Fuzzy rule‐based decision support system for evaluation of long‐established forest restoration projects

Although the importance of monitoring and evaluation of restoration actions is increasingly acknowledged, availability of accurate, quantitative monitoring data is very rare for most restoration areas, particularly for long‐established restoration projects. We propose using fuzzy rule‐based expert systems to evaluate the degree of success of restoration actions when available information on project results and impacts largely relies on expert‐based qualitative assessments and rough estimates of quantitative values. These systems use fuzzy logic to manage the uncertainty present in the data and to integrate qualitative and quantitative information. To illustrate and demonstrate the potential of fuzzy rule‐based systems for restoration evaluation, we applied this approach to seven forest restoration projects implemented in Spain between 1897 and 1952, using information compiled in the REACTION database on Mediterranean forest restoration projects. The information available includes both quantitative and expert‐based qualitative data, and covers a wide variety of indicators grouped into technical, structural, functional, and socioeconomic criteria. The fuzzy rule‐based system translates expert knowledge of restoration specialists and forest managers into a set of simple logic rules that integrate information on individual indicators into more general evaluation criteria. The rule‐based approach proposed here can be readily applicable to any kind of restoration project, provided that some information, even if vague and uncertain, is available for a variety of assessment indicators. The evaluation of long‐established forest restoration projects implemented in Spain revealed important asymmetries in the degree of restoration success between technical, structural, functional, and socioeconomic criteria.     

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

We discuss aspects of one of the most important issues in ecological restoration: how to evaluate restoration success. This first requires clearly stated and justified 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 justified 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 sufficient 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 specific 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.     

Adaptive management of coastal ecosystem restoration projects

There is a clear need to apply better and more effective management schemes to coastal ecosystem restoration projects. It is very common for aquatic ecosystem restoration projects not to meet their goals. Poor performance has led to a high degree of uncertainty about the potential success of any restoration effort. Under adaptive management, the knowledge gained through monitoring of the project and social policies is translated into restoration policy and program redesign. Planners and managers can utilize the information from the monitoring programs in an effective way to assure that project goals are met or that informed and objective decisions are made to address both ecological and societal needs. The three main ingredients of an effective adaptive management plan in a restoration project are: (1) a clear goal statement; (2) a conceptual model; and (3) a decision framework. The goal ‘drives’ the design of the project and helps guide the development of performance criteria. The goal statement and performance criteria provide the means by which the system can be judged. With the conceptual model, the knowledge base from the field of ecological science plays an active and critical role in designing the project to meet the goal. A system-development matrix provides a simple decision framework to view the alternative states for the system during development, incorporate knowledge gained through the monitoring program, and formulate a decision on actions to take if the system is not meeting its goal.     

Restoration goals: Why are fauna still overlooked in the process of recovering functioning ecosystems and what can be done about it?

Despite the evidence that fauna play complex and critical roles in ecosystems (e.g. pollination and nutrient cycling) and the knowledge that they need to be considered in restoration, fauna often remain poorly represented in restoration goal setting, monitoring and assessments of restoration success. Fauna clearly are integral to the aspirations of achieving full ecosystem recovery. However, over‐reaching assumptions about the unassisted return of fauna to restored sites, low investment in fauna monitoring, and minimal consideration of the requirements for fauna monitoring in regulatory guidance and standards appear to have led to the historically vegetation‐centric approaches to rehabilitation and ecological restoration. We argue that ecological complexities render assumptions of unassisted fauna return inappropriate in many situations and may represent a missed opportunity to enhance ecological outcomes and improve restoration trajectories. We advocate for greater consideration of fauna as facilitators of ecological restoration and, particularly for well‐funded projects, for monitoring to place greater emphasis on examining the behaviour and resilience of restored fauna communities. There is a clear need for both industry and regulators to recognise that fauna can be crucial facilitators of restoration and appreciate that the return and monitoring of functional faunal communities can be costly, challenging and may require detailed study across a wide range of taxonomic groups. Failure to advance from business as usual models may risk leaving a legacy of ostensibly functional, but biodiversity‐depauperate, restored ecosystems.     

Disturbance: a double-edged sword for restoration in a changing climate

Ecological restoration often relies on disturbance as a tool for establishing target plant communities, but disturbance can be a double-edged sword, at times initiating invasion and unintended outcomes. Here we test how fire disturbance, designed to enhance restoration seeding success, combines with climate and initial vegetation conditions to shift perennial versus annual grass dominance and overall community diversity in Pacific Northwest grasslands. We seeded both native and introduced perennial grasses and native forbs in paired, replicated burned-unburned plots in three sites along a latitudinal climate gradient from southern Oregon to central-western Washington. Past restoration and climate manipulations at each site had increased the variation of starting conditions between plots. Burning promoted the expansion of extant forbs and perennial grasses across all sites. Burning also enhanced the seeding success of native perennial grass and native forbs at the northern and central site, and the success of introduced perennial grasses across all three sites. Annual grass dominance was driven more by latitude than burning, with annuals maintaining their dominance in the south and perennials in the north. At the same time, unrestored grasslands surrounding all sites remained dominated by perennial grasses, suggesting that initial plot clearing may have allowed for annual grass invasion in the southern site. When paired with disturbance, further warming may increase the risk of annual grass dominance, a potentially persistent state.     

基于生境等价分析法的胶州湾围填海造地生态损害评估

围填海造地的生态损害是指围填海造地所引致的海洋生态系统服务功能的下降,包括生物资源消失、生态调节功能减弱以及生物栖息地破坏等。针对胶州湾围填海造地规模及其生态影响,使用生境等价分析法,对围填海造地的资源和生态服务功能的受损程度和补偿规模进行了评估。结果表明,1988-2005年胶州湾填海造地的资源生态受损程度为41.33%,以退田还海作为修复工程,修复期为8a,在5%的折现率水平下,修复工程的规模应为22.47 km²,才能使被填海域的生态服务功能恢复到初始水平。这一结论可作为地方政府对胶州湾围填海造地实施生态修复建设和生态补偿管理的技术依据。     

Predicting restoration outcomes based on organizational and ecological factors

For restoration to be an effective strategy to reverse large‐scale habitat loss and land degradation, funding programs need policies that promote selection of and commitment to projects that can reasonably be expected to succeed. Programmatic project selection practices have received minimal formal evaluation, despite their importance. In this study, we considered the extent to which a program needs to consider both ecological and organizational factors during project selection in order to minimize the incidence of project failure. Our assessment of a long‐term program that funds ecological restoration efforts across Minnesota (U.S.A.), based on project records, manager surveys, and field surveys, yielded several broadly relevant insights. First, factors well understood to confer ecological resilience (level of landscape alteration and starting condition) were clearly associated with restoration outcomes, regardless of time‐since‐initiation of restoration. Second, restoration of low‐resilience ecosystems is typically a labor‐ and skill‐intensive enterprise for organizations that undertake them. Our analysis revealed four organizational limitations, in addition to insufficient funds, that hindered capacity to keep projects on‐track: lack of planning and goal‐setting, inadequate staffing, leadership change, and incomplete records. Third, to reduce risk, programs do not necessarily need to avoid challenging projects, but do need to consider whether organizations proposing restorations have adequate internal capacity to competently plan and to sustain actions for a duration sufficient to restore ecological resilience. If a restoration is degraded enough to require human intervention to recover, the outcome of a project is as likely to reflect its organizational reality as much as its ecological circumstances.     

A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration

Coastal wetlands are considered to be amongst the most productive ecosystems and can provide invaluable ecological services. However, coastal wetlands are listed amongst the most threatened ecosystems suffering from anthropogenic activities. The loss or degradation of coastal wetlands has drawn a high level of attention to wetland restoration. Improvement of the structure and function of degraded, damaged and destroyed wetlands may be achieved through ecological restoration. Large numbers of restoration projects have been conducted worldwide based on different restoration goals and different methods. It is undoubtedly important to evaluate whether coastal wetland restoration is successful. However, coastal wetland restoration assessment has become challenging because of current disagreement on definitions and concepts of restoration evaluation. We reviewed the methodology of coastal wetland restoration and criteria for success evaluation, and then summarized the issues for current wetland restoration and success evaluation based on literature review. Moreover, we used an estuarine wetland affected by urbanization as a sample to demonstrate how to establish a success indicator system for guiding wetland restoration and evaluating the success of wetland restoration.     

Stream Restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Analysis of Interviews with Project Managers

Hundreds of millions of dollars per year are spent on river restoration in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), but little is known about the effectiveness of this effort. To help address this gap, we analyzed a database containing 23,000 projects at 35,000 locations in the region. We selected a subset of these projects for interviews using a survey instrument developed by a national team of scientists. In total, 47 project contacts in the PNW were interviewed to learn from the individuals directly involved in restoration. At least one‐third of the projects surveyed (34%) did not conduct sufficient monitoring to evaluate effectiveness. More than two‐thirds (70%) of all respondents reported their projects were successful, but 43% either have no success criteria or are unaware of any criteria for their project. Although almost two‐thirds (66%) of respondents anticipate a need for ongoing project maintenance, less than half (43%) have maintenance funds available. These findings suggest that establishing a connection between effectiveness monitoring and project implementation is not a usual component of project design. Consequently, we can only assess the benefits in a few isolated projects and cannot quantify the cumulative benefits of restoration on a larger scale. These findings highlight the need for (1) planning prior to implementation of restoration projects that accounts for monitoring design; (2) coordinated effectiveness monitoring to assess cumulative effects of restoration; and (3) management and maintenance of projects based on real measures of project performance.     

Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium

The extent of human‐induced change and damage to Earth's ecosystems renders ecosystem repair an essential part of our future survival strategy, and this demands that restoration ecology provide effective conceptual and practical tools for this task. We argue that restoration ecology has to be an integral component of land management in today's world, and to be broadly applicable, has to have a clearly articulated conceptual basis. This needs to recognize that most ecosystems are dynamic and hence restoration goals cannot be based on static attributes. Setting clear and achievable goals is essential, and these should focus on the desired characteristics for the system in the future, rather than in relation to what these were in the past. Goal setting requires that there is a clear understanding of the restoration options available (and the relative costs of different options). The concept of restoration thresholds suggests that options are determined by the current state of the system in relation to biotic and abiotic thresholds. A further important task is the development of effective and easily measured success criteria. Many parameters could be considered for inclusion in restoration success criteria, but these are often ambiguous or hard to measure. Success criteria need to relate clearly back to specific restoration goals. If restoration ecology is to be successfully practiced as part of humanity's response to continued ecosystem change and degradation, restoration ecologists need to rise to the challenges of meshing science, practice and policy. Restoration ecology is likely to be one of the most important fields of the coming century.     

区域尺度生态修复空间辨识研究进展

区域尺度辨识生态修复空间是进行生态恢复与重建的重要前提,对区域生态文明建设和可持续发展具有重要作用。如何构建科学合理、面向政策和民众需求的生态修复空间辨识指标体系,目前已成为生态学研究的热点问题之一。系统梳理生态空间评价理论,综合构建生态修复空间辨识框架,包括评价对象的选择、评价指标筛选的原则、指标体系构建的主要方法和评价指标权重设定等方面,在区域生态评价的基础上,强调政策目标、民众需求,构建了生态质量、生态系统服务、生态系统健康3个方面18个指标,能够较全面反映区域生态空间主要特征,以期为构建区域尺度生态修复空间辨识指标体系提供参考,为生态恢复和重建提供科学依据。研究还展望了区域尺度下生态修复空间辨识的重点发展方向,即加强复合生态系统理论的应用,统筹社会、经济、自然因子开展综合评价,并推动多尺度评价结果的融合与应用。     

Incorporating biophysical ecology into high‐resolution restoration targets: insect pollinator habitat suitability models

Species distribution models can be informative of the biodiversity impacts of changing environments at global, national, and regional scales, but are often constrained in their resolution to extents not relevant to individual, intensive ecological management programs. We constructed a high‐resolution topoclimatic model of spring and summer temperatures across a 152 km² restoration area on the Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia, and used it to project energetic expenditure and habitat suitability estimates for four major hymenopteran pollinators. For all species, the most heavily modified landscapes were the least suitable, but only for one species, Zapsilothynnus nigripes, was there evidence that the upper thermal tolerance threshold was exceeded broadly. However, at the higher environmental temperatures that we modeled, some species would need to forage up to 10 times their own body mass every hour to meet their energetic requirements. It seems unlikely that the nutritional requirements of most insect pollinators operating at these higher metabolic rates could be met in an impoverished restoration ecosystem, although resource availability remains to be quantified in these habitats. Hence, to increase the likelihood of restoration success by restoring insect pollination networks, nutritional resources may need to be increased during restoration. Accounting for the way that thermoenergetic requirements shape ecological interactions better positions management trajectories aimed at restoring and maintaining key insect pollinators in “novel” ecosystems.     

Evaluating Stream Restoration in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through Practitioner Interviews

River restoration is an integral part of restoring the Chesapeake Bay. As part of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS), we conducted 47 independent interviews with stream restoration project managers randomly selected from a database of 4,700 projects in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Here we present results from those interviews and characterize patterns in project goals, design, and expenditures, trends in project evaluation, and characterize project success as reported by interviewees. Interviewed practitioners reported that the majority of their projects were designed by private consultants. One‐third of projects were part of a watershed management plan and 70% were linked to other projects within the same watershed. Most interviewees considered their projects to be successful, and 76% of projects had conducted some form of project‐associated monitoring. Although most interviewees based their evaluation of success on observations or monitoring data, respondents indicated that very few projects had explicitly stated quantifiable project objectives within their design plans. Many interviewed practitioners specifically commented at the end of the surveys on the important role of stakeholder involvement and the need for initiatives to fund project monitoring.     

不同类型生态补偿在山水林田湖草生态保护与修复中的作用

生态补偿作为环境政策工具在环境保护和修复中发挥着重要作用,对山水林田湖草生态保护与修复也将起到支撑作用。通过梳理政府出资的生态补偿、市场化生态补偿以及政府和社会资本合作的生态补偿对山水林田湖草生态保护与修复的作用、实现的方式、适用的山水林田湖草生态保护与修复类型等,认为：政府出资的生态补偿,是山水林田湖草生态保护与修复的基础资金来源,尤其是针对在生态保护红线以内进行的生态保护与修复活动,市场主体无法通过生态保护与修复而实现营利,这时主要靠政府出资的生态补偿来实现生态保护与修复。市场化生态补偿是政府主导的生态补偿之外的重要手段,主要适用于能创造经济效益的生态保护与修复项目,它对于缓解财政支出压力,拓宽生态修复资金渠道和增加资本市场投资渠道都具有重要作用,是生态保护与修复融资的重要发展方向。政府与社会资本合作,可以充分发挥政府的统筹协调作用与市场的资源配置作用,各取所长,相互配合,共同致力于生态保护与修复。     

Defining and evaluating the ecological restoration economy

For decades, industry groups and many media outlets have propagated the notion that environmental protection is bad for business. However, missing from this public debate has been a detailed accounting of the U.S. economic output and employment that are created through conservation, restoration, and mitigation actions, which we call the “Restoration Economy.” In this paper, we review related literature, including 14 local and state‐level case studies of privately funded environmental restoration projects. We also review federal and state government programs that fund restoration throughout the United States, revealing the complex nature of this sector. We find growing evidence that the restoration industry not only protects public environmental goods but also contributes to national economic growth and employment, supporting as many as 33 jobs per $1 million invested, with an employment multiplier of between 1.48 and 3.8 (the number of jobs supported by every restoration job) and an output multiplier of between 1.6 and 2.59 (multiplier for total economic output from investments). The existing literature also shows that restoration investments lead to significant positive economic and employment impacts and appear to have particularly localized benefits, which can be attributed to the tendency for projects to employ local labor and materials. While these initial figures are promising, the extent of environmental restoration activities and benefits at a national level is not yet well understood. Our findings reveal the need for a methodological framework for more accurately and broadly estimating the size of the U.S. restoration sector and its impact on the U.S. economy.     

典型脆弱生态区生态技术评价方法及应用专题导读

全球经济发展和日益增强的人类活动给业已脆弱的生态系统带来了巨大挑战,寻求尊重自然规律、环境友好的生态治理与恢复技术成为实现联合国可持续发展目标的重要组成部分。近年来,国内外科学家和生态治理机构研发出了一系列技术体系和技术模式,对脆弱生态区退化生态系统展开了全面的治理和恢复。然而,缺乏对这些治理技术的评价和优选方法的研发和应用在很大程度上限制了优良技术的筛选和推广应用,造成了资金和人力的浪费和损失。针对这些问题,科技部在2016年启动了国家重点研发计划项目"生态技术评价方法、指标体系与全球生态治理技术评价",其中重要的任务之一是对生态技术进行梳理、评价和优选。本文旨在对已有的评价方法和指标体系的研究进展进行系统梳理,对生态技术的特征、生态技术评价的基本步骤和原则、生态技术的三阶段评估方法等进行了界定和深入分析,对本专题收录的14篇学术文章所涵盖的评价方法和模型研发、案例应用等进行了介绍,以期为筛选优良技术、提高生态技术应用效果、促进优良技术的输出和引进提供参考。     

River Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: Data and Experiential Knowledge to Inform Future Efforts

Despite some highly visible projects that have resulted in environmental benefits, recent efforts to quantify the number and distribution of river restoration projects revealed a paucity of written records documenting restoration outcomes. Improving restoration designs and setting watershed priorities rely on collecting and making accessible this critical information. Information within the unpublished notes of restoration project managers is useful but rarely documents ecological improvements. This special section of Restoration Ecology is devoted to the current state of knowledge on river restoration. We provide an overview of the section’s articles, reflecting on lessons learned, which have implications for the implementation, legal, and financing frameworks for restoration. Our reflections are informed by two databases developed under the auspices of the National River Restoration Science Synthesis project and by extensive interactions with those who fund, implement, and permit restoration. Requiring measurable ecological success criteria, comprehensive watershed plans, and tracking of when and where restoration projects are implemented are critical to improving the health of U.S. waters. Documenting that a project was put in the ground and stayed intact cannot be equated with ecological improvements. However, because significant ecological improvements can come with well‐designed and ‐implemented stream and river restorations, a small investment in documenting the factors contributing to success will lead to very large returns in the health of our nation’s waterways. Even projects that may appear to be failures initially can be turned into success stories by applying the knowledge gained from monitoring the project in an adaptive restoration approach.     

Factoring restoration practitioner perceptions into future design of mechanical direct seeders for native seeds

The methods used to distribute seeds influence the success of a restoration project. We surveyed 183 restoration practitioners from across the globe with the aim of identifying common limitations to the effective use of mechanical direct seeding in large‐scale restoration practice to highlight avenues for design improvement to mechanized seeding equipment. Results from this survey show that direct seeding methods are commonly used for ecological restoration and agree with other studies that suggest the method can achieve results much quicker and cheaper than the alternative of distributing nursery‐grown tube stock. However, this study indicates that current mechanical direct seeding methods lack adequate control of seed sowing depth and spatial distribution and highlight that the inability to sow seeds of varying morphology over complex topography are common limitations to direct seeding. To improve restoration success, engineering improvements to mechanical direct seeders used in large‐scale restoration should focus in particular on addressing issues of precision of delivery for diverse seed types and landscapes.     

Making the connection: expanding the role of restoration genetics in restoring and evaluating connectivity

The success of restoration activities is affected by connectivity with the surrounding landscape. From a genetic perspective, landscape connectivity can influence gene flow, effective size, and genetic diversity of populations, which in turn have impacts on the fitness and adaptive potential of species in restored areas. Researchers and practitioners are increasingly using genetic data to incorporate elements of connectivity into restoration planning and evaluation. We show that genetic studies of connectivity can improve restoration planning in three main ways. First, by comparing genetic estimates of contemporary and historical gene flow and population size, practitioners can establish historical baselines that may provide targets for restoration of connectivity. Second, empirical estimates of dispersal, landscape resistance to movement, and adaptive genetic variance can be derived from genetic data and used to parameterize existing restoration planning tools. Finally, restoration actions can also be targeted to remove barriers to gene flow or mitigate pinch‐points in corridors. We also discuss appropriate methods for evaluating the restoration of gene flow over timescales required by practitioners. Collaboration between restoration geneticists, ecologists, and practitioners is needed to develop practical and innovative ways to further incorporate connectivity into restoration practice.     

Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Results from a Survey of U.S. River Restoration Practitioners

Despite expenditures of more than 1 billion dollars annually, there is little information available about project motivations, actions, and results for the vast majority of river restoration efforts. We performed confidential telephone interviews with 317 restoration project managers from across the United States with the goals of (1) assessing project motivations and the metrics of project evaluation and (2) estimating the proportion of projects that set and meet criteria for ecologically successful river restoration projects. According to project managers, ecological degradation typically motivated restoration projects, but post‐project appearance and positive public opinion were the most commonly used metrics of success. Less than half of all projects set measurable objectives for their projects, but nearly two‐thirds of all interviewees felt that their projects had been “completely successful.” Projects that we classified as highly effective were distinct from the full database in that most had significant community involvement and an advisory committee. Interviews revealed that many restoration practitioners are frustrated by the lack of funding for and emphasis on project monitoring. To remedy this, we recommend a national program of strategic monitoring focused on a subset of future projects. Our interviews also suggest that merely conducting and publishing more scientific studies will not lead to significant improvements in restoration practice; direct, collaborative involvement between scientists, managers, and practitioners is required for forward progress in the science and application of river restoration.