Back

Scientific research has tended to broadly compartmentalise restoration efforts into "passive" or "active" strategies, which can be misleading and often undermines its usefulness for on-ground practitioners

Scientists now recommend viewing restoration interventions as a continuum along a gradient of cost or effort. To aid this shift, we recommend that research compares between methods along the continuum, (instead of just passive vs. active), to understand how restoration success is related to effort

We also reiterate in the paper that research distinguishes between goals for restoration, and importantly, avoids conflating ecological with economic goals under "active" restoration

Finally, we propose a minimum reporting checklist that restoration research can follow to aid practitioners other scientists identify where restoration efforts lie along the intervention continuum