Critique Paper I

Critic Paper on Negative Off-site Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Understanding and Addressing the Conflict (Mark Buckley and Elizabeth Crone)

            Efforts in restoring ecosystem have been more extensive now more than ever. Both the government and non-government sectors work on improving the quality of environment through restoration activities such as reforestation. These feats have been deemed necessary considering the various threats that pose harm to the environment, mainly of which are anthropogenic.

            The study of Mark Buckley and Elizabeth Crone on Negative Off-site Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Understanding and Addressing the Conflict becomes a valuable help as it becomes a handy consideration to take in the pursuit of ecological restoration.

            The area of the case study is the Sacramento River Conservation Area (SRCA) in northern California, USA. The restoration project aimed to reestablish the 160-kilometer fragmented forest area in the upper Sacramento river. According to the literature, before the restoration project has begun, 97% of the deforested area was used for agricultural purposes. The primary goal of the said project is to provide habitat that would support migratory birds and salmonid species.

Based on the results of this research, it turns out that restoration of ecosystem with a different land use can be more controversial than protecting a pre-existing forest or habitat for ecological gains. The issue that is likely to arise is the social acceptance. For instance, it was noted that the local farmers were concerned about restoring the forest because it might serve as an refuge and breeding ground for the species they consider as pest, like deer and squirrel. By rehabilitating the area, it is perceived by the locals that there might be economic loss due to the projected population inflation of these species. Because the project went unpopular as time went on, changes were made in order to meet the restorationalists’ and farmers’ interest half way. As a result, the restoration project in SCRA was reduced from 86,000 hectares to 32,000 hectares.

            This research, however, seemed to base solely on secondary data since no part of the paper did it presented any methods or procedures. Although secondary data cannot be disregarded, the gathered information may not be enough to be conclusive. It would have been better if the researchers themselves took the data from the landowners of the private lands surrounding the study site. Some of the citations made were from researches that were conducted 2-3 years ago or so. It would have been best to also include if the arrangements between restorationalists in SRCA and private land owners, especially the farmers, were successful. The feedback on the mechanisms could have helped more future restoration projects basing on this case study.

            It is true that when conflicts occur, it is best to consider the issues raised by the locals so stewardship will be more efficient. Restorationists must also be willing to compromise and validate the legitimacy of the locals’ concern, be it a short-term or long-term. Nevertheless, these possible conflicts will become crucial in the social acceptance of the project. Failure to meet this may lead not only to lack of support by the public, but may even lead to opposition.

            The study recognized the need for inclusion of the negative off-site impacts in ecological restoration. This is something that is most likely overlooked especially that the objective is for ecological gains. Indeed, in order to ensure high chances of success, a holistic approach has to be employed. All aspects should be considered as for every change, there will always be a reaction. Be it something desirable or otherwise, it’s something that should be prepared about.