Diverse stakeholders navigate divergent perspectives on stream restoration success in Western rangelands

Abstract

Ecological restoration is a value‐driven process; yet social understanding of restoration lags ecological understanding. Restoration goals are driven by which stakeholders have a voice in the restoration process and their individual goals. While conflict among stakeholder visions has been observed, we lack a multidimensional understanding of these visions, where they overlap, and how they diverge. Focusing on stream restoration on private lands, we asked: (1) How do perspectives on measures of restoration success vary among stakeholders, including contractors and designers, scientists, organizations, and landowners? and (2) How do these groups discuss and navigate these differences? We used a mixed‐method interview and Q‐methodology approach to understand the range of stakeholders' approaches for assessing a successful stream restoration. We asked stakeholders to rank their level of agreement with 33 statements about restoration goals, using these to evaluate perspectives about restoration success. We identified four perspectives on successful stream restoration that varied in: the use of science‐driven criteria, risk tolerance, private property protection, and commitment to restoring streams to a previous state. Notably, contractors used deficit model approaches to communicate with landowners, even for private restoration. Institutional and cultural changes to how we approach restoration, suggested by some of the interviews, may provide paths forward. These include a recognition that all restoration objectives are socially defined, even within and among professionals, and that landowners have important local‐system knowledge. Earlier engagement between all stakeholders involved in restoration may help create mutual understanding across parties and stave off disputes about project objectives or implementation.

Evaluating stakeholder perceptions on drone use in forest restoration using a social–ecological systems framework

“…Most pertinent, is that the need for restoration should be reduced through effective conservation, preventing further deforestation and addressing the causes of degradation and land use change which drives ecosystem decline. Also crucial is the need for actors to share understandings of what constitutes 'successful' restoration outcomes, and how these should be measured, echoing the restoration field more broadly (Millard et al, 2023). In keeping with prior literature (e.g.…”

“…Globally, the success of forestation projects is mixed with long-term survival rates ranging from <20% (Woods et al, 2019) to >80% (Shackelford et al, 2021). Careful consideration of local factors remains essential, including the use of suitable tree species (Friggens et al, 2020), and the views of local landowners and stakeholders (Gornish et al, 2021) and their biophysical and socioeconomic goals (Brancalion & Holl, 2020;Millard et al, 2023).…”

“…It is clear that 'public perception and opinion are also important factors' in drone research (Robinson et al, 2022(Robinson et al, , p. 1908 including to build greater understandings of the opportunities and challenges for local communities and other forest restoration stakeholders (Mohan et al, 2021;Sandbrook, 2015). More broadly, the importance of eliciting perspectives from restoration practitioners and stakeholders is evident in the literature (du Plessis et al, 2022;Gornish et al, 2021;Millard et al, 2023;Thompson, 2018;Whittaker, 2020). Considering these knowledge gaps, this article aims to understand the opportunities and challenges of delivering current drone tree-planting projects using a SES framing.…”