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

Edward T Sherwood ,Jessica R Henkel ,R J Howard ,Jonathan H Grabowski ,Anthony Chatwin,Holly Greening,Christopher J Baillie ,Alyssa Dausman,A Randall Hughes ,Jeremy Lowe,Seth Blitch,Richard O Bennett ,Rachel Houge,Ariana E Sutton‐Grier ,Stephanie Westby,Jeff Benoit,Steven B Scyphers ,Bryan M Deangelis ,Katie K Arkema ,Rachel K Gittman ,Allison Colden

doi:10.3390/su12030869

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.

Highlights

Throughout the United States, extensive investments have been made to restore lost ecological functions and services resulting from habitat loss and degradation
We developed an initial list of potential landscape-scale restoration case studies around the U.S using the following criteria: (1) the restoration had to be either completed or with enough active project implementation completed to assess the degree of restoration; (2) the case had to be at a geographic scale that was larger than the singular project level, and involve substantial regional and local coordination to implement it; (3) there had to be enough information available on the restoration efforts to develop a comprehensive case study; and (4) the list needed to represent multiple regions around the U.S and a diversity of restored coastal habitat types to avoid developing generalities that could potentially be specific to one region or habitat type
Chesapeake Bay (CB) consists of many habitats such as tidal marshes, seagrass beds, oyster reefs, hard bottom, and mud flats [39]

Summary

Introduction

Throughout the United States, extensive investments have been made to restore lost ecological functions and services resulting from habitat loss and degradation. Coastal restoration has increased in terms of both number and scale of projects over the past decade, yet many restoration projects are still small relative to the degree of habitat loss that has occurred over the past two centuries [1,2]. By the 1950s, it was evident that the system had exceeded a water quality tipping point, leading to a rapid decline in several important coastal habitats (seagrasses, saltmarshes, oyster reefs [47,48]), including a 99.7% decline in oyster abundance in the Upper Chesapeake Bay since the early 1800’s [49]. The result of the anthropogenic pressures on SFB was the loss of wildlife habitats and a reduction in tide-related flushing, which in turn has led to progressive deterioration of the Bay’s water quality [67,68,69,71]

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion