By Katinka X. Ruthrof and Leonie E. Valentine
Excerpt from: Ruthrof, K. X. and Valentine, L. E. (2010) Ecological, economic and social challenges, restoration filters and planning for the unknown. Australasian Plant Conservation 19 (3) 34-35.
Since European settlement, large areas of Australia have been degraded by various anthropogenic disturbances. This large-scale degradation has lead to a growing desire from the community, conservationists, scientists and land managers to develop techniques to restore these areas. However, restoration faces a range of ecological, economic and social challenges.
Ecological challenges encountered in broadscale restoration include basic, on-ground issues such as the availability of propagules, the ability to germinate a large range of species, successful control techniques for invasive species (pre and post restoration), and choice of species available (functional types, keystone species, faunal requirements, palatability and competitive ability). There are also the emerging challenges of a reduction in rainfall, higher temperatures, and perhaps a higher risk of frost events. Such ecological challenges are technical constraints, and although significant, is only part of the problem (Geist and Galatowitsch 1999).
Financial resources made available for restoration are often quite limited. Therefore, expensive machinery or propagules (e.g. some species can reach prices of $4/gm) may be out of reach of some projects. The longer term significance of some species—the use of cheap annual species versus more expensive perennials—is also important, and restorationists must determine the best long-term ecological ‘bang for your buck’. Given these ecological and economic challenges, the resultant vegetation community may be very different from the one practitioners had in mind at the planning stages of the project.
Restoration projects face an additional array of social-political challenges. These include choosing which site will be restored, the goals and values for that site, the amount of community support, personal preferences, and the amount of time and labour available to the project, especially in the long term. These are primarily human challenges, and unless overcome, ongoing commitment from land managers, practitioners and the community to restoration projects will likely be limited and it will not be possible to undertake larger scale restoration.
The community is often seen as a group of individuals for use as cheap labour. However, commitment to, and success of, restoration projects could be increased by development of a beneficial relationship between humans and the natural environment. There are various benefits of community involvement in restoration, including the involvement of hard working, enthusiastic people with a depth of local knowledge, experience and a sense of stewardship that can drive the sustained support for restoration. Benefits of restoration to the community are also broad-ranging and include restoring community spirit and improving agency-community relations as well as providing psychological and physiological benefits.
Restoration projects, particularly on public lands, may be more successful in the long term when the community, restoration ecologists, managers and practitioners create an evolving restoration plan together. Perhaps working together in the early stages of planning a restoration project will enhance the filter for the benefit of both the restoration area and the community involved.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
Filed under Uncategorized