientific discipline 39:323-334. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1007/s11077-006-9027-2

Hagen, D., and Thou. Evju. 2013. Using short-term monitoring data to attain goals in a big-scale restoration. Ecology and Club 18(3):29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05769-180329

Hagen, D., M. Svavarsdottir, C. Nilsson, A. Thousand. Tolvanen, M. Raulund-Rasmussen, Á. Fifty. Aradóttir, A. Fosaa, and G. Halldorsson. 2013. Ecological and social dimensions of ecosystem restoration in the Nordic countries. Ecology and Lodge eighteen(4):34. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05891-180434

Hägglund, R., A.-M. Hekkala, J. Hjältén, and A. Tolvanen. 2015. Positive effects of ecological restoration on rare and threatened apartment bugs (Heteroptera: Aradidae). Periodical of Insect Conservation nineteen:1089-1099. http://dx.doi.org/x.1007/s10841-015-9824-z

Halldórsson, M., Á. Fifty. Aradóttir, A. M. Fosaa, D. Hagen, C. Nilsson, Thou. Raulund-Rasmussen, A. B. Skrindo, Thousand. Svavarsdóttir, and A. Tolvanen. 2012. ReNo: restoration of damaged ecosystems in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Hasselquist, E. Grand., C. Nilsson, J. Hjältén, D. Jørgensen, 50. Lind, and L. E. Polvi. 2015. Time for recovery of riparian plants in restored northern Swedish streams: a chronosequence study. Ecological Applications 25:1373-1389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/14-1102.one

Hekkala, A.-M., Thou.-L. Päätalo, O. Tarvainen, and A. Tolvanen. 2014a. Restoration of young forests in eastern Finland: benefits for saproxylic beetles (Coleoptera). Restoration Ecology 22:151-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/rec.12050

Hekkala, A.-M., O. Tarvainen, and A. Tolvanen. 2014b. Dynamics of understory vegetation after restoration of natural characteristics in the boreal forests in Finland. Forest Ecology and Management 330:55-66. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1016/j.foreco.2014.07.001

Helfield, J. Thou., S. J. Capon, C. Nilsson, R. Jansson, and D. Palm. 2007. Restoration of rivers used for timber floating: furnishings on riparian plant variety. Ecological Applications 17:840-851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06-0343

Hewison, R. Fifty., E. C. Brown, R. V. Birnie, and J. Alexander. 2016. Continued long-term monitoring of calcareous grasslands and erosion within the Trotternish Ridge SAC. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Inverness, United kingdom, in press.

Hilderbrand, R. H., A. C. Watts, and A. K. Randle. 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Environmental and Club 10(ane):nineteen. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art19/

Hobbs, R. J., and D. A. Norton. 1996. Towards a conceptual framework for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology four:93-110. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.10

Hughes, F. M. R., P. A. Stroh, W. M. Adams, K. J. Kirby, J. O. Mountford, and S. Warrington. 2011. Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, 'open-ended' habitat creation projects: a journeying rather than a destination. Journal for Nature Conservation 19:245-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.02.003

Hulme, P. Due east. 2006. Beyond control: wider implications for the management of biological invasions. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:835-847. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01227.10

Hulme, P. East. 2014. Bridging the knowing-doing gap: know-who, know-what, know-why, know-how and know-when. Journal of Practical Ecology 51:1131-1136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12321

Jungwirth, M., S. Muhar, and S. Schmutz. 2002. Re-establishing and assessing ecological integrity in riverine landscapes. Freshwater Biology 47:867-887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2002.00914.x

Kleijn, D., and W. J. Sutherland. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40:947-969. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x

Kondolf, G. M., and East. R. Micheli. 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environmental Management 19:i-xv. http://dx.doi.org/x.1007/BF02471999

Kurth, A.-M., and M. Schirmer. 2014. Thirty years of river restoration in Switzerland: implemented measures and lessons learned. Ecology Earth Sciences 72:2065-2079. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1007/s12665-014-3115-y

Laine, A. M., K. Leppälä, O. Tarvainen, M.-L. Päätalo, R. Seppänen, and A. Tolvanen. 2011. Restoration of managed pine fens: issue on hydrology and vegetation. Applied Vegetation Science 14:340-349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2011.01123.x

Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climatic change. Geoderma 123:1-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.032

Länsstyrelsen Västerbotten. 2015. Stiftelsen naturvård vid nedre Umeälven. Västerbotten, Sweden. [online] URL: http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/vasterbotten/Sv/naringsliv-och-foreningar/stiftelser/stiftelsen-naturvard-vid-nedre-umealven/Pages/default.aspx

Le Houerou, H. Due north. 2000. Restoration and rehabilitation of barren and semiarid Mediterranean ecosystems in N Africa and due west Asia: a review. Arid Soil Research and Rehabilitation 14:3-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089030600263139

Loftin, Yard. One thousand. 2014. Truths and governance for adaptive management. Ecology and Society 19(ii):21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06353-190221

Lunt, P., T. Allot, P. Anderson, M. Buckler, A. Coupar, P. Jones, J. Labadz, and P. Worrall. 2010. Peatland restoration. Scientific Review commissioned past IUCN UK Peatland Programme Commission of Inquiry into Peatland Restoration, Edinburgh, UK. [online] URL: http://www.iucn-united kingdom-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/files/Review%20Peatland%20Restoration,%20June%202011%20Final.pdf

Martinsen, O.-East., and D. Hagen. 2010. Tilbakeføring av Hjerkinn skytefelt til sivile formål (Hjerkinn PRO) [Restoration of Hjerkinn firing range into nature conservation areas (Hjerkinn PRO)]. Pages 35-37 in D. Hagen and A. B. Skrindo, editors. Restaurering av natur i Norge-et innblikk i fagfeltet, fagmiljøet og pågående aktivitet [Restoration of nature in Norway-a glimpse into the thematic field, professional person institutions and ongoing activity]. NINA Temahefte 42, Norwegian Constitute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway.

Ministry of Defence force. 1998. Regionalt skyte- og øvingsfelt for Forsvarets avdelinger på Østlandet - Regionfelt Østlandet. St.meld. nr. xi (1998-99). White paper, Ministry building of Defence, Oslo, Norway.

Morandi, B., H. Piégay, N. Lamoroux, and L. Vaudor. 2014. How is success or failure in river restoration projects evaluated? Feedback from French restoration projects. Journal of Environmental Direction 137:178-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.02.010

Morsing, J., Due south. I. Frandsen, H. Vejre, and K. Raulund-Rasmussen. 2013. Do the principles of ecological restoration embrace European union LIFE nature cofunded projects in Kingdom of denmark? Ecology and Gild eighteen(4):xv. [online] URL: http://world wide web.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss4/art15/

Muotka, T., and P. Laasonen. 2002. Ecosystem recovery in restored headwater streams: the role of enhanced leaf retention. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:145-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00698.x

Nilsson, C., Fifty. E. Polvi, J. Gardeström, Due east. M. Hasselquist, L. Lind, and J. M. Sarneel. 2015. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: success or failure? Ecohydrology 8:753-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eco.1480

Novacek, M. J., and Due east. East. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the Usa of America 98:5466-5470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.091093698

Oreg, Due south. 2003. Resistance to change: developing an private differences measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 88:680-693. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.iv.680

Óskarsson, H. 2009a. Hekluskógar: endurheimt birkiskóga í nágrenni Heklu [Heklaforest: restoration of birch woodlands in the vicinity of the Hekla volcano]. Fræðaþing landbúnaðarins 6:286-290.

Óskarsson, H. 2009b. Hekluskogar: Islands største reetablering af birkeskove [Heklaforest: Iceland's largest restoration of natural birch woodlands]. Skoven 41(1):35-39.

Óskarsson, H. 2011. Hekluskógar [Heklaforest. Pages 71-74 in Á. L. Aradóttir and G. Halldórsson, editors. Vistheimt á Íslandi [Ecological restoration in Iceland]. Agricultural Academy of Iceland and Soil Conservation Service of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.

Palm, D., E. Brännäs, F. Lepori, K. Nilsson, and S. Stridsman. 2007. The influence of spawning habitat restoration on juvenile brown trout (Salmo trutta) density. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:509-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/f07-027

Palmer, One thousand. A., E. S. Bernhardt, J. D. Allan, P. S. Lake, G. Alexander, Southward. Brooks, J. Carr, S. Clayton, C. N. Dahm, J. F. Shah, D. 50. Galat, S. K. Loss, P. Goodwin, D. D. Hart, B. Hassett, R. Jenkinson, G. One thousand. Kondolf, R. Lave, J. L. Meyer, T. K. O'Donnell, L. Pagano, and Eastward. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x

Palmer, G. A., H. Fifty. Menninger, and Eastward. Bernhardt. 2010. River restoration, habitat heterogeneity and biodiversity: a failure of theory or practice? Freshwater Biology 55(Suppl. ane):205-222. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02372.x

Pander, J., and J. Geist. 2013. Ecological indicators for stream restoration success. Ecological Indicators 30:106-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.039

Pedersen, A. B. 2010. The fight over Danish nature: explaining policy network change and policy modify. Public Administration 88:346-363. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01790.x

Pedersen, M. L., J. M. Andersen, K. Nielsen, and Grand. Linnemann. 2007a. Restoration of Skjern River and its valley: project description and general ecological changes in the project surface area. Ecological Engineering xxx:131-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.06.009

Pedersen, G. L., N. Friberg, J. Skriver, A. Baattrup-Pedersen, and S. East. Larsen. 2007b. Restoration of Skjern River and its valley: short-term effects on river habitats, macrophytes and macroinvertebrates. Ecological Technology xxx:145-156. http://dx.doi.org/ten.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.08.009

Petursdottir, T., O. Arnalds, Due south. Baker, Fifty. Montanarella, and A. L. Aradottir. 2013a. A social-ecological system approach to analyze stakeholders' interactions inside a large-scale rangeland restoration plan. Ecology and Club 18(2):29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05399-180229

Petursdottir, T., A. L. Aradottir, and K. Benediktsson. 2013b. An evaluation of the brusk-term progress of restoration combining ecological assessment and public perception. Restoration Environmental 21:75-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2011.00855.x

Polvi, Fifty. E., C. Nilsson, and E. M. Hasselquist. 2014. Potential and actual geomorphic complexity of restored headwater streams in northern Sweden. Geomorphology 210:98-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2013.12.025

Ruiz-Jaén, Grand. C., and T. M. Aide. 2005. Vegetation structure, species diversity, and ecosystem processes as measures of restoration success. Woods Environmental and Management 218:159-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.07.008

Schmidt, G. 2000. Bændur græða landið: viðhorf bænda [Farmers heal the state: farmers' perspective]. Ráðunautafundur 2000:93-98.

Schmutz, S., H. Kremser, A. Melcher, 1000. Jungwirth, South. Muhar, H. Waidbacher, and G. Zauner. 2014. Ecological effects of rehabilitation measures at the Austrian Danube: a meta-analysis of fish assemblages. Hydrobiologia 729:49-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-013-1511-z

Similä, Yard., K. Aapala, and J. Penttinen, editors. 2014. Ecological restoration of tuckered peatlands: best practices from Finland. Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services and Finnish Environment Institute, Vantaa, Finland.

Similä, M., and K. Junninen, editors. 2012. Ecological restoration and management in boreal forests: best practices from Republic of finland. Metsähallitus Natural Heritage Services, Vantaa, Finland. [online] URL: http://julkaisut.metsa.fi/assets/pdf/lp/Muut/ecological-restoration.pdf

Society for Ecological Restoration (SER). 2004. SER International primer on ecological restoration. Guild for Ecological Restoration, Science & Policy Working Group, Washington, D.C., USA. http://ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration

Suding, Yard. N. 2011. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Annual Review of Environmental, Evolution, and Systematics 42:465-487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115

Tarvainen, O., A. M. Laine, M. Peltonen, and A. Tolvanen. 2013. Mineralization and decomposition rates in restored pine fens. Restoration Ecology 21:592-599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00930.x

Tarvainen, O., and A. Tolvanen. 2015. Healing the wounds in the mural—reclaiming gravel roads in conservation areas. Ecology Science and Pollution Research 1-xiii. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5341-6

Tischew, S., A. Baasch, Thou. G. Conrad, and A. Kirmer. 2010. Evaluating restoration success of ofttimes implemented bounty measures: results and demands for control procedures. Restoration Ecology 18:467-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00462.x

van Wilgen, B. W., and D. M. Richardson. 2014. Challenges and merchandise-offs in the management of invasive alien copse. Biological Invasions sixteen:721-734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0615-eight

Williams, B. K. 2011. Adaptive direction of natural resource—framework and bug. Journal of Environmental Direction 92:1346-1353. http://dx.doi.org/x.1016/j.jenvman.2010.10.041

Wilson, S. D., and B. D. Pinno. 2013. Environmentally-contingent behaviour of invasive plants as drivers or passengers. Oikos 122:129-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2012.20673.x

Wortley, L., J.-M. Hero, and Yard. Howes. 2013. Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restoration Ecology 21:537-543. http://dx.doi.org/x.1111/rec.12028

Zedler, J. B. 2007. Success: an unclear, subjective descriptor of restoration outcomes. Ecological Restoration 25:162-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/er.25.three.162

Zedler, J. B., and J. C. Callaway. 2000. Evaluating the progress of engineered tidal wetlands. Ecological Engineering science 15:211-225. http://dx.doi.org/x.1016/S0925-8574(00)00077-Ten

lopezoppers.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/art41/

Share this post