4.4 Article

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

Journal

JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 245-253

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.jnc.2011.02.003

Keywords

Connectivity; Ecosystem services; Focal landscape species; Habitat mosaics; Natural processes; Restoration; Uncertain outcomes; Wicken Fen

Funding

  1. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation [06-2151, 09-2739]
  2. Environment Agency
  3. Anglia Ruskin University
  4. Natural Environment Research Council [CEH010021] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ecological restoration frequently involves setting fixed species or habitat targets to be achieved by prescribed restoration activities or through natural processes. Where no reference systems exist for defining outcomes or where restoration is planned on a large spatial scale, a more 'open-ended' approach to defining outcomes may be appropriate. Such approaches require changes to the definition of goals and the design of monitoring and evaluation activities. We suggest that in open-ended projects restoration goals should be framed in terms of promoting natural processes, mobile landscape mosaics and improved ecosystem services. Monitoring can then focus on the biophysical processes that underpin the development of habitat mosaics and the provision of ecosystem services, on the way habitat mosaics change through time and on species that can indicate the changing landscape attributes of connectivity and scale. Stakeholder response should be monitored since an open-ended restoration approach is unusual and can encounter institutional and societal constraints. Evaluation should focus on reporting changing restoration impacts and benefits rather than on achieving a pre-defined concept of ecological success. (C) 2011 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available