Barnas et al 2015 pacific salmon restoration project targeting
From Salish Sea Wiki
- Last Ten Documents
- Cereghino 2015 grant administrative streamlining
- WDNR 2001 shorezone data dictionary
- Thurston County 2015 county-wide planning policies
- TRPC 2013 sustainable thurston development plan
- TNC 2011 fisher slough monitoring baseline report
- TCAMRC 2018 thurston amphibian road survey summary
- TCAMRC 2017 thurston amphibian road survey protocols
- Sync 2018 infrastructure coordination fact sheet
- Sync 2018 DRAFT strategic plan for infrastructure coordination
- Stuart & Canty 2010 environmental markets for agriculture
- Product Categories
- Google scholar search
- Linked To This Product
- Wiki Rules
- Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
- Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
- Complain here, and be nice.
Barnas, K. A., S. L. Katz, D. E. Hamm, M. C. Diaz, and C. E. Jordan. 2015. Is habitat restoration targeting relevant ecological needs for endangered species? Using Pacific Salmon as a case study. Ecosphere 6(7):110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00466.1
Notes (Critique)[edit]
- The subject watersheds were unaware that their restoration systems we being quantified, and so conversely, the investigators where not informed by any of the knowledge being used within local technical work groups to evaluate, prioritize and implement restoration, beyond publicly published planning documents.
- The SHAPE metric used to quantify whether a suite of actions within a watershed are appropriate assumes that the most appropriate restoration strategy is to have at least one project addressing each concern in a watershed. SHAPE is calculated as the percent of concerns addressed less the percent of actions that address a planned concern.
- "The sensitivity of our results depends on the choice of crosswalk". The investigators necessarily made a large number of assumptions about the linkage between project types and "concerns", which in turn strongly affected the metric.
- There is no discussion of how socioeconomic factors may shape the SHAPE metric, such as land availability, rate of funding over time, consistency of funding, existing capacity, or the influence of matching sources of funding in shaping project priorities. Thus the conclusions assume is that project portfolio composition is a result of either successful or unsuccessful alignment with published strategies.
- The authors suggest that these metrics provide a baseline for adaptive management, and that "the SHAPE score evaluates restoration activity appropriateness"
- The authors conclude that "...our metrics address the near-term need for an accountability mechanism in decentralized endangered species habitat management."
Notes (Positive)[edit]
- ??
