3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Social Factors Key to Landscape-Scale Coastal Restoration: Lessons Learned from Three U.S. Case Studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In the United States, extensive investments have been made to restore the ecological function and services of coastal marine habitats. Despite a growing body of science supporting coastal restoration, few studies have addressed the suite of societally enabling conditions that helped facilitate successful restoration and recovery efforts that occurred at meaningful ecological (i.e., ecosystem) scales, and where restoration efforts were sustained for longer (i.e., several years to decades) periods. Here, we examined three case studies involving large-scale and long-term restoration efforts including the seagrass restoration effort in Tampa Bay, Florida, the oyster restoration effort in the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland and Virginia, and the tidal marsh restoration effort in San Francisco Bay, California. The ecological systems and the specifics of the ecological restoration were not the focus of our study. Rather, we focused on the underlying social and political contexts of each case study and found common themes of the factors of restoration which appear to be important for maintaining support for large-scale restoration efforts. Four critical elements for sustaining public and/or political support for large-scale restoration include: (1) resources should be invested in building public support prior to significant investments into ecological restoration; (2) building political support provides a level of significance to the recovery planning efforts and creates motivation to set and achieve meaningful recovery goals; (3) recovery plans need to be science-based with clear, measurable goals that resonate with the public; and (4) the accountability of progress toward reaching goals needs to be communicated frequently and in a way that the general public comprehends. These conclusions may help other communities move away from repetitive, single, and seemingly unconnected restoration projects towards more large-scale, bigger impact, and coordinated restoration efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas.

          Estuarine and coastal transformation is as old as civilization yet has dramatically accelerated over the past 150 to 300 years. Reconstructed time lines, causes, and consequences of change in 12 once diverse and productive estuaries and coastal seas worldwide show similar patterns: Human impacts have depleted >90% of formerly important species, destroyed >65% of seagrass and wetland habitat, degraded water quality, and accelerated species invasions. Twentieth-century conservation efforts achieved partial recovery of upper trophic levels but have so far failed to restore former ecosystem structure and function. Our results provide detailed historical baselines and quantitative targets for ecosystem-based management and marine conservation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem

            JE Cloern (2001)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101579976
                45874
                Sustainability
                Sustainability
                Sustainability
                2071-1050
                26 March 2021
                2020
                09 April 2021
                : 12
                : 3
                : 10.3390/su12030869
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Nature Conservancy, URI Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI 02882, USA
                [2 ]Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20740, USA
                [3 ]Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis, MD 21403, USA
                [4 ]Natural Capital Project, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
                [5 ]School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                [6 ]Department of Biology and Coastal Studies Institute, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858, USA
                [7 ]United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035, USA
                [8 ]Restore America’s Estuaries, Arlington, VA 22201, USA
                [9 ]The Nature Conservancy, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, USA
                [10 ]National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC 20005, USA
                [11 ]The Water Institute of the Gulf, Baton Rouge, LA 70802, USA
                [12 ]Coastwise Partners, St. Petersburg, FL 34219, USA
                [13 ]Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, New Orleans, LA 70130, USA
                [14 ]United States Environmental Protection Agency Gulf of Mexico Program, Gulfport, MS 39501, USA
                [15 ]United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Team, Madison, MS 39110, USA
                [16 ]Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences, Northeastern University, Marine Science Center, Nahant, MA 01908, USA
                [17 ]San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA 94804, USA
                [18 ]Tampa Bay Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA
                [19 ]National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Restoration Center, Annapolis, MD 21401, USA
                Author notes

                Author Contributions: All authors (except H.S.G., E.T.S., J.L. and S.W.) conceived and outlined the framework for this perspective as part of a Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) Coastal Restoration Working Group, led by J.H.G., B.M.D., K.K.A. and R.K.G.; B.M.D., A.E.S.-G. and A.C. wrote the paper; H.S.G., E.T.S., J.L. and S.W. provided significant local expertise and co-drafted individual case studies; All authors contributed to editing and revising of the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

                [* ]Correspondence: bdeangelis@ 123456tnc.org
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1242-7728
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-6494
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-8960
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5072-7310
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5330-302X
                Article
                EPAPA1687488
                10.3390/su12030869
                8034583
                135be065-29d9-4e84-958a-fe576ff85146

                This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                coastal restoration,oyster,marsh,seagrass,restoration success,coastal habitat

                Comments

                Comment on this article