A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Prach, Karel
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Durigan, Giselda, Frennessy, Siobhan, Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst, Torezan, José Marcelo, Murphy, Stephen D.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511
Resumo: We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied 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 justied 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 sucient 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 specic 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.
id UFRGS-2_5690c9e583d58cfb40e2123ca98d408c
oai_identifier_str oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221511
network_acronym_str UFRGS-2
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
repository_id_str
spelling Prach, KarelDurigan, GiseldaFrennessy, SiobhanOverbeck, Gerhard ErnstTorezan, José MarceloMurphy, Stephen D.2021-05-26T04:36:03Z20191061-2971http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511001120594We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied 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 justied 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 sucient 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 specic 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.application/pdfengRestoration Ecology. Washington, DC. Vol. 27, no. 5 (Sept. 2019) p. 917-923Manejo ambientalRestauração ecológicaAdaptive managementEcological indicatorsRestoration successRestoration targeA primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration successEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSTEXT001120594.pdf.txt001120594.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain4044http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/2/001120594.pdf.txta20dc9a2683f78457f19d156ec4f21e3MD52ORIGINAL001120594.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf147666http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/1/001120594.pdf0d8e3bcd3a0c70274fcf7ed7d3f11c09MD5110183/2215112021-06-12 04:45:44.513387oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/221511Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2021-06-12T07:45:44Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
title A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
spellingShingle A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
Prach, Karel
Manejo ambiental
Restauração ecológica
Adaptive management
Ecological indicators
Restoration success
Restoration targe
title_short A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
title_full A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
title_fullStr A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
title_full_unstemmed A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
title_sort A primer on choosing goals and indicators to evaluate ecological restoration success
author Prach, Karel
author_facet Prach, Karel
Durigan, Giselda
Frennessy, Siobhan
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
Torezan, José Marcelo
Murphy, Stephen D.
author_role author
author2 Durigan, Giselda
Frennessy, Siobhan
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
Torezan, José Marcelo
Murphy, Stephen D.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Prach, Karel
Durigan, Giselda
Frennessy, Siobhan
Overbeck, Gerhard Ernst
Torezan, José Marcelo
Murphy, Stephen D.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Manejo ambiental
Restauração ecológica
topic Manejo ambiental
Restauração ecológica
Adaptive management
Ecological indicators
Restoration success
Restoration targe
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv Adaptive management
Ecological indicators
Restoration success
Restoration targe
description We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This rst requires clearly stated and justied 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 justied 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 sucient 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 specic 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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2019
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2021-05-26T04:36:03Z
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv Estrangeiro
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 1061-2971
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv 001120594
identifier_str_mv 1061-2971
001120594
url http://hdl.handle.net/10183/221511
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv Restoration Ecology. Washington, DC. Vol. 27, no. 5 (Sept. 2019) p. 917-923
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron:UFRGS
instname_str Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
instacron_str UFRGS
institution UFRGS
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
collection Repositório Institucional da UFRGS
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/2/001120594.pdf.txt
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/221511/1/001120594.pdf
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv a20dc9a2683f78457f19d156ec4f21e3
0d8e3bcd3a0c70274fcf7ed7d3f11c09
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1801225018752892928