scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Andre F. Clewell

Bio: Andre F. Clewell is an academic researcher from Verizon Communications. The author has contributed to research in topics: Restoration ecology & Natural capital. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 19 publications receiving 1064 citations.

Papers
More filters
Book
15 Jan 2008
TL;DR: A completely revised and reorganised edition of "Ecological Restoration" is presented in this article, with a focus on clarifying terminology, stressing the importance of precision in language for a field that is quickly becoming an established discipline.
Abstract: Originally published in 2007, "Ecological Restoration" has become one of the seminal books in this quickly developing field. This completely revised and reorganised edition presents up-to-date developments and current trends in the field by two of its leaders. Among its key features are: entirely new Virtual Field Trips, with additional examples woven into chapters; full treatment of the controversial topic of the restoration of semicultural ecosystems; up-to-date discussion of reference systems and reference models, which inform almost every aspect of restoration planning; and full discussion of the global issue of ecosystem impairment and the complex topics of what restoration recovery means and how it is accomplished. The authors focus on clarifying terminology, stressing the importance of precision in language for a field that is quickly becoming an established discipline. This new edition will be an invaluable resource for practitioners and theoreticians from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives, ranging from backyard volunteers to highly trained academic scientists and professional consultants.

279 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that technocratic restoration is too authoritarian, idealistic restoration is overly restricted by lack of administrative strengths, and that a melding of the two approaches would benefit both, and the biotic and heuristic rationales can be satisfied within the contexts of the other rationales.
Abstract: The reasons ecosystems should be restored are numerous, disparate, generally understated, and commonly underappreciated. We offer a typology in which these reasons—or motivations—are ordered among five rationales: technocratic, biotic, heuristic, idealistic, and pragmatic. The technocratic rationale encompasses restoration that is conducted by government agencies or other large organizations to satisfy specific institutional missions and mandates. The biotic rationale for restoration is to recover lost aspects of local biodiversity. The heuristic rationale attempts to elicit or demonstrate ecological principles and biotic expressions. The idealistic rationale consists of personal and cultural expressions of concern or atonement for environmental degradation, reengagement with nature, and/or spiritual fulfillment. The pragmatic rationale seeks to recover or repair ecosystems for their capacity to provide a broad array of natural services and products upon which human economies depend and to counteract extremes in climate caused by ecosystem loss. We propose that technocratic restoration, as currently conceived and practiced, is too narrow in scope and should be broadened to include the pragmatic rationale whose overarching importance is just beginning to be recognized. We suggest that technocratic restoration is too authoritarian, that idealistic restoration is overly restricted by lack of administrative strengths, and that a melding of the two approaches would benefit both. Three recent examples are given of restoration that blends the technocratic, idealistic, and pragmatic rationales and demonstrates the potential for a more unified approach. The biotic and heuristic rationales can be satisfied within the contexts of the other rationales.

189 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors point out that restoration is complementary not only to nature conservation but also to sustainable, equitable socio-economic development, and that nature conservation, ecological restoration, and sustainable economic development policies should therefore be planned, budgeted and executed conjointly.

137 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships, and found that only 26% of the participants believed that scientist/ practitioner relationships were "generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other".
Abstract: Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic relationship between the science of restoration ecology and the practice of ecological restoration has been a central but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in 1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents' assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic than their assessments of restoration science. Only 26% believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were “generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the second and third most frequently cited category of factors limiting the science and practice of restoration, respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary political support for more funding of restoration science, practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement these recommendations is to create a “Restoration Extension Service” modeled after the United States Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service. We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and relevant stakeholders.

71 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but it would encourage future projects to include at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and at leastTwo reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.
Abstract: The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.

965 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the biogeography and the determinants of composition and structure of riparian vegetation in temperate and subtropical regions and conceptualize the components of resilience in these systems.
Abstract: Rivers are conduits for materials and energy; this, the frequent and intense disturbances that these systems experience, and their narrow, linear nature, create problems for conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in the face of increasing human influence. In most parts of the world, riparian zones are highly modified. Changes caused by alien plants — or environmental changes that facilitate shifts in dominance creating novel ecosystems — are often important agents of perturbation in these systems. Many restoration projects are underway. Objective frameworks based on an understanding of biogeographical processes at different spatial scales (reach, segment, catchment), the specific relationships between invasive plants and resilience and ecosystem functioning, and realistic endpoints are needed to guide sustainable restoration initiatives. This paper examines the biogeography and the determinants of composition and structure of riparian vegetation in temperate and subtropical regions and conceptualizes the components of resilience in these systems. We consider changes to structure and functioning caused by, or associated with, alien plant invasions, in particular those that lead to breached abiotic- or biotic thresholds. These pose challenges when formulating restoration programmes. Pervasive and escalating human-mediated changes to multiple factors and at a range of scales in riparian environments demand innovative and pragmatic approaches to restoration. The application of a new framework accommodating such complexity is demonstrated with reference to a hypothetical riparian ecosystem under three scenarios: (1) system unaffected by invasive plants; (2) system initially uninvaded, but with flood-generated incursion of alien plants and escalating invasion-driven alteration; and (3) system affected by both invasions and engineering interventions. The scheme has been used to derive a decision-making framework for restoring riparian zones in South Africa and could guide similar initiatives in other parts of the world.

849 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is argued 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.
Abstract: 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

830 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the implications of climate change for the broader practice of ecological restoration must be considered, and the usefulness of historical ecosystem conditions as targets and references must be set against the likelihood that restoring these historic ecosystems is unlikely to be easy, or even possible, in the changed biophysical conditions of the future.
Abstract: There is an increasing consensus that global climate change occurs and that potential changes in climate are likely to have important regional consequences for biota and ecosystems. Ecological restoration, including (re)afforestation and rehabilitation of degraded land, is included in the array of potential human responses to climate change. However, the implications of climate change for the broader practice of ecological restoration must be considered. In particular, the usefulness of historical ecosystem conditions as targets and references must be set against the likelihood that restoring these historic ecosystems is unlikely to be easy, or even possible, in the changed biophysical conditions of the future. We suggest that more consideration and debate needs to be directed at the implications of climate change for restoration practice.

811 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors review several approaches to include economic considerations in biodiversity conservation, and show cases where monetary valuation is relevant and other cases where it is controversial and even counterproductive, as it undermines the objectives of conservation.
Abstract: After 1992 many conservation biologists thought that the use of economic instruments would be more effective to halt biodiversity loss than policies based on setting apart some natural spaces outside the market. At the same time there was a new elaboration of the concept of ecosystem services and, since 1997, there have been attempts at costing in money terms the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity, including the high profile TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) project (2008-2011). Our discussion rests on instances showing the analytical implications of three main socio-economic meanings of biodiversity loss: 1) the loss of natural capital; 2) the loss of ecosystem functions; and 3) the loss of cultural values and human rights to livelihood. We review several approaches to include economic considerations in biodiversity conservation. We show cases where monetary valuation is relevant and other cases where it is controversial and even counterproductive, as it undermines the objectives of conservation.

729 citations