On principles and standards in ecological restoration

Abstract

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) has long debated how to define best practices. We argue that a principles‐first approach offers more flexibility for restoration practitioners than a standards‐based approach, is consistent with the developmental stage of restoration, and functions more effectively at a global level. However, the solution is not as simple as arguing that one approach to professional practice is sufficient. Principles and standards can and do operate effectively together, but only if they are coordinated in a transparent and systematic way. Effective professional guidance results when standards anchored by principles function in a way that is contextual and evolving. Without that clear relation to principles, the tendency to promote performance standards may lead to a narrowing of restoration practice and reduction in the potential to resolve very difficult and diverse ecological and environmental challenges. We offer recommendations on how the evolving project of restoration policy by SER and other agencies and organizations can remain open and flexible.

The SER Standards: a globally relevant and inclusive tool for improving restoration practice—a reply to Higgs et al.

“…We agree with Higgs et al () that native ecosystems may not always be an appropriate target for environmental repair and that a mix of activities is generally needed across degraded and fragmented landscapes (Aronson et al ). This perspective is emphasized in the SER Standards, which utilize a “restorative continuum” to articulate the relative and complementary benefits of a broad range of environmental repair activities (e.g.…”

“…While we do not agree with all the arguments in Higgs et al (), we do share some concerns, including several raised by other stakeholders, and these issues are already being addressed as part of the ongoing revision process. Here, we discuss the concerns, as well as errata, in Higgs et al ().…”

“…Higgs et al () argue that “innovation in restoration practice ….may well be suppressed by increasingly defined and rigid performance standards.” We consider the contention that having clear standards suppresses innovation as wholly without evidence or foundation. On the contrary, many areas of recent technological development (e.g.…”

“…Higgs et al () posit that “The peril of trying to convert qualitative ideas into quantitative measures is a central problem in the SER Standards. For example, Table 3 of the SER Standards leads to what might look like an ordination.” The caption of table 3 (p. 21), however, states that it “provides a generic framework only; requiring users to develop indicators and a monitoring metric specific to the ecosystem and sub‐attributes identified.” Opposite of being an ordination, the five‐star scale and the recovery wheel described in tables 2 and 3 are “generic in nature and should be interpreted more specifically by managers to suit their specific ecosystem or project.” They are not intended as a formal research tool to compare data from a large number of sites or projects.…”

“…Higgs et al () suggest that recent policy guidance from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (Orr et al ; Cowie et al ) is based on the SER Standards. However, a careful reading indicates this is not the case.…”