Stating mechanisms and refining criteria for ecologically successful river restoration: A comment on Palmer et al. (2005)

Abstract

1. To encourage more project assessment and reporting of restoration outcomes, Palmer et al. (2005) propose five criteria for assessing the ecological success of river restoration. They also suggest that these criteria should help to clarify which activities should qualify for ecological restoration funding and facilitate consistency about what constitutes an ecologically successful restoration project. 2. We critique the five criteria and agree they all merit inclusion in an assessment of successful river restoration. However, the practical application of measuring self-sustainability (resilience) following restoration is potentially problematic and an explicit timeframe is needed to evaluate the results of the restoration. 3. A sixth criterion is proposed that encourages specific hypotheses and/or a conceptual model of the ecological mechanisms by which the proposed activities will achieve their target. This would enhance our understanding of the mechanisms at play for successful river restoration, and provide a more powerful deductive framework likely to lead to appropriate practices that can be applied across rivers. To explore the potential practical applicability of these six criteria, we applied them to a recently published example of river restoration to ascertain its ecological success. 4. Synthesis and applications. We agree with the criteria proposed by Palmer et al. (2005), although the problems of measuring resilience and defining a timeline for recovery should be addressed. We suggest strengthening the deductive framework of restoration projects by formulating some sort of conceptual model. This step could involve scientists, and be a useful way of involving science more explicitly in restoration activities. Agreed-upon criteria for successful restoration will greatly facilitate evaluation of river ecosystem recovery at the critical broader scales where our knowledge is still limited. © 2005 British Ecological Society.