Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Evaluation of the Influence of Natural Science in Regional-Scale Restoration Projects

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regional-scale restoration is a tool of growing importance in environmental management, and the number, scope, and complexity of restoration programs is increasing. Although the importance of natural science to the success of such projects generally is recognized, the actual use of natural science in these programs rarely has been evaluated. We used techniques of program evaluation to examine the use of natural science in six American and three Western European regional-scale restoration programs. Our results suggest that ensuring the technical rigor and directed application of the science is important to program development and delivery. However, the influence of science may be constrained if strategies for its integration into the broader program are lacking. Consequently, the influence of natural science in restoration programs is greatest when formal mechanisms exist for incorporating science into programs, for example, via a framework for integration of science and policy. Our evaluation proposes a model that can be used to enhance the influence of natural science in regional-scale restoration programs in the United States and elsewhere.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Allen E. B., W. W. Covington, D. A. Falk. 1997. Developing the conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5:275–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson J. L., R. Hilborn, R. T. Lackey, D. Ludwig. 2003. Watershed restoration—adaptive decision making in the face of uncertainty. In R. C. Wissmar, P. A. Bisson (eds.), Strategies for restoring river ecosystems: Sources of variability and uncertainty in natural and managed systems. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. Pp: 203–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Boesch D. F. 1996. Science and management in four U.S. coastal ecosystems dominated by land-ocean interactions. Journal of Coastal Conservation 2:103–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw A. D. 1983. The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 10:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw A. D. 1996. Underlying principles of restoration. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 53:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer G. D., P. deLeon. 1983. The foundations of policy analysis. The Dorsey Press, Chicago, Illinois, 476 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark W., R. Mitchell, D. Cash, F. Alcock. 2002. Information as influence: How institutions mediate the impact of scientific assessments on global environmental affairs. John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 7

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, J., D. F. Boesch, W. J. Mitsch, K. Orth, L. Shabman, C. A. Simenstad, W. Streever, C. Watson, J. Wells, and D. Whigham. 2004. Lessons learned by the National Technical Review Committee for the Louisiana Coastal Area Study. Louisiana Coastal Area Study, National Technical Review Committee, 29 pp

  • Dexter L. A. 1970. Elite and specialized interviewing. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 205 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, A. J. Baker. 1997. Hopes for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277:515–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus H. 1997. Listing decisions under the endangered species act: Why better science isn’t always better policy. Washington University Law Quarterly 75:1029

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaudet C. L., M. P. Wong, A Brady, R. Kent. 1997. How are we managing? The transition from environmental quality to ecosystem health. Ecosystem Health 3:3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba E. G., Y. S. Lincoln. 1987. The countenances of fourth-generation evaluation: Description, judgment, and negotiation. In D. J. Palumbo (ed.), The politics of program evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California. Pp: 202–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey M. C, T. M. Hennessey, 1994, The utilization of scientific information in the management of estuarine ecosystems. Ocean and Coastal Management 23:167–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs E. S. 1994. Expanding the scope of restoration ecology. Restoration and Management Notes 2:138–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgs E. S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology 11:338–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgs E. S. 2003. Nature by design: People, natural processes, and ecological restoration. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 341 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Houck, O. 2003. Tales from a troubled marriage: Science and law in environmental policy. Science 302:1926–1929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial M. T. 1999a. Analyzing institutional arrangements for ecosystem-based management: Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM Plan. Coastal Management 27:31–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial M. T. 1999b. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24:449–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 1996. The dilemma of environmental democracy. Issues in Science and Technology 13:63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr J. 1997. Measuring biological integrity. In G. K. Meffe, C. R. Carroll (eds.), Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pp: 483–485

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, London, pp. 130–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey R. T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey R. T. 2001. Values, policy, and ecosystem health. Bioscience 51:437–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 243 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon J. A. 1997. Ecological Restoration. In G. K. Meffe, C. R. Carroll (eds.) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pp: 479–512

    Google Scholar 

  • MacMahon J. A. 1998. Empirical and theoretical ecology as a basis for restoration: An ecological success story. In M. L. Pace, P. M. Groffman (eds.), Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York Pp: 220–246

    Google Scholar 

  • March J. G. (ed.) 1965. Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1247pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh G. P. 1864. Man and nature; or, physical geography as modified by human action. Charles Scribner & Co., New York, 577 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 552 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1994. Priorities for coastal ecosystem science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 106 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1995. Science, policy, and the coast: Improving decisionmaking. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 81 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 2004. Adaptive management for water resources project planning. National Academy Press, Washington, DC., 123 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Palumbo D. J. 1987. Politics and evaluation. In D. J. Palumbo (ed.) The politics of program evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California. Pages 12–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Putt A. D., J. F. Syringer. 1989. Policy research: Concepts, methods, and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 398 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Quade E. S. 1975. Analysis for public decisions. Elsevier North Holland, Inc., New York, 322 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P. A., J. Jenkins-Smith (eds.) 1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, Bolder, Colorado, 290 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnellnburger H. J. 1999. ‘Earth System’ analysis and the second Copernician revolution. Nature 402:C19–C23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cleve F. B. 2004. The role of natural science in regional scale restoration efforts in European countries and the United States. School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 102 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cleve F. B., C. A. Simenstad, F. Goetz, T. Mumford. 2004. The role of “best available science” in ecosystem restoration: Lessons learned from large-scale restoration efforts in the U.S. Washington Sea Grant Program, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 37 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D, W. Edwards. 1986, Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University, Cambridge, 604 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Wholey J. S., H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.) 1994. Handbook of practical program evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 622 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Winterhalder K., A. F. Clewell, J. Aronson. 2004. Values and science in ecological restoration—a response to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology 12:14–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding to FBVC was provided by the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project, Washington State Sea Grant College Program, UW School of Marine Affairs, Smith College Frances Grace Scholarship, and Anchor Environmental, L.L.C. M. Logsdon and M. van Heeswijk were especially helpful in the conduct of this research. This study would not have been possible without the willing participation of independent experts and representatives from regional-scale restoration programs, and we are grateful for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Avenue NESeattle, Washington, 98105, USA

    F. Brie Van Cleve, Thomas Leschine & Terrie Klinger

  2. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, 1122 Boat Street Seattle, Washington, 98105, USA

    Charles Simenstad

Authors
  1. F. Brie Van Cleve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Leschine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Terrie Klinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles Simenstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Leschine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Cleve, F.B., Leschine, T., Klinger, T. et al. An Evaluation of the Influence of Natural Science in Regional-Scale Restoration Projects. Environmental Management 37, 367–379 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0014-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0014-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation