umu.sePublications
Change search
Refine search result
1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the 'Create feeds' function.
  • 1.
    Baker, Susan
    et al.
    Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales U.K..
    Eckerberg, Katarina
    Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Ecological restoration success: a policy analysis understanding2016In: Restoration Ecology, ISSN 1061-2971, E-ISSN 1526-100X, Vol. 24, no 3, 284-290 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This article discusses how ecological restoration success can be understood and evaluated using a policy analysis lens. First, this article details a conceptual tool that helps to develop a more encompassing set of criteria to assess restoration activities that provide socioeconomic benefits. Second, by broadening the understanding of restoration success and how it can be evaluated, it allows a more critical view of evaluation itself and its uses as a policy tool. A table is presented that can help practitioners reveal preferences and clarify the aims and objectives of particular initiatives. The table also sensitizes practitioners to the complexity of the links between restoration rationales and evaluation criteria, which in turn may open up much needed discussion and dialogue between restoration participants about the underlying values an actor may wish to promote. It heightens awareness of the fact that evaluation methods need to recognize that restoration is driven by multiple rationales often in the same project, both process driven and output oriented, which in turn can change over time. Adding process and output criteria together may also raise issues of priority. Evaluation criteria thus need to be assigned in ways that reflect these multiplicities, while at the same time recognizing that some restoration values might be conflictual and that there may be winners and losers. Furthermore, judgement about "failure" of a project can change as new goals emerge in delivery and implementation. Ecological restoration evaluation should therefore be ongoing, contextual, and not a one-off event.

  • 2.
    Hasselquist, Eliza Maher
    et al.
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Center for Natural Lands Management, Fallbrook, CA, USA..
    Hasselquist, Niles J
    Center for Conservation Biology, University of California ; Department of Forest Ecology and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences .
    Rogers, Deborah L
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Plant Sciences, University of California.
    Management of non-native annual plants to support recovery of an endangered perennial forb, Ambrosia pumila2013In: Restoration Ecology, ISSN 1061-2971, E-ISSN 1526-100X, Vol. 21, no 2, 224-231 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Invasive non-native plants pose a ubiquitous threat to native plant communities and have been blamed for the decline of many endangered species. Endangered species legislation provides legal instruments for protection, but identifying a general method for protecting endangered species by managing non-natives is confounded by multiple factors. We compared non-native management methods aimed at increasing populations of an endangered forb, Ambrosia pumila, and associated native plants. We compared the effects of a grass-specific herbicide (Fusilade II), hand-pulling, and mowing in two degraded coastal sage scrub sites in southern California, U.S.A. At both sites, hand-pulling had the greatest effect on non-native cover, and correspondingly resulted in the greatest increase in A. pumila stems. Fusilade II application also led to an increase in A. pumila, but was not as effective in controlling non-native plants as hand-pulling and its effect varied with the dominant non-native species. Mowing was not effective at promoting A. pumila, and its effect on non-native cover seemed to be related to rainfall patterns. Although some methods increased A. pumila, none of our treatments simultaneously increased cover of other native plants. Hand-pulling, the most effective treatment, is labor intensive and thus only feasible at small spatial scales. At larger scales, managers should take an experimental approach to identifying the most appropriate method because this can vary depending on the specific management objective (endangered species or whole native community), the dominant non-natives, yearly variation in weather, and the timing of treatment application.

  • 3.
    Jørgensen, Dolly
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
    What's History Got to Do with It? A Response to Seddon's Definition of Reintroduction2011In: Restoration Ecology, ISSN 1061-2971, E-ISSN 1526-100X, Vol. 19, no 6, 705-708 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A recent article in Restoration Ecology by Philip Seddon aims at unraveling the definitions of various types of species translocations—from reintroductions to assisted colonization—and points out the slippery slope of misused words. I argue here that defining reintroduction is not as straightforward as Seddon presents it. Commonly used definitions of what constitutes a reintroduction all include some reference to “historical” conditions, but what exactly that encompasses is left open. I examine two parts of the reintroduction confusion: first, how the guidance documents and laws define reintroduction and second, how these definitions might be interpreted when reintroductions are presented in public forums. Rather than moving away from reintroductions toward interventions of other names, I encourage scientists to use a broad definition of reintroduction presented by the IUCN to open up reintroduction as a viable label for bringing a species back to an area regardless of when it was previously there or why it became extinct.

  • 4.
    Jørgensen, Dolly
    et al.
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
    Nilsson, Christer
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
    Hof, Anouschka R.
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
    Hasselquist, Eliza Maher
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
    Baker, Susan
    Chapin, F. Stuart, III
    Eckerberg, Katarina
    Umeå University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Political Science.
    Hjaelten, Joakim
    Polvi, Lina
    Umeå University, Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences.
    Meyerson, Laura A.
    Policy Language in Restoration Ecology2014In: Restoration Ecology, ISSN 1061-2971, E-ISSN 1526-100X, Vol. 22, no 1, 1-4 p.Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Relating restoration ecology to policy is one of the aims of the Society for Ecological Restoration and its journal Restoration Ecology. As an interdisciplinary team of researchers in both ecological science and political science, we have struggled with how policy-relevant language is and could be deployed in restoration ecology. Using language in scientific publications that resonates with overarching policy questions may facilitate linkages between researcher investigations and decision-makers' concerns on all levels. Climate change is the most important environmental problem of our time and to provide policymakers with new relevant knowledge on this problem is of outmost importance. To determine whether or not policy-specific language was being included in restoration ecology science, we surveyed the field of restoration ecology from 2008 to 2010, identifying 1,029 articles, which we further examined for the inclusion of climate change as a key element of the research. We found that of the 58 articles with climate change or global warming in the abstract, only 3 identified specific policies relevant to the research results. We believe that restoration ecologists are failing to include themselves in policy formation and implementation of issues such as climate change within journals focused on restoration ecology. We suggest that more explicit reference to policies and terminology recognizable to policymakers might enhance the impact of restoration ecology on decision-making processes.

1 - 4 of 4
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf