IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v40y2020i4d10.1007_s10669-020-09768-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The science and practice of ecological restoration: a mental models analysis of restoration practitioners

Author

Listed:
  • Emily H. Walpole

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Eric Toman

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Melanie Stidham

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Robyn Wilson

    (The Ohio State University)

Abstract

Ecological restoration seeks to modify current conditions to more closely approximate conditions deemed to be more desirable within a given landscape. While substantial resources have been dedicated to advance ecological restoration efforts, limited research has investigated how ecological restoration is conceptualized by restoration practitioners. These conceptualizations are important because they likely inform goal-setting and selected management approaches, while different conceptualizations may contribute to conflicts that inhibit restoration efforts. This paper reports results from a mental model analysis completed at three USDA Forest Service Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) sites. We found that decision-makers across several disciplinary groups and organizations expressed a depth of knowledge of ecological principles related to restoration consistent with the body of ecological literature we reviewed. However, despite broad recognition of social and economic constraints, participant responses suggested limited consideration of how restoration may incorporate and achieve social and economic goals. There was also less emphasis placed on longer-term and more difficult to quantify management topics, such as monitoring and adaptive management. Literature and history both suggest that these components are critical for the long-term success of ecological restoration efforts, and so their lack of salience to participants point to these as potential areas of improvement. Our management and policy recommendations include taking steps to more effectively integrate social scientific input in restoration planning, which may be supported by incorporating decision-aiding tools such as Structured Decision Making to guide restoration-planning efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily H. Walpole & Eric Toman & Melanie Stidham & Robyn Wilson, 2020. "The science and practice of ecological restoration: a mental models analysis of restoration practitioners," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 588-604, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-020-09768-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-020-09768-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-020-09768-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-020-09768-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashley S. Monroe & William H. Butler, 2016. "Responding to a policy mandate to collaborate: structuring collaboration in the collaborative forest landscape restoration program," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 1054-1072, June.
    2. Gregory, Robin & Wellman, Katharine, 2001. "Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-52, October.
    3. Ann Bostrom & M. Granger Morgan & Baruch Fischhoff & Daniel Read, 1994. "What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? 1. Mental Models," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 959-970, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.
    2. Su, Jie & Gasparatos, Alexandros, 2024. "Assessing the heterogeneity of public acceptability for mangrove restoration through a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert & Igor Linkov, 2020. "Analytics and decision-making to inform public policy in response to diverse threats," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 463-464, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    2. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    3. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & Pascual Fernández Martínez & Amelia Pérez Zabaleta & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "Dealing with Water Conflicts: A Comprehensive Review of MCDM Approaches to Manage Freshwater Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-32, April.
    4. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    5. Melissa Zaksek & Joseph L. Arvai, 2004. "Toward Improved Communication about Wildland Fire: Mental Models Research to Identify Information Needs for Natural Resource Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(6), pages 1503-1514, December.
    6. Richard B. Howarth & Matthew A. Wilson, 2006. "A Theoretical Approach to Deliberative Valuation: Aggregation by Mutual Consent," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 1-16.
    7. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    8. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    9. Cameron A. MacKenzie & Kristy A. Bryden & Anna A. Prisacari, 2020. "Integrating narratives into decision making for complex systems engineering design issues," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(1), pages 65-81, January.
    10. Duxbury, Jane & Dickinson, Sarah, 2007. "Principles for sustainable governance of the coastal zone: In the context of coastal disasters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 319-330, August.
    11. Lo, Alex Y. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Articulation of Plural Values in Deliberative Monetary Valuation: Beyond Preference Economisation and Moralisation," MPRA Paper 30002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Clive L. Spash, 2008. "Deliberative Monetary Valuation and the Evidence for a New Value Theory," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(3), pages 469-488.
    13. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    15. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    16. Matthew D. Wood & Ann Bostrom & Todd Bridges & Igor Linkov, 2012. "Cognitive Mapping Tools: Review and Risk Management Needs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1333-1348, August.
    17. Oluwatoyin J. Gbadeyan & Joseph Muthivhi & Linda Z. Linganiso & Nirmala Deenadayalu, 2024. "Decoupling Economic Growth from Carbon Emissions: A Transition toward Low-Carbon Energy Systems—A Critical Review," Clean Technol., MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-38, August.
    18. Vedran Lesic & Richard E. Hodgett & Alan Pearman & Amy Peace, 2019. "How to Improve Impact Reporting for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-21, March.
    19. Mansourian, Stephanie & Sgard, Anne, 2021. "Diverse interpretations of governance and their relevance to forest landscape restoration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    20. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:40:y:2020:i:4:d:10.1007_s10669-020-09768-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.