Building Resilience in Ecological Restoration Processes: A Social-Ecological Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecological restoration is a means of addressing the ongoing and pervasive degradation of ecological systems.Although the aim of ecological restoration is ecosystem recovery, efforts based on an oversimplified understanding of how complex adaptive systems behave often fail to produce intended outcomes.We explore how advancements made in understanding properties of complex adaptive systems, specifically social-ecological systems, may be incorporated into ecological restoration.We present a conceptual framework informed by tracing the evolution of perspectives in ecological restoration and synthesizing developments in social-ecological resilience.We then employ the framework in the context of freshwater systems to assess Trout Unlimited Canada's stream rehabilitation training program and evaluate associated restoration initiatives in terms of social-ecological resilience.Findings from this case study indicate that the approach to restoration taught in the training program, along with the initiatives informed by the program, reflect principles for building resilience and were found to be positive.These findings provide encouraging evidence in support of a new approach to restoration informed by social-ecological resilience and initial confirmation of the usefulness of the framework.Valuable insights on the extent to which social-ecological resilience is currently reflected in restoration practices more broadly will come from future research exploring the application of the conceptual framework in a variety of restoration contexts and at a larger scale.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".