4.4 Article

Cost-effective ecological restoration

期刊

RESTORATION ECOLOGY
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 800-810

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/rec.12261

关键词

California grassland; coastal sage scrub; community assembly; ecological economics; in lieu mitigation fee; invasive species; mitigation funds; restoration economy

类别

资金

  1. CEB
  2. OC Parks
  3. Orange County Transportation Authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ecological restoration is a multibillion dollar industry critical for improving degraded habitat. However, most restoration is conducted without clearly defined success measures or analysis of costs. Outcomes are influenced by environmental conditions that vary across space and time, yet such variation is rarely considered in restoration planning. Here, we present a cost-effectiveness analysis of terrestrial restoration methods to determine how practitioners may restore the highest native plant cover per dollar spent. We recorded costs of 120 distinct methods and described success in terms of native versus non-native plant germination, growth, cover, and density. We assessed effectiveness using a basic, commonly used metric (% native plant cover) and developed an index of cost-effectiveness (% native cover per dollar spent on restoration). We then evaluated success of multiple methods, given environmental variation across topography and multiple years, and found that the most successful method for restoring high native plant cover is often different from the method that results in the largest area restored per dollar expended, given fixed mitigation budgets. Based on our results, we developed decision-making trees to guide practitioners through established phases of restorationsite preparation, seeding and planting, and maintenance. We also highlight where additional research could inform restoration practice, such as improved seasonal weather forecasts optimizing allocation of funds in time or valuation practices that include costs of specific outcomes in the collection of in lieu fees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据