Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 367–379 | Cite as

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

  • F. Brie Van Cleve
  • Thomas Leschine
  • Terrie Klinger
  • Charles Simenstad
Article

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.

Keywords

Environmental restoration Science utilization Environmental decision-making Program evaluation 

Literature Cited

  1. Allen E. B., W. W. Covington, D. A. Falk. 1997. Developing the conceptual basis for restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 5:275–276Google Scholar
  2. 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: 203–232Google Scholar
  3. Boesch D. F. 1996. Science and management in four U.S. coastal ecosystems dominated by land-ocean interactions. Journal of Coastal Conservation 2:103–114Google Scholar
  4. Bradshaw A. D. 1983. The reconstruction of ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 10:1–17Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw A. D. 1996. Underlying principles of restoration. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 53:3–9Google Scholar
  6. Brewer G. D., P. deLeon. 1983. The foundations of policy analysis. The Dorsey Press, Chicago, Illinois, 476 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 7Google Scholar
  8. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Dexter L. A. 1970. Elite and specialized interviewing. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois, 205 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Dobson A. P., A. D. Bradshaw, A. J. Baker. 1997. Hopes for the future: Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Science 277:515–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doremus H. 1997. Listing decisions under the endangered species act: Why better science isn’t always better policy. Washington University Law Quarterly 75:1029Google Scholar
  12. 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 3:3–10Google Scholar
  13. 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: 202–234Google Scholar
  14. Healey M. C, T. M. Hennessey, 1994, The utilization of scientific information in the management of estuarine ecosystems. Ocean and Coastal Management 23:167–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Higgs E. S. 1994. Expanding the scope of restoration ecology. Restoration and Management Notes 2:138–146Google Scholar
  16. Higgs E. S. 1997. What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology 11:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Higgs E. S. 2003. Nature by design: People, natural processes, and ecological restoration. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 341 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Houck, O. 2003. Tales from a troubled marriage: Science and law in environmental policy. Science 302:1926–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Imperial M. T. 1999a. Analyzing institutional arrangements for ecosystem-based management: Lessons from the Rhode Island Salt Ponds SAM Plan. Coastal Management 27:31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Imperial M. T. 1999b. Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: The institutional analysis and development framework. Environmental Management 24:449–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jasanoff, S. 1996. The dilemma of environmental democracy. Issues in Science and Technology 13:63–70Google Scholar
  22. Karr J. 1997. Measuring biological integrity. In G. K. Meffe, C. R. Carroll (eds.), Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pp: 483–485Google Scholar
  23. Kvale S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage Publications, London, pp. 130–131Google Scholar
  24. Lackey R. T. 1998. Seven pillars of ecosystem management. Landscape and Urban Planning 40:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lackey R. T. 2001. Values, policy, and ecosystem health. Bioscience 51:437–443Google Scholar
  26. Lee K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 243 ppGoogle Scholar
  27. MacMahon J. A. 1997. Ecological Restoration. In G. K. Meffe, C. R. Carroll (eds.) Principles of conservation biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts. Pp: 479–512Google Scholar
  28. 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: 220–246Google Scholar
  29. March J. G. (ed.) 1965. Handbook of organizations. Rand McNally and Company, Chicago, 1247ppGoogle Scholar
  30. Marsh G. P. 1864. Man and nature; or, physical geography as modified by human action. Charles Scribner & Co., New York, 577 ppGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 552 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. National Research Council. 1994. Priorities for coastal ecosystem science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 106 ppGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council. 1995. Science, policy, and the coast: Improving decisionmaking. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 81 ppGoogle Scholar
  34. National Research Council. 2004. Adaptive management for water resources project planning. National Academy Press, Washington, DC., 123 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Palumbo D. J. 1987. Politics and evaluation. In D. J. Palumbo (ed.) The politics of program evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, California. Pages 12–46Google Scholar
  36. Putt A. D., J. F. Syringer. 1989. Policy research: Concepts, methods, and applications. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 398 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Quade E. S. 1975. Analysis for public decisions. Elsevier North Holland, Inc., New York, 322 ppGoogle Scholar
  38. Sabatier P. A., J. Jenkins-Smith (eds.) 1993. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, Bolder, Colorado, 290 ppGoogle Scholar
  39. Schnellnburger H. J. 1999. ‘Earth System’ analysis and the second Copernician revolution. Nature 402:C19–C23Google Scholar
  40. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  41. 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 ppGoogle Scholar
  42. von Winterfeldt D, W. Edwards. 1986, Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University, Cambridge, 604 ppGoogle Scholar
  43. Wholey J. S., H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer (eds.) 1994. Handbook of practical program evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 622 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Winterhalder K., A. F. Clewell, J. Aronson. 2004. Values and science in ecological restoration—a response to Davis and Slobodkin. Restoration Ecology 12:14–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Brie Van Cleve
    • 1
  • Thomas Leschine
    • 1
  • Terrie Klinger
    • 1
  • Charles Simenstad
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Marine AffairsUniversity of WashingtonWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.School of Aquatic and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations