Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Geographic Expression of Urban Sustainability: A Scenario Based Approach Incorporating Spatial Multicriteria Decision Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Talking Big: Lessons Learned from a 9000 Hectare Restoration in the Northern Tallgrass Prairie
Previous Article in Journal
Conservation in Context: A Comparison of Conservation Perspectives in a Mexican Protected Area
Open AccessArticle

Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success

Arizona State University, Polytechnic Campus, 6073 S Backus Mall, Mesa, AZ 85212, USA
USFS Watershed, Fish, and Wildlife & CSU Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory NRRC, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Colorado State University, Department of Biology, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2012, 4(9), 2334-2347;
Received: 29 June 2012 / Revised: 23 July 2012 / Accepted: 1 September 2012 / Published: 19 September 2012
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Terrestrial Ecosystem Restoration)
PDF [977 KB, uploaded 24 February 2015]


Restoration projects can have varying goals, depending on the specific focus, rationale, and aims for restoration. When restoration projects use project-specific goals to define activities and gauge success without considering broader ecological context, determination of project implications and success can be confounding. We used case studies from the Middle Rio Grande (MRG), southwest USA, to demonstrate how restoration outcomes can rank inconsistently when narrowly-based goals are used. Resource managers have chosen MRG for restoration due to impacts to the natural flood regime, reduced native tree recruitment, and establishment of non-native plants. We show restoration “success” ranks differently based upon three goals: increasing biodiversity, increasing specific ecosystem functions, or restoring native communities. We monitored 12 restored and control sites for seven years. Treatments ranked higher in reducing exotic woody populations, and increasing proportions of native plants and groundwater salvage, but generally worse at removing fuels, and increasing species and habitat structural diversity. Managers cannot rely on the term “restoration” to sufficiently describe a project’s aim. Specific desired outcomes must be defined and monitored. Long-term planning should include flexibility to incorporate provisions for adaptive management to refine treatments to avoid unintended ecological consequences. View Full-Text
Keywords: riparian; restoration; ecological services; ecological standards; monitoring; invasive species riparian; restoration; ecological services; ecological standards; monitoring; invasive species

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 3.0).

Supplementary material


Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Bateman, H.L.; Merritt, D.M.; Johnson, J.B. Riparian Forest Restoration: Conflicting Goals, Trade-Offs, and Measures of Success. Sustainability 2012, 4, 2334-2347.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top