IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v7y2015i12p15788-15881d59652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice

Author

Listed:
  • Phumza Ntshotsho

    (Natural Resources and the Environment, CSIR, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa)

  • Karen J. Esler

    (Department of Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1, Matieland 7602, South Africa
    Centre for Invasion Biology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1, Matieland 7602, South Africa
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Belinda Reyers

    (Natural Resources and the Environment, CSIR, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa
    Department of Conservation Ecology & Entomology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag x1, Matieland 7602, South Africa
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

Abstract

Global acknowledgement of ecological restoration, as an important tool to complement conservation efforts, requires an effort to increase the effectiveness of restoration interventions. Evidence-based practice is purported to promote effectiveness. A central tenet of this approach is decision making that is based on evidence, not intuition. Evidence can be generated experimentally and in practice but needs to be linked to baseline information collection, clear goals and monitoring of impact. In this paper, we report on a survey conducted to assess practitioners’ perceptions of the evidence generated in restoration practice in South Africa, as well as challenges encountered in building this evidence base. Contrary to a recent assessment of this evidence base which found weaknesses, respondents viewed it as adequate and cited few obstacles to its development. Obstacles cited were mostly associated with planning and resource availability. We suggest that the disparity between practitioners’ perceptions and observed weaknesses in the evidence base could be a challenge in advancing evidence-based restoration. We explore opportunities to overcome this disparity as well as the obstacles listed by practitioners. These opportunities involve a shift from practitioners as users of scientific knowledge and evidence, to practitioners involved in the co-production of evidence needed to increase the effectiveness of restoration interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Phumza Ntshotsho & Karen J. Esler & Belinda Reyers, 2015. "Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:12:p:15788-15881:d:59652
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/12/15788/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/7/12/15788/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Rashed Jalal & Rajib Mahamud & Md. Tanjimul Alam Arif & Saimunnahar Ritu & Mondal Falgoonee Kumar & Bayes Ahmed & Md. Humayun Kabir & Mohammad Sohal Rana & Howlader Nazmul Huda & Marco DeGaetano & Pet, 2023. "Restoring Degraded Landscapes through an Integrated Approach Using Geospatial Technologies in the Context of the Humanitarian Crisis in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    2. Mr Clive Boddy & Mr Derek Bond & Dr Elaine Ramsey, 2010. "Projective Techniques Are they a Victim of Clashing Paradigms," Accounting, Finance and Economics Research Group Working Papers 1, Ulster Business School.
    3. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    4. Ruvio, Ayalla A. & Shoham, Aviv, 2016. "Consumer arrogance: Scale development and validation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 3989-3997.
    5. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Lausten, Mette & Pozzoli, Dario, 2012. "Does Mother Know Best? Parental Discrepancies in Assessing Child Functioning," IZA Discussion Papers 6962, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Gabriel, Andreas & Rombach, Meike & Wieser, Hannah & Bitsch, Vera, 2021. "Got waste: knowledge, behavior and self-assessment on food waste of university students in Germany," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), February.
    8. Ana León-Gómez & José Manuel Santos-Jaén & Daniel Ruiz-Palomo & Mercedes Palacios-Manzano, 2022. "Disentangling the impact of ICT adoption on SMEs performance: the mediating roles of corporate social responsibility and innovation," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(3), pages 831-866, September.
    9. Carvalho, Sergio W. & Fazel, Hesham & Trifts, Valerie, 2018. "Transgressing a group value in a transcultural experience: Immigrants' affective response to perceived social identity threats," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 326-333.
    10. Rimal, Arbindra & Fletcher, Stanley M. & McWatters, Kay H., 2000. "Nutrition Considerations In Food Selection," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-16.
    11. Sjöstedt, Martin & Sundström, Aksel & Jagers, Sverker C. & Ntuli, Herbert, 2022. "Governance through community policing: What makes citizens report poaching of wildlife to state officials?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Lergetporer, Philipp & Piopiunik, Marc & Simon, Lisa, 2021. "Does the education level of refugees affect natives’ attitudes?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    13. Burgstaller, Lilith & Feld, Lars P. & Pfeil, Katharina, 2022. "Working in the shadow: Survey techniques for measuring and explaining undeclared work," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 661-671.
    14. Sha Yang & Yi Zhao & Ravi Dhar, 2010. "Modeling the Underreporting Bias in Panel Survey Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 525-539, 05-06.
    15. de Ruyter, Ko & van Birgelen, Marcel & Wetzels, Martin, 1998. "Consumer ethnocentrism in international services marketing," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 185-202, April.
    16. Austgulen, Marthe H. & Skuland, Silje & Schjøll, Alexander & Alfnes, Frode, 2015. "Consumer readiness to reduce meat consumptions and eat more climate friendly," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202757, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Chathurika Sewwandi Kannangara & Rosie Elizabeth Allen & Jerome Francis Carson & Samia Zahraa Noor Khan & Gill Waugh & Kondal Reddy Kandadi, 2020. "Onwards and upwards: The development, piloting and validation of a new measure of academic tenacity- The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    18. Nerys M Astbury & Charlotte Albury & Rebecca Nourse & Susan A Jebb, 2020. "Participant experiences of a low-energy total diet replacement programme: A descriptive qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Hengky Latan & Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour & Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, 2021. "To Blow or Not to Blow the Whistle: The Role of Rationalization in the Perceived Seriousness of Threats and Wrongdoing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(3), pages 517-535, March.
    20. Islam, Md. Mazharul & Habes, Essam M. & Alam, Md. Mahmudul, 2018. "The usage and social capital of mobile phones and their effect on the performance of microenterprise: An empirical study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 156-164.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:7:y:2015:i:12:p:15788-15881:d:59652. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.