TY - JOUR

T1 - Adjustive ecological restoration through stakeholder involvement

T2 - a case of riparian landscape restoration on privately owned land with public access

AU - Gamborg, Christian

AU - Morsing, Jonas

AU - Raulund-Rasmussen, Karsten

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.

AB - Ecological restoration involves a dual uncertainty or disagreement, one connected to changes in the environment and in human expertises, and another related to changes in views of acceptability over time and underlying value disagreements. While the former often is attended to under the notion of adaptive management, the latter is less often considered. The aim of this article is to investigate how a continuous involvement process can facilitate adjustments of ecological restoration, taking into account the values of all parties involved. Using a combination of a survey distributed to stakeholders in the involvement process and content analysis of the minutes from the series of meetings of the involvement process, the concerns and views of stakeholders, and the kinds of adjustment, which took place, were identified. Stakeholders were generally positive about being involved but expressed various concerns about the restoration approach itself, especially the open‐endedness, and about specific interventions. Three types of adjustment were identified: (1) project managers adjusted activities based on stakeholders' raised concerns and values; (2) stakeholders modified views in response to project managers as the restoration project proceeded; and (3) shifts in views took place within the stakeholder group based on exchanges with other stakeholders involved in the project. Mutual benefits and a higher level of mutual understanding were reached through the approach we call “adjustive ecological restoration.” This approach depends on the ability to work with stakeholders, willingness to adjust, high levels of trust, and the leveling of expectations at the beginning of the process.

U2 - 10.1111/rec.12955

DO - 10.1111/rec.12955

M3 - Journal article

VL - 27

SP - 1073

EP - 1083

JO - Restoration Ecology

JF - Restoration Ecology

SN - 1061-2971

IS - 5

ER -