A synthesis of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative according to the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation

Jurjonas, Matthew; May, Christopher A.; Kyriakakis, Stephanie R.; Pearsall, Douglas R.; Doran, Patrick J.

doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2022.01.008

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two variables from the GLRI database-award amount and time since completion-showed no significant relationship with the project score. We suspect this is likely due to the inconsistencies present in the GLRI database (Jurjonas et al, 2022). For example, even though there are revisions and extensions to projects, it appears that many project titles are reused and receive a new line item in the database.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, accounting of the net award amount for a project site is not possible and the end date might not truly represent when efforts have ultimately ceased at a site. Jurjonas et al (2022) recommended streamlining the usability of the GLRI database to remedy some of these issues. We support their suggestion that the database should include a project id number and nested extensions or increases under the original record to improve transparency.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, only a dozen of the 5335 (0.2%) projects listed in the GLRI database include mention of social science or anthropological research as part of an individual project (Jurjonas et al, 2022), which would be needed to monitor for any socio-ecological benefits (Biedenweg et al, 2017). Independent, or third-party, evaluations of GLRI have focussed on multiple ecological indicators, including sediment contamination, invasive species, fisheries and habitat and water quality (Escobar et al, 2018;Harrison et al, 2020;Mahdiyan et al, 2021;Taylor et al, 2019;Tuchman et al, 2018).…”

Section: F I G U R Ementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, GLRI has largely resolved this issue of multiple data sources for records, as the public database is a consolidation of multiple funding streams that have existed in the region (e.g. Great Lakes Legacy Act's Areas of Concern and the Natural Resource Conservation Service's Farm Bill and EQIP programmes) (Jurjonas et al, 2022). In addition, Bernhardt et al (2007) found that only about 10% of federally funded riparian restoration efforts monitor for ecological benefits across the United States.…”

Section: The Movement Away From Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Jurjonas,

May,

Cardinale

et al. 2023

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, ecosystem restoration has focussed on standard ecological indicators like water or habitat quality, species population abundance or vegetation cover to determine success. However, there is growing interest in how restoration might impact people and communities. For example, researchers have documented positive socio‐ecological links between restoration and human well‐being indicators like property value, natural hazard mitigation, recreation opportunity and happiness. Furthermore, public health benefits from restoration have been linked to public support for programmes. Drawing from this research, the United Nations declared 2021–2030 the ‘Decade of Ecosystem Restoration’ and set a goal to promote more socio‐ecological goals in ecosystem restoration. Nonetheless, there is still a lack of information on the extent to which restoration practitioners consider well‐being because many granting programmes only require ecological goals and monitoring. To explore how restoration practitioners design, implement and measure the success of their projects, we used the federally funded Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) as a case study. Since 2010, GLRI has awarded over $3.5 Billion to over 5300 projects across the midwestern United States, but it does not presently require human well‐being considerations. We performed an online survey targeting project managers with a sample of GLRI projects (N = 1574). We received 437 responses and found that almost half set a human well‐being goal, and more than 70% of those who did believe they reached it. In comparison, 90% of project managers believed they met their ecological goals. These documented perceptions of positive impacts for both people and nature suggest that restoration may already transcend traditional indicators and monitoring for socio‐ecological metrics could capture many ‘unseen’ benefits. Therefore, we recommend that ecosystem restoration programmes adopt a socio‐ecological lens to document the full extent of their restoration outcomes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: F I G U R Ementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Movement Away From Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

Jurjonas,

May,

Cardinale

et al. 2023

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given that sudden increases in funding may make high cost, high reward projects newly affordable (Neeson et al, 2015), anticipatory planning efforts to fully leverage these increases in resources are paramount. These high cost, high reward projects may include investments in infrastructure (Neeson et al, 2018), water quality and quantity (Fovargue et al, 2021), and large-scale projects in environmental remediation that would be unaffordable under piecemeal spending (e.g., the USEPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative; Jurjonas et al, 2022). In the United States, conservation actors may anticipate that increased federal funding may be available for conservation actions related to climate change adaptation or mitigation (Wineland et al, 2021a) or infrastructure renewal projects (Sleight and Neeson 2018).…”

Section: Synthesis and Opportunitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The dynamics of mature and emerging freshwater conservation programs

Neeson

Wineland

Phillips

et al. 2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation programs range from small, place-based initiatives to large, bureaucracy-heavy systems. The dynamics of these programs vary greatly. New initiatives may experience exponential growth, but participation and spending in mature programs may rise and fall in response to a number of factors. Here, we analyze historical patterns of participation and spending across five freshwater conservation programs in the United States. Our analysis highlights fundamental differences between emerging programs, which may experience exponential or logistic growth, and mature programs with slower growth, in which changes in participation may be driven by a number of internal and exogenous factors. We propose that changes in the number and spatial distribution of conservation projects are associated with four key factors: changes in legislation that open new funding streams; shifting priorities of actors; changes in the policies or management of a program that align it with new funding opportunities; and increases in individuals’ willingness to participate in a program as it grows. These programmatic shifts represent windows of opportunity for strategically reorienting conservation programs to leverage newly-available resources. Given that large, mature conservation programs support biodiversity and ecosystem services worldwide, comparison of their dynamics with those of emerging programs may reveal key opportunities for maximizing the benefits of investments in these programs.

show abstract

Estimating Soil Properties Distribution at a Restored Wetland Using Electromagnetic Imaging and Limited Soil Core Samples

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electromagnetic imaging (EMI) provides an e cient approach for characterizing variations in soil physicochemical properties at a high spatial resolution. While EMI has been widely used to estimate variations in soil properties in agricultural, geotechnical, and contaminated sites, limited applications have been reported for wetlands. This study assesses the use of EMI for estimating soil property distributions at a restored wetland in northwestern Ohio, USA. We acquired spatial distribution of soil apparent electrical conductivity (ECa) and apparent magnetic susceptibility (MSa) via EMI over a 162,000 m 2 restored wetland using an EM-38-MK2 instrument towed behind a utility terrain vehicle equipped with a differential ground positioning system. We collected twenty-two undisturbed soil samples and analyzed them in the laboratory for soil moisture (SMC), organic matter (SOM), porosity, bulk density, and texture. A least squares linear regression model was used to compare the correlation between each soil property with measured ECa and MSa while ECa was used to predict the distribution of SMC and SOM using the statistical model validated using the leave-one-out technique. We observed strong correlations between soil texture, SMC, and SOM, and ECa with SOM showing a slightly dominant control. This study shows that ECa can predict the distribution of SMC and SOM in wetland soils to an accuracy of ~ 67-70% for these datasets. The spatial ECa patterns matched the USDA soil map for the site. This study validates the potential of extending EMI for characterizing wetland soil properties, improving sampling plans, and extrapolating soil property estimates to unsampled regions.

show abstract

A synthesis of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative according to the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation

Cited by 7 publications

References 52 publications

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

The perceived ecological and human well‐being benefits of ecosystem restoration

The dynamics of mature and emerging freshwater conservation programs

Estimating Soil Properties Distribution at a Restored Wetland Using Electromagnetic Imaging and Limited Soil Core Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About