LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hughes, Francine M.R.; Adams, William M.; Butchart, Stuart H.M.; Field, Rob H.; Peh, Kelvin S.-H.; Warrington, Stuart (2016)
Publisher: Resilience Alliance
Journal: Ecology and Society
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: biodiversity, QH540-549.5, Wicken Fen, monitoring, QH301-705.5, Ecology, valuation, ecosystem processes, landscape-scale, metrics, ecosystem services, restoration, Biology (General)
There is an increasing emphasis on the restoration of ecosystem services as well as of biodiversity, especially where restoration projects are planned at a landscape scale. This increase in the diversity of restoration aims has a number of conceptual and practical implications for the way that restoration projects are monitored and evaluated. Landscape-scale projects require monitoring of not only ecosystem services and biodiversity but also of ecosystem processes since these can underpin both. Using the experiences gained at a landscape-scale wetland restoration project in the UK, we discuss a number of issues that need to be considered, including the choice of metrics for monitoring ecosystem services and the difficulties of assessing the interactions between ecosystem processes, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Particular challenges that we identify, using two pilot data sets, include the decoupling of monetary metrics used for monitoring ecosystem services from biophysical change on the ground and the wide range of factors external to a project that influence the monitoring results. We highlight the fact that the wide range of metrics necessary to evaluate the ecosystem service, ecosystem process, and biodiversity outcomes of landscape-scale projects presents a number of practical challenges, including the need for high levels of varied expertise, high costs, incommensurate monitoring outputs, and the need for careful management of monitoring results, especially where they may be used in making decisions about the relative importance of project aims.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Pandeya, K. S-H. Peh, A. J. Stattersfield, D. H. L. Thomas, and M. Walpole. 2014. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 8:118-127. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005 Blaen, P. J., L. Jia, K. S.-H. Peh, R. H. Field, A. Balmford, M. A.
    • MacDonald, and R. B. Bradbury. 2015. Rapid assessment of ecosystem services provided by two mineral extraction sites restored for nature conservation in an agricultural landscape in Eastern England. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0121010. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121010 Bullock, J. M., J. Aronson, A. C. Newton, R. Pywell, and J. M.
    • Rey-Benayas. 2011. Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 26:541-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.06.011 Cardinale, B. J., J. E. Duffy, A. Gonzalez, D. U. Hooper, C.
    • Larigauderie, D. S. Srivastava, and S. Naeem. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature 486:59-67. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1038/nature11148 Casazza, M. L., C. T. Overton, T.-V. D. Bui, J. M. Hull, J. D.
    • Grijalva, J. K. Wood, S. M. Skalos, and J. Takekawa. 2016.
    • Endangered species management and ecosystem restoration: finding the common ground. Ecology and Society 21(1):19. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08134-210119 Colston, A. 2003. Beyond preservation: the challenge of ecological restoration. Pages 247-267 in W. M. Adams, and M.
    • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). 2010. COP 11 Decision X/2. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020. [online] URL: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Date unknown. Aichi biodiversity targets. [online] URL: https://www.cbd.int/sp/ targets/ Costanza, R. 1984. Natural resource valuation and management: toward ecological economics. Pages 7-18 in A. M. Jansson, editor.
    • Skuratovich, and H. Joosten. 2011. Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation as a proxy.
    • Hydrobiologia 674:67-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0729- x Didham, R. K., V. Kapos, and R. M. Ewers. 2012. Rethinking the conceptual foundations of habitat fragmentation research.
    • Oikos 121:161-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.20273.
    • x European Commission. 2013. Building a green infrastructure for Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
    • Folke, C. 1991. The societal value of wetland life-support. Pages 141-171 in C. Folke and T. Kaberger, editors. Linking the natural environment and the economy. Kluwar Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-­ 017-6406-3_8 Friday, L. E., and T. A. Rowell. 1997. Patterns and processes.
    • Pages 11-21 in L. Friday, editor. Wicken Fen: the making of a wetland nature reserve. Harley Books, Colchester, UK.
    • Gómez-Baggethun, E. B., B. Martín-López, D. Barton, L. Braat, H. Saarikoski, E. Kelemen, M. García-Lorente, J. van den Bergh, P. Arias, P. Berry, M. Potschin, H. Keene, R. Dunford, C. SchröterSchlaack, and P. Harrison. 2014. State-of-the-art report on integrated valuation of ecosystem services. EU FP7 OpenNESS Project Deliverable 4.1., European Commission FP7.
    • Gosselink, J. G., E. P. Odum, and R. M. Pope. 1974. The value of the tidal marsh. Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA.
    • Greenspan Bell, R., and D. Callan. 2011. More than meets the eye: the social cost of carbon in U.S. climate policy, in plain English.
    • Hamrick, K. 2015. Ahead of the curve: the state of the voluntary carbon markets 2015. Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, D.C., USA.
    • Hill, M., W. S. Platts, and R. L. Beschta. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers 2:319-343.
    • Holman, I. P. 2009. An estimate of peat reserves and losses in the East Anglian fens commissioned by the RSPB. Department of Natural Resources, Cranfield University, UK.
    • Peiry, M. Perrow, F. Vautier, and M. Winfield. 2001. The importance of different scale processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17:325-345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rrr.656 Hughes, F. M. R., W. M. Adams, and P. A. Stroh. 2012b. When is open-endedness desirable in restoration projects? Restoration Ecology 20:291-295. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2012.00874.
    • x Hughes, F. M. R., A. Colston, and J. O. Mountford. 2005.
    • Restoring riparian ecosystems: the challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecology and Society 10(1):12. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
    • org/vol10/iss1/art12/ Hughes, F. M. R., M. G. del Tanago, and J. O. Mountford. 2012a.
    • Restoring floodplain forests in Europe. Pages 393-422 in J.
    • Stanturf, P. Madsen, and D. Lamb, editors. A goal-oriented approach to forest landscape restoration. Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-­ 007-5338-9_15 Hughes, F. M. R., P. A. Stroh, W. M. Adams, K. Kirby, J. O.
    • Mountford, and S. Warrington. 2011. Monitoring and evaluating large-scale, 'open-ended' habitat creation projects: a journey rather than a destination. Journal for Nature Conservation 19:245- 253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2011.02.003 Kallis, G., E. Gόmez-Baggethun, and C. Zografos. 2013. To value or not to value? That is not the question. Ecological Economics 94:97-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.002 Kenter, J. O., L. O'Brien, N. Hockley, N. Ravenscroft, I. Fazey, K. N. Irvine, M. S. Reed, M. Christie, E. Brady, R. Bryce, A.
    • A. Fisher, N. Jobstvogt, C. Molloy, J. Orchard-Webb, S. Ranger, M. Ryan, V. Watson, and S. Williams. 2015. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecological Economics 111:86-99.
    • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.01.006 King J., and D. Louw. 1998. Instream flow requirements for regulated rivers in South Africa using the Building Block Methodology. Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management 1:109- 124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1463-4988(98)00018-9 Kirby, P. 2010. Wicken Fen Vision and Great Fen invertebrate surveys 2009. Report to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge UK.
    • Kirby, P. 2011. Wicken Fen Vision and Great Fen invertebrate surveys 2010. Report to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge UK.
    • Kirby, P. 2012. Wicken Fen Vision and Great Fen invertebrate surveys 2011. Report to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge UK.
    • Őckinger, E., and H. G.Smith. 2008. Do corridors promote dispersal in grassland butterflies and other insects? Landscape Ecology 23:27-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-007-9167-6 Kirby, P. 2013. Wicken Fen Vision and Great Fen invertebrate surveys 2012. Report to Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge UK.
    • Sanderson, and S. B. Weiss. 2015. The theory behind, and the challenges of, conserving nature's stage in a time of rapid change.
    • Conservation Biology 29:618-629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ cobi.12505 Lawton, J. H., P. N. M. Brotherton, V. K. Brown, C. Elphick, A.
    • M. Mace, M. P. Southgate, W. A. Sutherland, T. E. Tew, J. Varley, and G. R. Wynne. 2010. Making space for nature: a review of England's wildlife sites and ecological network. Report to Defra, UK Government.
    • Mace, G. M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345:1558-1560.
    • http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704 Mace, G. M., K. Norris, and A. H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multi-layered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27:19-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 Martín-López, B., E. Gómez-Baggethun, M. García-Llorente, and C. Montes. 2014. Trade-offs across value domains in ecosystem service assessment. Ecological Indicators 37:220-228.
    • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.03.003 McCauley, D. J. 2006. Selling out on nature. Nature 43:27-28.
    • Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. First edition.
    • Moore, N. W. 1997. The Fenland Reserves. Pages 3-8 in L. Friday, editor. Wicken Fen: the making of a wetland nature reserve. Harley Books, Colchester, UK.
    • Morrison, R., A. M. J. Cumming, H. E. Taft, J. Kaduk, S. E. Page, D. L. Jones, R. J. Harding, and H. Baltzer. 2013. Carbon dioxide fluxes at an intensively cultivated temperate lowland peatland in the East Anglian fens, UK. Biogeosciences Discussions 10:4193- 4223. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-10-4193-2013 Morrison, R., J. Kelvin, P. A. Stroh, S. E. Page, F. M. R. Hughes, J. Kaduk, M. Acreman, R. Harding, and H. Baltzer. 2012. Net ecosystem carbon dioxide exchange at semi-natural and regenerating temperate fens. Extended abstract, 14th International Peat Congress, Bangor, UK.
    • Mountford, J. O., A. Colston, and M. Lester. 2005. Management for diversity: the sedge and litter vegetation at Wicken Fen NNR in 2004. Nature in Cambridgeshire 47:15-23.
    • National Trust. 2009. Wicken Fen Vision: a National Trust strategy to create a 53 square kilometre nature reserve for wildlife and people in Cambridgeshire. National Trust, Wicken, Cambridgeshire, UK.
    • Lind, and J. M. Sarneel. 2014. Riparian and in-stream restoration of boreal streams and rivers: success or failure? Ecohydrology 8:753-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eco.1480 Odum, E. P. 1979. The value of wetlands: a hierarchical approach.
    • Pages 16-25 in P. E. Greeson, J. R. Clark, and J. E. Clark, editors.
    • Paetzold, A., P. H. Warren, and L. L. Maltby. 2010. A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services.
    • Ecological Complexity 7:273-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
    • ecocom.2009.11.003 Palmer, M. A. 2001. An approach to the use of macrophytes for monitoring standing waters. Freshwater Forum 16:82-90.
    • O'Donnell, L. Pagano, and E. Sudduth. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208-217. [online] URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
    • com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x/full http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2664.2005.01004.x Palmer, M., M. Drake, and N. Stewart. 2007. A manual for the survey and evaluation of the aquatic plant and invertebrate assemblages of ditches. Version 2, Buglife, Peterborough, UK.
    • Palmer, M. A., and C. M. Febria. 2012. The heartbeat of ecosystems. Science 336:1393-1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/ science.1223250 Peh, K. S-H., A. Balmford, J. C. Birch, C. Brown, S. H. M.
    • Walpole, and R. B. Bradbury. 2015. Potential impact of invasive alien species on ecosystem services provided by a tropical forested ecosystem: a case study from Montserrat. Biological Invasions 17:461-475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10530-014-0743-9 Peh, K. S.-H., A. Balmford, R. B. Bradbury, C. Brown, S. H. M.
    • Mulligan, B. Pandeya, C. Stratford, J. R. Thompson, K. Turner, B. Vira, S. Willcock, and J. Birch. 2013. TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosystem Services 5:51-57. [online] URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003 Peh, K. S-H., A. Balmford, R. H. Field, A. Lamb, J. C. Birch, R.
    • Morrison, I. Sedgwick, C. Soans, A. J. Stattersfield, P. A. Stroh, R. D. Swetnam, D. H. L. Thomas, M. Walpole, S. Warrington, and F. M. R. Hughes. 2014. Benefits and costs of ecological restoration: rapid assessment of changing ecosystem service values at a U.K. wetland. Ecology and Evolution 4:3875-3886.
    • http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1248 Peters-Stanley, M., and G. Gonzalez. 2014. Sharing the stage: state of the voluntary carbon markets, 2014. Forest Trends' Ecosystem Marketplace, Washington, D.C., USA.
    • 2000. Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. Bioscience 50:133-146. http://dx.
    • doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0133:BCAMSF]2.3.CO;2 Pressey, R. L., and M. C. Botrill. 2009. Approaches to landscapeand seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43:464-475.
    • Mittermeier, R. Noss, D. Olson, J. G. Robinson, A. Vedder, and M. Wright. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape.
    • Conservation Biology 17:116-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/ j.1523-1739.2003.01467.x Rockström, J., M. Falkenmark, C. Folke, M. Lannerstad, J.
    • Barron, E. Enfors, L. Gordon, J. Heinke, H. Hoff, and C. PahlWostl, editors. 2014. Water resilience for human prosperity.
    • org/10.1017/cbo9781139162463 Rood, S. B., C. R. Gourley, E. M. Ammon, L. G. Heki, J. R. Klotz, M. L. Morrison, D. Mosley, G. G. Scoppettone, S. Swanson, and P. L. Wagner. 2003. Flows for floodplain forests: successful riparian restoration. Bioscience 53:647-656. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0647:FFFFAS]2.0.CO;2 Ruckelshaus, M., E. McKenzie, H. Tallis, A. Guerry, G. Daily, P.
    • Kareiva, S. Polasky, T. Ricketts, N. Bhagabati, S. A. Wood, and J. Bernhardt. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecological Economics 115:11-21. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.07.009 Sather, J. M., and R. D. Smith. 1984. An overview of major wetland functions and values. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/ OBS-84/18, Washington, D.C., USA.
    • Silvertown, J. 2015. Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:641-648. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007 Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12:391-413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646 (199607)12:4/5<391::AID-RRR436>3.0.CO;2- Stroh, P. A. 2012. Wetland restoration on ex-arable land: the influence of seed banks, propagule dispersal, grazing and soil hydrology. Dissertation. Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
    • 2012a. The influence of time on the soil seed bank and vegetation across a landscape-scale wetland restoration project. Restoration Ecology 20:103-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00740.
    • 2013. Quantifying soil hydrology to explain the development of vegetation at an ex-arable wetland restoration site. Wetlands 33:311-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0385-1 Stroh, P. A., J. O. Mountford, and F. M. R. Hughes. 2012b. The potential for endozoochorous dispersal of temperate fen plant species by free-roaming horses. Applied Vegetation Science 15:359-368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1654-109X.2011.01172.
    • x Tallis, H., P. Kareiva, M. Marvier, and A. Chang. 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:9457-9464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705797105 Tanneberger, F., and W. Wichtmann. 2011. Carbon credits from peatland rewetting: climate, biodiversity, land use. Schweizerbart Science Publishers, Stuttgart, Germany.
    • Thomas, D. H. L., F. Ayache, and G. E. Hollis. 1991. Use and non-use values in the conservation of Ichkeul National Park, Tunisia. Environmental Conservation 18:119-130.
    • Turner, R. K., S. Georgiou, and B. Fischer. 2008. Valuing ecosystem services: the case of multi-functional wetlands.
    • United States Government Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 2015. Technical support document: technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysisunder executive order 12866.
    • Webb, N. R. 2002. Atlantic heathlands. Pages 401-418 in M. R.
    • Perrow and A. J. Davey, editors. Handbook of ecological restoration. Volume 2. Restoration in practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
    • Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). 2001. The landscape species approach-a tool for site-based conservation. Living Landscape Program, Bulletin 2.
    • Williams, M. 1990. Understanding wetlands. Pages 1-42 in M.
    • Fanning, J. Green, J. Hall, and S. L. Lewis. 2012. Towards regional, error-bounded landscape carbon storage estimates for datadeficient areas of the world. PloS ONE 7:e44795. http://dx.doi.
    • org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044795 Zorrilla-Miras, P., I. Palomo, E. Gόmez-Baggethun, B. MartinLόpez, P. L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2014. Effects of land-use change on wetland ecosystem services: a case study in the Doñana marshes (SW Spain). Landscape and Urban Planning 122:160- 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.09.013
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article