Towards Increased Community-Engaged Ecological Restoration: A Review of Current Practice and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years there has been a growing critique of the dominance of technical approaches to ecological restoration, and a recognition of the importance of the social considerations required for restoration to be successful in the long term. In light of this, our paper offers a review of community engagement in the ecological restoration literature. We identify factors, that if ignored, run the risk of undermining the long-term sustainability of restoration projects. We then identify social strategies for dealing with these factors. Undermining factors have been summarized into three key ones: power dynamics, ignoring and/or generating negative livelihood impacts associated with restoration activities, and untested assumptions about local communities. Seven core strategies were identified to deal with these issues. Two of these examples include engaging in active community participation, and supporting landscape dependent livelihoods. These seven strategies tend to recognize, work with and support locally evolving social-ecological systems. Our findings suggest that restoration practitioners need to be intentionally aware of and challenge the pervasive ideology of social-ecological dualism that dominates modern thinking and western scientific approaches and undermines the long-term sustainability of many ecological restoration projects.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".