Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Structured decision making remains underused in ecological restoration despite opportunities

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Ecological restoration is considered an essential activity as we attempt to repair anthropogenic degradation. Yet, resources are limited and it is important that efforts focus on activities that are effective and yield successful restoration. Structured decision making (SDM) is an organized framework that is designed to incorporate differing values across stakeholders and evaluate alternatives. The SDM framework typically consists of six steps: define the decision problem, define objectives and evaluation criteria, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, evaluate trade-offs, and decide, implement, and monitor. Here, we posit that SDM is well suited for ecological restoration, yet remains underused. Specifically, tools such as stakeholder surveys, conceptual modeling, and multi-criteria decision analysis are notably useful in ecological restoration and can be applied under the SDM framework to ensure robust and transparent decision making. We illustrate the application of SDM to ecological restoration with case studies that used SDM alongside ecosystem service assessments, for species-as-risk management, and to assess action desirability across large and diverse stakeholder groups. Finally, we demonstrate how SDM is equipped to handle many of the challenges associated with ecological restoration by identifying commonalities. We contend that increased use of SDM for ecological restoration by environmental managers has the potential to yield wise use of limited resources and more effective restoration outcomes.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For the purpose of this paper, we use the term stakeholder in the broadest possible sense (similar to the word "actor"). We explicitly acknowledge that Indigenous communities and governments are not stakeholders but rather rightsholders so our use of the term stakeholder in this paper implicitly includes all relevant actors.

  2. The Anthropocene currently has no formal status in the Divisions of Geologic Time (https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2018/3054/fs20183054.pdf). It is used here to indicate a time when human activities have significant effects on the global environment.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the pioneers of structured decision making.

Funding

MLP, JAR, SJC, and JRB are supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

The article was conceived and developed by all co-authors. MLP coordinated the writing, with others providing individual sections and editorial input.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan L. Piczak.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to disclose.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Piczak, M.L., Robichaud, J.A., Morrison, P. et al. Structured decision making remains underused in ecological restoration despite opportunities. Environ Syst Decis 44, 1–15 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09940-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-023-09940-z

Keywords

Navigation