Author
Listed:
- Kristine N. Hopfensperger
(University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian Laboratory)
- Katharina A. M. Engelhardt
(University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Appalachian Laboratory)
- Steven W. Seagle
(Appalachian State University, Department of Biology)
Abstract
The restoration of degraded systems is essential for maintaining the provision of valuable ecosystem services, including the maintenance of aesthetic values. However, restoration projects often fail to reach desired goals for a variety of ecologic, financial, and social reasons. Feasibility studies that evaluate whether a restoration effort should even be attempted can enhance restoration success by highlighting potential pitfalls and gaps in knowledge before the design phase of a restoration. Feasibility studies also can bring stakeholders together before a restoration project is designed to discuss potential disagreements. For these reasons, a feasibility study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of restoring a tidal freshwater marsh in the Potomac River near Alexandria, Virginia. The study focused on science rather than engineering questions, and thus differed in approach from other feasibility studies that are mostly engineering driven. The authors report the framework they used to conduct a feasibility study to inform other potential restoration projects with similar goals. The seven steps of the framework encompass (1) initiation of a feasibility study, (2) compilation of existing data, (3) collection of current site information, (4) examination of case studies, (5) synthesis of information in a handbook, (6) meeting with selected stakeholders, and (7) evaluation of meeting outcomes. By conducting a feasibility study using the seven-step framework, the authors set the stage for conducting future compliance studies and enhancing the chance of a successful restoration.
Suggested Citation
Kristine N. Hopfensperger & Katharina A. M. Engelhardt & Steven W. Seagle, 2007.
"Ecological Feasibility Studies in Restoration Decision Making,"
Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 39(6), pages 843-852, June.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:envman:v:39:y:2007:i:6:d:10.1007_s00267-005-0388-7
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0388-7
Download full text from publisher
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:spr:envman:v:39:y:2007:i:6:d:10.1007_s00267-005-0388-7. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.