Opportunities and challenges of integrating ecological restoration into assessment and management of contaminated ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ecosystem restoration planning near the beginning of the site assessment and management process (“early integration”) involves consideration of restoration goals from the outset in developing solutions for contaminated ecosystems. There are limitations to integration that stem from institutional barriers, few successful precedents, and limited availability of guidance. Challenges occur in integrating expertise from various disciplines and multiple, sometimes divergent interests and goals. The more complex process can result in timing, capacity, communication, and collaboration challenges. On the other hand, integrating the 2 approaches presents new and creative opportunities. For example, integration allows early planning for expanding ecosystem services on or near contaminated lands or waters that might otherwise have been unaddressed by remediation alone. Integrated plans can explicitly pursue ecosystem services that have market value, which can add to funds for long-term monitoring and management. Early integration presents opportunities for improved and productive collaboration and coordination between ecosystem restoration and contaminant assessment and management. Examples exist where early integration facilitates liability resolution and generates positive public relations. Restoration planning and implementation before the completion of the contaminated site assessment, remediation, or management process (“early restoration”) can facilitate coordination with offsite restoration options and a regional approach to restoration of contaminated environments. Integration of performance monitoring, for both remedial and restoration actions, can save resources and expand the interpretive power of results. Early integration may aid experimentation, which may be more feasible on contaminated lands than in many other situations. The potential application of concepts and tools from adaptive management is discussed as a way of avoiding pitfalls and achieving benefits in early integration. In any case, there will be challenges with early integration of restoration concepts for contaminated ecosystems, but the benefits are likely to outweigh them. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:296–305. © 2015 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC) Key Points There will be challenges with early integration of restoration concepts for contaminated ecosystems, but the benefits are likely to outweigh them. Integration allows early planning for, and expedited recovery of ecosystem services. Off-site options for restoration present opportunities for a collaborative, co-ordinated, regional-level approach to restoration of contaminated environments and could help with liability resolution, thereby generating positive public relations and leveraging new partners to expand scale. Structured decision making, specifically adaptive management involving recurrent decision making over time, is a useful tool as a way of avoiding pitfalls and achieving benefits in early integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".