How Does Restoration Differ from Conservation?

What you will learn

• Compare conservation (protection) and restoration by starting point and goal.
• Explain why the causes of degradation must be dealt with first.
• Describe how to judge whether a restoration project has worked.

Before you start

It helps to know what an ecosystem is. Other terms are explained as they appear.

How do the starting point and goal of the two approaches differ?

The two approaches begin from different situations. Protection applies to relatively intact systems. Restoration applies to degraded ones. In EPA’s wetland terminology, protection is removing a threat to wetland conditions or preventing their decline. Restoration is manipulating the physical, chemical or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural or historic functions to a former or degraded wetland.

The last row shows a difference in accounting. Re-establishing a lost wetland adds acres. Rehabilitating a degraded wetland adds function but not acres. Protection adds neither acres nor function, because it keeps existing conditions.

The two approaches complement each other. Existing, relatively intact ecosystems are the keystone for conserving biodiversity and provide the organisms and natural materials needed to recover impaired systems. So restoration does not replace the need to protect. Even for waterbodies where restoration is planned, the first objective should be to prevent further degradation.

Why must the causes of degradation be addressed first?

Restoration is likely to fail if the sources of degradation persist. So an essential step is to identify the causes and eliminate or remediate ongoing stresses where possible.

Causes often lie away from where you look. Upstream and up-slope activities must be examined, not only the impacts on the project site. A local project may not be able to change the whole watershed, but it can be designed to accommodate watershed effects better.

Restoration therefore has limits. The aim is the greatest progress toward ecological integrity achievable within the current limits of the watershed. A wetland restoration is unlikely to succeed if the hydrological regime that existed before degradation cannot be re-established.

In some cases it is enough to reduce or remove the stress and allow recovery time. This is passive restoration. It is still necessary to analyse the site’s recovery needs.

How can recovery be assessed?

You need clear, achievable and measurable goals. Goals direct implementation and provide the standards for measuring success. Verifying whether desired functions have been re-established is a good way to tell whether the project succeeded. Long-term monitoring after the project shows progress over time.

A reference site is one way to set the yardstick. It is a site comparable in structure and function to the restoration site before it was degraded, used as a model and as a yardstick for progress. But no two aquatic systems are truly identical, so differences between the reference site and the area being restored must be accounted for.

Community support matters too. Its presence or absence can be the difference between positive results and failure. And one more lesson: enhancing one function may reduce another, so an assessment should look at the other functions as well.

Real-world example

Picture two wetlands. Site A still has plenty of native vegetation and is at risk of being drained or filled. Site B was ditched, so the water flow is blocked and vegetation is sparse.

For site A, the first job is protection: remove the threat. For site B, first find out why the flow is blocked, then restore. When judging site B, you set measurable goals, choose a similar reference site and monitor over many years.

Common misunderstandings

Restoration does not replace protection. Intact systems are the source for restoration, so protection still comes first.

Restoration does not guarantee success. It is likely to fail if the sources of degradation persist.

A reference site is not a copy. No two aquatic systems are truly identical.

Frequently asked questions

How do restoration and protection differ?

Protection prevents decline in an intact system. Restoration helps a degraded system regain function.

When is it enough to wait for the system to recover?

At some sites, reducing or removing the stress and allowing time is enough. The recovery needs still have to be analysed.

How do you know a restoration project has succeeded?

Compare against clear, measurable goals, check that functions have been re-established, and monitor over the long term.

Summary

• Protection keeps intact systems; restoration helps degraded systems regain function.
• The causes of degradation must be addressed, with the watershed context in mind.
• Outcomes are judged with measurable goals, a reference site and monitoring.