Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A multi-criterion approach for prioritizing areas in urban ecosystems for active restoration following invasive plant control

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Resources for biodiversity conservation and invasive plant management are limited, and restoring invaded vegetation is labour-intensive and expensive. Managers must prioritize their actions to achieve their goals efficiently and effectively. They must distinguish between areas that require only the removal of invasive alien plants (“passive restoration”) from those that require additional restoration measures (“active restoration”). This study used a multi-criterion approach (Analytical Hierarchical Process) to develop a framework for identifying areas that require active restoration, and then to prioritize these areas for active restoration. The South African city of Cape Town is used as a test case to illustrate the utility of the framework. Framework criteria selected in determining the need for active restoration included: dominant alien species invading the area, density of invasion, duration of invasion, indigenous vegetation cover, adjacent land use, level of disturbance, size of the area, aspect, soil texture, soil depth and erodibility, slope and vegetation type. In deciding which areas to prioritize for active restoration, factors such as vegetation conservation status, selection in a regional conservation plan and connectivity function were assessed. Importance in ecosystem functioning (by providing a diversity of habitats and soil conservation) and the delivery of ecosystem service benefits were also considered. The resulting framework provides an objective tool for prioritizing sites for active restoration.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ager A, Meznarich P (2014) Accelerated restoration: new landscape tools to prioritize projects and analyze tradeoffs. Science Findings 159. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR, p 6

  • Allsopp MH, Cherry M (2004) An assessment of the impact on the bee and agricultural industries in the Western Cape of the clearing of certain Eucalyptus species using questionnaire survey data. National Government of the Republic of South Africa, Department of Water Affairs, Internal Final Report, Pretoria (South Africa), p 58

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, EB, Roundy, BA, McArthur, ED, Haley, JS (1995) Restoration ecology: limits and possibilities in arid and semiarid lands. In Proceedings of the Wildland Shrub and Arid Land Restoration Symposium, Roundy, BA, McArthur, ED, pp 7–15

  • Aronson J, Milton SJ, Blignaut JN (eds) (2007) Restoring natural capital: science, business, and practice. Society for Ecological Restoration International. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo P, Tommelein ID, Ballard G (2015) Comparing AHP and CBA as decision methods to resolve the choosing problem in detailed design. J Constr Eng Manag 141:401–4063. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beechie T, Pess G, Roni P, Giannico G (2008) Setting river restoration priorities: a review of approaches and a general protocol for identifying and prioritizing actions. N Am J Fish Manag 28:891–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Balvanera P (2007) The future of production systems in a globalized world. Front Ecol Environ 5:191–198. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[191:TFOPSI]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown NJ, Swetnam RD, Treweek JR et al. (1998) Issues in GIS development: adapting to research and policy-needs for management of wet grasslands in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. Int J Geogr Inform Sci 12:465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/136588198241752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA (2008) Urban principles for ecological landscape design and maintenance: scientific fundamentals. Cities Environ 1:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consorte Widis D, BenDor TK, Deegan M (2015) Prioritizing wetland restoration sites: a review and application to a large-scale coastal restoration program. Ecol Restor 33:358–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crookes DJ, Blignaut JN, de Wit MP, Esler KJ, Le Maitre DC, Milton SJ, Mitchell SA, Cloete J, de Abreu P, Fourie (nee Vlok) H, Gull K, Marx D, Mugido W, Ndhlovu T, Nowell M, Pauw M, Rebelo A (2013) System dynamic modelling to assess economic viability and risk trade-offs for ecological restoration in South Africa. J Environ Manag 120:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crossman ND, Bryan BA (2006) Systematic landscape restoration using integer programming. Biol Conserv 128:369–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crouzeilles R, Curran M, Ferreira MS, Lindenmayer DB, Grelle C, Benayas JMR (2016) A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success. Nat Commun 7:11666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DEA (2015) Guidelines for monitoring, control and eradication plans as required by Section 76 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) (NEM:BA) for species listed as invasive in terms of Section 70 of this Act. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. http//www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/legislations/nemba_invasivespecies_controlguideline.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2016

  • De Feo G, De Gisi S (2010) Using an innovative criteria weighting tool for stakeholders involvement to rank MSW facility sites with the AHP. Waste Manag 30:2370–2382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lange W, Stafford W, Forsyth G, Le Maitre D (2012) Incorporating stakeholder preferences in the selection of technologies for using invasive alien plants as a bio-energy feedstock: applying the analytical hierarchy process. J Environ Manag 99:76–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Galván X, Izquierdo J, Benítez J, Pérez-García R (2014) Joint stakeholder decision-making on the management of the Silao–Romita aquifer using AHP. Environ Model Softw 51:310–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickie IA, Bennett BM, Burrows LE, Nuñez MA, Peltzer DA, Porté A, Richardson DM, Rejmánek M, Rundel PW, van Wilgen BW (2013) Conflicting values: ecosystem services and invasive tree management. Biol Invasions 16:705–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-013-0609-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esler KJ, Holmes PM, Richardson DM, Witkowski ETF (2008) Riparian vegetation management in landscapes invaded by alien plants: insights from South Africa. S Afr J Bot 74:397–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2008.01.168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth GG (2013) Prioritising target plant species for early detection and rapid response in the Cape Metropol (No. CSIR/NRE/ECOS/ER/2013/0039/B). CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, Stellenbosch

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth GG, O’Farell PJ, Le Maitre DC (2011) Prioritising quaternary catchments for invasive alien plant control within the Working for Water Free State Region (No. CSIR/NRE/ECO/ER/2011/0039/B). CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, Stellenbosch

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner M, Nottebrock H, Privett SDJ, Richardson DM (2012) Plant invasions, restoration, and economics: perspectives from South African fynbos. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 14:341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2012.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner M, Larson BMH, Irlich UM, Holmes PM, Stafford L, van Wilgen BW, Richardson DM (2016) Managing invasive species in cities: a framework from Cape Town, South Africa. Landsc Urb Plan 151:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner M, Novoa A, Fried J, Richardson DM (2017) Managing invasive species in cities: a decision support framework applied to Cape Town. Biol Invasions 19:3707–3723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-017-1587-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herath G (2004) Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. J Environ Manag 70:263–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2003.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilderbrand RH, Watts AC, Randle AM (2005) The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol Soc 10:19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Esler KJ, Richardson DM, Witkowski ETF (2008) Guidelines for improved management of riparian zones invaded by alien plants in South Africa. S Afr J Bot 74:538–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Rebelo AG, Dorse C, Wood J (2012a) Can Cape Town’s unique biodiversity be saved? Balancing conservation imperatives and development needs. Ecol Soc 17:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Richardson DM (1999) Protocols for restoration based on recruitment dynamics, community structure, and ecosystem function: perspectives from South African fynbos. Restor Ecol 7:215–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Stipinovich A, Purvis A (2012b) City of Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network. Environmental Resource Management Department (EDRM), City of Cape Town

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes PM, Richardson DM, Wilgen BW, Gelderblom C (2000) Recovery of South African fynbos vegetation following alien woody plant clearing and fire: implications for restoration. Austral Ecology 25(6):631–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Labib A (2009) Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: benefits and limitations. OR. Insight 22:201–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotzé I, Beukes H, Van den Berg E, Newby T (2010) National invasive alien plant survey. Agricultural Research Council, Institute for Soil, Climate and Water, Report No. GW/A/2010/21

  • Lee JT, Bailey N, Thompson S (2002) Using geographical information systems to identify and target sites for creation and restoration of native woodlands: a case study of the Chiltern Hills, UK. J Environ Manag 64:25–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Maitre DC, Gaertner M, Marchante E, Ens E, Holmes PM, Pauchard A, O’Farrell PJ, Rogers AM, Blanchard R, Blignaut J (2011) Impacts of invasive Australian acacias: implications for management and restoration. Divers Distrib 17:1015–1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Mark Lonsdale W, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz FA (2000) Biotic Invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecol Appl 10:689–710. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[0689:BICEGC]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maherry AM, Horan MJC, Smith-Adao LB, van Deventer H, Nel JL, Schulze RE, Kunz RP (2013) Delineating river network quinary catchments for South Africa and allocating associated daily hydrological information: Report to the Water Research Commission (No. 2020/1/12). Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (1999) GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchante E, Kjøller A, Struwe S, Freitas H (2008) Short- and long-term impacts of Acacia longifolia invasion on the belowground processes of a Mediterranean coastal dune ecosystem. Appl Soil Ecol 40:210–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman A (2008) Inclusive planning of urban nature. Ecol Restor 26:229–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen AM, Fei S (2015) Assessing the flexibility of the Analytic Hierarchy Process for prioritization of invasive plant management. NeoBiota 27:25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson C, Aradottir AL, Hagen D, Halldórsson G, Høegh K, Mitchell RJ, Raulund-Rasmussen K, Svavarsdóttir K, Tolvanen A, Wilson SD (2016) Evaluating the process of ecological restoration. Ecol Soc 21:41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08289-210141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PML, Le Maitre DC, Holmes PM (2012) Insights and opportunities offered by a rapid ecosystem service assessment in promoting a conservation agenda in an urban biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Soc 17:27

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsi F, Geneletti D (2010) Identifying priority areas for Forest Landscape Restoration in Chiapas (Mexico): an operational approach combining ecological and socioeconomic criteria. Landsc Urb Plan 94:20–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsi F, Geneletti D, Newton AC (2011) Towards a common set of criteria and indicators to identify forest restoration priorities: an expert panel-based approach. Ecol Indic 11:337–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker-Allie F, Richardson DM, Holmes PM (2004) The effects of past management practices for invasive alien plant control on subsequent recovery of fynbos on the Cape Peninsula. S Afr J Bot 70:804–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potgieter LJ, Gaertner M, O’Farrell PJ, Richardson DM (2018) Perceptions of impact: invasive alien plants in the urban environment. J Environ Manag, in press, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport DI, Tambosi LR, Metzger JP (2015) A landscape triage approach: combining spatial and temporal dynamics to prioritize restoration and conservation. J Appl Ecol 52:590–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebelo AG, Holmes PM, Dorse C, Wood J (2011) Cape Town: averting a biodiversity megadisaster? S Afr J Bot 77:20–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rew LJ, Lehnhoff EA, Maxwell BD (2007) Non-indigenous species management using a population prioritization framework. Can J Plant Sci 87:1029–1036. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJPS07121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Gaertner M (2013) Plant invasions as builders and shapers of novel ecosystems. In: Hobbs RJ, Higgs ES, Hall CM (eds) Novel ecosystems: intervening in the New Ecological World Order. Wileym Chichester, UK, pp 102–114

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson DM, Van Wilgen BW, Higgins SI, Trinder-Smith TH, Cowling RM, McKell DH (1996) Current and future threats to plant biodiversity on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. Biodivers Conserv 5:607–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00137612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouget M, Richardson DM, Cowling RM, Lloyd JW, Lombard AT (2003) Current patterns of habitat transformation and future threats to biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Biol Conserv 112:63–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00395-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roura-Pascual N, Richardson DM, Krug RM, Brown A, Chapman RA, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Robertson MP, Stafford L, Van Wilgen BW (2009) Ecology and management of alien plant invasions in South African fynbos: accommodating key complexities in objective decision making. Biol Conserv 142:1595–1604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skurski TC (2012) Quantifying non-native plant impacts: Centaurea stoebe L. (spotted knapweed) and Bromus tectorum L. (downy brome) in sagebrush-grasslands of the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Montana State University, Bozeman

    Google Scholar 

  • Suding KN (2011) Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:465–487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102710-145115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tambosi LR, Metzger JP (2013) A framework for setting local restoration priorities based on landscape context. Nat Conserv 11:152–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48(1):9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongway DJ, Ludwig JA (2012) Planning and implementing successful landscape-scale restoration. In: Van Andel J, Aronson J (eds) Restoration Ecology. Wiley, Chichester UK, pp 30–42

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Trabucchi M, Ntshotsho P, O’Farrell PJ, Comín FA (2012) Ecosystem service trends in basin-scale restoration initiatives: a review. J Environ Manag 111:18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.06.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo-Miranda AL, Toledo-Aceves T, López-Barrera F, Gerez-Fernández P (2018) Active versus passive restoration: recovery of cloud forest structure, diversity and soil condition in abandoned pastures. Ecol Eng 117:50–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Niekerk D (2012) National Biodiversity Assessment 2011: an assessment of South Africa’s biodiversity and ecosystems. Synthesis Report. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria

  • Van Wilgen BW, Nel J, Rouget M (2007) Invasive alien plants and South African rivers: a proposed approach to the prioritization of control operations. Freshw Biol 52:711–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wilgen BW (2012) Evidence, perceptions, and trade-offs associated with invasive alien plant control in the Table Mountain National Park, South Africa. Ecol Soc 17:23

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wilgen BW, Forsyth GG, Le Maitre DC, Wannenburgh A, Kotzé JDF, van den Berg E, Henderson L (2012a) An assessment of the effectiveness of a large, national-scale invasive alien plant control strategy in South Africa. Biol Conserv 148:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wilgen BW, Forsyth GG, Prins P (2012b) The management of fire-adapted ecosystems in an urban setting: the case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa. Ecol Soc 17:8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04526-170108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volk XK, Gattringer JP, Otte A, Harvolk-Schöning S (2018) Connectivity analysis as a tool for assessing restoration success. Landsc Ecol 33:371–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright CE, Staples TL, Charles LS, Flanagan TC, Lai HR, Loy X, Reynolds VA, Mayfield MM (2018) Links between community ecology theory and ecological restoration are on the rise. J Appl Ecol 55:570–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortley L, Hero JM, Howes M (2013) Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature. Restor Ecol 21:537–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yelenik SG, Stock WD, Richardson DM (2004) Ecosystem level impacts of invasive Acacia saligna in the South African fynbos. Restor Ecol 12:44–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zafra-Calvo N, Cerro R, Fuller T, Lobo JM, Rodríguez MÁ, Sarkar S (2010) Prioritizing areas for conservation and vegetation restoration in post-agricultural landscapes: a Biosphere Reserve plan for Bioko, Equatorial Guinea Biol Conserv 143:787–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YS, Cioffi WR, Cope R, Daleo P, Heywood E, Hoyt C, Smith CS, Silliman BR (2018) A global synthesis reveals gaps in coastal habitat restoration research. Sustainability 10:1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology and Working for Water Programme through their collaborative research project on “Integrated Management of invasive alien species in South Africa” and the National Research Foundation (grant 85417 to DMR). We thank the City of Cape Town (City Maps and Invasive Species Unit) and SANBI (BGIS) for access to spatial data. Greg Forsyth and David Le Maitre provided helpful advice on using AHP.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany and Zoology, Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    Elana Mostert, Mirijam Gaertner, Patricia M. Holmes & David M. Richardson

  2. Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Applied Sciences (HFWU), Schelmenwasen 4-8, 72622, Nürtingen, Germany

    Mirijam Gaertner

  3. Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X2, Matieland, 7602, South Africa

    Patricia M. Holmes

  4. Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, PO Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa

    Patrick J. O’Farrell

  5. Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

    Patrick J. O’Farrell

Authors
  1. Elana Mostert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirijam Gaertner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patricia M. Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patrick J. O’Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David M. Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elana Mostert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mostert, E., Gaertner, M., Holmes, P.M. et al. A multi-criterion approach for prioritizing areas in urban ecosystems for active restoration following invasive plant control. Environmental Management 62, 1150–1167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1103-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1103-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation