4.4 Article

Progress Towards a Comprehensive Approach for Habitat Restoration in the Columbia Basin: Case Study in the Grande Ronde River

期刊

FISHERIES
卷 46, 期 5, 页码 229-243

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fsh.10562

关键词

-

资金

  1. BPA as part of the Columbia Basin Accords Agreement [2009-004-00]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite some progress in habitat restoration, such as forming partnerships and integrating landscape perspective into decision-making, there is still a need for broader public support, formalization of an adaptive management strategy, and defining objectives and indicators for biological and ecological diversity. Continued progress will require consistent policy and funding support from the broader region.
Despite immense resources directed towards habitat restoration, recovering fish populations remains a daunting and perplexing issue. In 2015, recommendations for a comprehensive approach to habitat restoration in the Columbia River basin were published in Fisheries, which included elements of landscape ecology and resilience, broad public support, governance for collaboration and integration, and capacity for learning and adaptation. Using the Grande Ronde River basin as a case study, we convened a working group consisting of local restoration practitioners, managers, and researchers involved in habitat restoration research, monitoring, and evaluation to assess progress towards meeting these recommendations. We concluded that partnerships and collaborations in governance have been formed and research using a landscape perspective has been integrated into decision making, but efforts would benefit from gaining broader public support, formalizing an adaptive management strategy, and defining objectives and indicators for biological and ecological diversity. Continued progress will require consistent policy and funding support from the broader region. We envision this self-assessment at the 5-year milestone would be helpful to other groups facing similar challenges.

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