An Assessment of the Training Needs of Restoration Ecologists in North America (2012)

Restoration NA article version 3.0

Article about 3816 words

Abstract about 290 words

An Assessment of the Training Needs of Restoration Ecologists in North America (2012)

By John Bragg1 and Avia Huisman2

Abstract (290 words)

Restoration ecology is a young discipline, and the practice of ecological restoration is as much an art as it is a science and a scholarly pursuit. Experimentation, intuition, and creativity in the field often set the pace for academic advancement. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) is a source for ideas, knowledge, and skills useful for restoring degraded, damaged or destroyed estuary habitat. In 2011 the NERRS conducted a national online assessment to learn about the kinds of training needed by restoration ecologists. Ecological habitat restoration is a component of research and professional training at many of the estuary research reserves.

Students and scientists entering the field of ecological restoration not only find opportunities to design and implement habitat restoration projects; they are also exposed to community dialogues and diverse points of view about the need for and benefit of habitat restoration, including viewpoints that may have little to do with science, but much to do with aesthetics, values and traditions. Some may be required to manage or assist collaborative processes intended to build community support for ecological restoration. However, they often find they are ill-prepared for this responsibility. Team management, leadership, engaging stakeholders, and negotiating are among the skills they cite as lacking, but needed on the job, and desired by employers.

The results of the assessment are enabling the NERRS to: 1) identify and address gaps in training, knowledge or skills, as identified by restoration ecologists, 2) recommend best management practices for ecological restoration within National Estuarine Research Reserves, 3) at individual reserves, plan and implement locally-relevant training, and 4) provide training to restoration ecologists through professional organizations that support ecological restoration to foster both the art and science of restoration ecology.

1 South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Charleston, Oregon

2 Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Moss Point, Mississippi




I. Introduction

The Society for Ecological Restoration International (SERI) defines ecological restoration as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed” (SERI, 2004). The science of restoration ecology is a branch of applied ecology, and is defined as the discipline or theory that provides concepts, models and methods for the practice of ecological restoration, which put knowledge into action (Howell, Harrington, & Glass, 2012; Nelson, Schoennagel & Gregory, 2008; Aronson, Clewell, Blignaut & Milton, 2006; Higgs, 2005). The result is as much an art as it is a science. Practitioners rely not only on the set of academic disciplines, practical knowledge and traditions, and technical skills that comprise the developing science of restoration ecology, but also on the kind of intuitive knowledge and understanding of natural systems and processes, an eye for aesthetics and design, and an ability to visualize the whole from the parts, that comes from experience in the field (Apostol, 2006, SERI, 2004).

The modern practice of ecological restoration began taking shape during the 1980s as scientists from many fields—ecology and life sciences; agriculture, forest and range management; earth, ocean and atmospheric sciences, and social sciences, to name a few—began turning their collective attention to halting or reversing the loss of wetlands, estuaries, streams and other critically important habitat. Joining forces with engineers, planners, non-government organizations land owners and other private stakeholders, they began to design and test methods for restoring degraded, damaged or destroyed wetlands. While they drew lessons from the work and writings of early twentieth century conservationists, much of what they learned to do their jobs they learned in the field from one another (Apostol, 2006).

Restoration ecology matured as a science during a period of social and political strife memorable for the listing, in 1990, of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) as a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The owl was considered an indicator of forest health in western Oregon and Washington, where it depended on large tracts of undisturbed, old-growth conifer forest for successful reproduction. But providing protection for the owl’s habitat meant the cessation of large-scale timber harvests throughout much of the region, and the loss of many jobs, particularly in small rural communities that were largely dependent on income from timber harvests. President Bill Clinton’s Northwest Forest Plan (Johnson et al., 1991) was an attempt to blaze a neutral path between protecting the owl and preserving the jobs and livelihoods of timber industry workers (Apostol, 2006).

The Northwest Forest Plan also marked the federal government’s first attempt to involve rural communities in efforts to restore public lands, guided by the needs of entire ecosystems instead the obligations imposed by administrative or regulatory boundaries. The Northwest Forest Plan




set out basic principles for ecosystem-based management and for working with stakeholders and building rural support for habitat restoration projects—principles that restoration ecologists now routinely rely upon—such as collaborative learning, or negotiating skills, stakeholder partnerships, and meeting management techniques that are designed to build trust and ensure inclusive community decision-making.

One such strategy is the National Estuarine Research Reserve System’s (NERRS) Coastal Training Program, operating at all 28 NERR sites in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. The goal of coastal training is increased use of science by decision makers to manage estuaries. Each reserve defines “decision maker” differently, depending on local needs and interests. In general the term refers to elected officials, natural resource managers, community leaders, scientists, private stakeholders, or others whose decisions routinely affect the coastal environment. Training is developed to meet specific needs of these audiences. Some of the research reserves are engaged in ecological restoration. Over the years these reserves have served as natural laboratories where innovative restoration techniques are developed, tested, evaluated, and made available to others.

Training in the science of restoration ecology generally begins at university. Students entering the field typically arrive from scientific degree programs intending to specialize in science careers. Often they go to work for government agencies, conservation organizations or private enterprise, where they may be tasked with designing, planning, or implementing habitat restoration projects (Aronson, Aguirre, & Munoz, 2010; Campbell, Fuller & Patrick, 2005). Yet it is common for newly-hired practitioners to find themselves less than prepared for the reality of their jobs (Cabin, 2007; Campbell, Fuller, & Patrick, 2005; Clark, 2001; Mervis, 2001). Entry-level workers frequently cite skills necessary for leading and managing teams, engaging stakeholders, negotiation, educating, training and providing community outreach, or managing grants, as missing from their education. These are among the skills that are most desired by employers and are considered prerequisite for effectiveness on the job (Nelson, Schoennagel & Gregory, 2008; Shah, Treby, May & Walsh, 2007; Campbell et al., 2005; Niesenbaum & Lewis, 2003).

There is increasing recognition that professional development and training should continue throughout the course of a career in ecological restoration. The twenty-first century restoration ecologist must have the grace and skill of a diplomat to encourage civil dialogue or debate, ensure that all parties are heard, and all arguments are fairly considered. The job frequently requires the ability to guide a formal decision-making process, and the technical and administrative skill to manage public meetings, marshal resources and arrange funding. A skilled practitioner, working with the advice and assistance of willing partners, and with sensitivity to social, historical and cultural values, is able to stitch together concepts and ideas from many disciplines, visualize outcomes, and restore degraded ecosystems with attention to both ecological integrity and historical fidelity (Higgs, 2003). Intimidating as the scope of work may




be, there are thousands of restoration ecologists across the country managing successful careers and contributing to local economies (RAE, 2011).

As a science, restoration ecology lacks legal standing, so “almost anyone” can declare a site restored. Certification standards for practitioners would be useful but developing a universal certification standard is problematic since habitat varies so greatly. The skills necessary to restore salt marshes, and standards to judge success, for example, have little applicability in freshwater ponds above tidal influence. Alternatively, certification standards for restoration projects might prove more feasible (Apostol, 2006).

Regardless of the development of standards, as a first, necessary step, we determined that the NERRS Coastal Training Program should conduct a national online survey of restoration ecologists in order to better understand what types of skills are lacking among workers, and what types of training will contribute to successful restoration.

II. Methods

The NERRS Coastal Training Program relies on targeted audience assessments to determine local training needs. Data collection employs one or more of these methods: focus group discussions, surveys, interviews, audience assessments from other sources, and the professional observations of the program coordinators and training staff.

In cooperation with the NOAA Restoration Center and NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division, we formed a work group that included coastal training staff from research reserves in New England, the Gulf of Mexico, and along the West Coast, to determine our scope and develop a list of questions. Our questions were designed to elicit details about training in broad areas of interest that relate to the NERRS’ priorities for restoring habitat, protecting water quality and adapting to climate change. We drafted a pilot survey and invited staff from additional research reserves to test the draft and recommend changes.

The survey opened August 5, 2011. It was distributed using web links and email address lists of professional organizations supporting ecological restoration including the SERI, Restore American’s Estuaries (RAE), and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). We received 283 responses. The survey was closed November 22, 2011.

III. Results

To ensure we were targeting the right audience, our first question asked, “Do your duties include any aspect of planning, designing, managing, reviewing, regulating, advising, or otherwise contributing expertise or labor to habitat restoration projects?” In effect this defined “habitat restoration professional” in the terms we wanted to use, and simultaneously filtered out individuals who self-determined that they did not meet the qualification. As a measure of how




accurately we targeted our intended audience, only five of 283 respondents answered “no” to the qualifying question (less than 2%) and were excluded from the rest of the survey.

What type of organization? More than a quarter of our respondents work for non-governmental organizations (27.7%). More than half work for government agencies, primarily state (24.8%), federal (18.6%) or local (8.7%) agencies. About 10% work for private consultancies or businesses and about 6.2% work for universities (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. What type of organization do you represent?

What background and skill? We asked restoration ecologists what background or skill they bring to projects. Experience with project management and monitoring topped the list of qualifications that practitioners considered essential (project design, planning and management, 76.5%; plan or oversee monitoring efforts, 57.4%) (Fig. 2). Two other categories closely related to planning, designing, and monitoring projects also rated highly: invasive plant control (59.4%) and mapping/GIS/remote sensing (47%). Roughly two thirds of working restoration ecologists have been on the job for fewer than 10 years. Of the remaining 38%, nearly half have been practicing ecological restoration for more than 20 years.

18.6%18.6%18.6%18.6%

24.8%24.8%24.8%24.8%

8.7%8.7%8.7%8.7%6.2%6.2%6.2%6.2%

27.7%27.7%27.7%27.7%

9.9%9.9%9.9%9.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

What type of organization do you represent? What type of organization do you represent? What type of organization do you represent? What type of organization do you represent? (n=242)




Figure 2. What background, skills and experience do you bring to a habitat restoration project?

Where do you do most of your work? Respondents indicated they work throughout the nation, but much of their effort is concentrated in the coastal zones of the Gulf of Mexico (23%), the Northeast Atlantic (20%), the Southeast Atlantic (19%), and in the combined Pacific Northwest (including British Columbia) and California (29%) (Fig. 3).

59.4%

56.2%47.0%

76.5%

57.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

What background, skills and experience do you bring to a

habitat restoration project?

(n=251)




Figure 3. Where do you do most of your work?

Which habitats do you work with? We asked the respondents to indicate what types of habitat they worked with, or expect to work with in the near future. Our intent was to gain some understanding of what habitat types were of national concern, based on the evidence of commitment of time and human resources (Fig. 4). Based on the response received, we identified eight types of habitat as nationally significant: salt marshes (68.8%), rivers and streams (65.6%), shorelines (62.3%), freshwater marshes (46.2%), fresh tidally influenced marshes (45.7%), oyster reefs and beds (42.5%), marine submerged aquatic vegetation (42.5%), and forested wetlands (40%).

20.5%20.5%20.5%20.5%

11.2%11.2%11.2%11.2%

18.9%18.9%18.9%18.9%

23.3%23.3%23.3%23.3%

12.0%12.0%12.0%12.0%

17.3%17.3%17.3%17.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Where do you do most of your work? (Choose any that apply.)

n=248

42.5% 42.5%

68.8%

46.2%

45.7%40.1%

65.6%

62.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Which habitats do you work with or expect to work with in the

near future?

(n=247)




Figure 4. Which habitats do you work with, or expect to work with in the near future?

The training topics. There are areas of topical interest that the National Estuarine Research Reserve System consider integral to the successful ecological restoration, among them: climate, ecology, science and monitoring; project planning and management; technical skills, and working with stakeholders. For each of these interest areas, through their work with restoration ecologists and their experience with planning, managing and evaluating ecological restoration projects, reserve staff have discerned various sets of skills that are integral to successful, community-supported ecological restoration. We asked respondents to consider a variety of skills or attributes that relate to each of these interest areas and indicate their need for training for each of the topics listed.

1. Climate. In considering the impacts of climate change on ecological restoration, respondents identified habitat connectivity and fragmentation (75.9%), the effects of sea level rise on intertidal habitat (70.7%), and applying climate vulnerability assessments to habitat restoration projects (70.3%), among their top needs for training. Training related to invasive species control (59.5%), and using or applying climate change indicators (43.5%) also rated as significant (response > 40%).

Figure 5. Training needs related to climate

59.5%

75.9%70.7%

43.5%38.8%

70.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Training needs related to climate(n=232)




Ecology. Respondents were asked to identify their training needs as they relate to the basic ecology of different habitat types and, in particular, the ecology of diadromous fish in estuaries. Respondents indicated need for training related to the basic ecology of: salt marshes (72%), submerged aquatic vegetation (57%), tidal channels (55%), tidal freshwater wetlands (54%), freshwater wetlands (52%), diadromous fish in estuaries (49%), oyster reefs and beds (45%) and wetland soils (42%) (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Training needs related to ecology

Science and Monitoring. The outstanding need in this category is for training in evaluating the long-term success of habitat restoration projects, identified by 86% of respondents (Fig. 7). Other monitoring and evaluation training needs scored high: evaluating artificially-created habitat (53.8%); monitoring water quality (47.9%); and monitoring beach and shoreline erosion or accretion (44.5%). Other significant training needs include tidal hydrology (49.2%), effects of carbon sequestration (41.9%) and de-nitrification (40.3%) in restoration projects, and invasive species vectors (40.3%).

49.5% 52.3% 54.1% 55.4% 56.3%

71.6%

41.9%45.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Training needs related to ecology(n=222)




Figure 7. Training needs related to science and monitoring

Project planning and management. The importance of training in techniques for evaluating the success of restoration projects over the long term is reinforced by the response in this category. Similarly, the responses emphasize the importance of performing tasks that not directly related to the science of ecological restoration, but are nonetheless essential to successful management of both projects and people.

Nearly eighty percent of respondents emphasized the need for training in project design and evaluation (79.9%). Seventy three percent emphasized the importance of training in writing restoration plans. Nearly 64% emphasized the need for training in setting project goals and objectives. Meeting regulatory burdens, grant writing, and contract management all rated as nationally significant (response > 40%) (Fig. 8).

41.1%40.3%

49.2%53.8%

40.3%44.5%

86.0%

47.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Training needs related to science and monitoring(n-236)




Figure 8. Training needs related to project planning and management

Technical skills. We queried the audience about a range of technical skills that can be useful in planning, managing or evaluating restoration projects. Only four topics cleared the 40% minimum for nationally significant training: developing best management practices for ecological restoration projects (76.2%), using geographic information system (GIS) products and services (60.9%), ecological landscaping (e.g., living shoreline conservation projects) (60.4%), and using ecosystem-based decision support management tools (49.4%) (Fig. 9).

63.6%59.3%

46.9%

70.3%

79.9%

46.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Training needs related to project planning and management(n=209)

76.2%

60.4%

49.4%

60.9%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Training needs related to technical skills(n=235)




Figure 9. Training needs related to technical skills

Working with stakeholders. The final category addresses social skills useful for engaging stakeholders and the public. All seven topics scored highly: creating successful partnerships (68%), engaging diverse stakeholders (62%), managing and resolving conflict (61%), negotiating for coastal resources (60%), communicating effectively (59%) facilitating public meetings (52%), and using collaborative learning methods (46%) (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Training needs related to working with stakeholders

Sources of knowledge. We asked the respondents what sources they relied on for information to increase their understanding of the principles or restoration ecology and the practices of ecological restoration (Fig. 11). Nearly 85% of respondents said they always or often relied on their formal academic backgrounds; 71% reported relying on professional articles and peer-reviewed research always or often; 71% cited the importance of professional development or training. Restoration ecologists also reported that they rely equally as much or more on holistic approaches to gaining knowledge, including through informal exchanges with colleagues (97% report using this source often or always); an intuitive understanding of natural systems and processes (92% report using this source often or always), and traditional ecological knowledge (36% report using this source often or always).

60.1% 62.0%67.8%

60.6%

52.4%58.7%

46.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Training needs related to working with stakeholders(n=208)




Figure 11. Sources of knowledge

III. Discussion

Cautions about the data.

1. Although the science of restoration ecology has been developing for at least a quarter century it is still a young science and the practice of ecological restoration remains an emerging discipline. Unlike more-established disciplines, the profession of ecological restoration lacks some of the formal structures that can contribute to professional identity and fraternal cohesion. One consequence is that it is hard to know whether a sampling of restoration ecologists, accessed through the email lists of organizations that support restoration ecology, is representative of the target audience. Restore America’s Estuaries (RAE), for example, maintains an email list of about 11,000 individuals. Jeff Benoit, RAE director, estimated that about 64% (about 7,400) of his organization’s members qualify as “habitat restoration professionals” (Benoit, pers. comm., 2011). Because we were unable to accurately determine the size of the audience, we do not consider the audience contacted in this survey to be a representative sample. However, the methods used to target an audience and evaluate its training needs work very well for the type of analysis used by the NERRS Coastal Training Program to identify training needs, reveal gaps in skill sets, and provide a basis for developing training. The methodology, developed by the NERRS and vetted by an external panel of educators (Sliter et al., 2009), reliably provides contemporary snapshots of the training needs of carefully-targeted audiences.

8347

140

5417

106 133

126131

99

123

70

120102

3264

668

109

17 116 5 0 450

3 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Indicate the extent to which you use the following sources of knowledge.

Don't use

Seldom use

Often use

Always use




2. In designing the survey, our work group initially was hampered by the need to distinguish between nationally significant training topics and topics that were of purely local interest. The NERRS coastal training coordinators are trained to focus on the needs of local decision makers; as a group we faced a conceptual challenge when we were asked to consider instead the training needs of an entire profession on a national scale. We opted to include in the survey all of the topics that the training coordinators felt were relevant to their regions, rather than chance not including an understated, but important need. We determined that we would address the issue of local-only relevancy versus national significance based on our preliminary examination of the survey results. Our expectation was that topics of purely local interest would tend to score very low in the assessment, while nationally significant issues would resonate among respondents across broad coastal regions. Our initial review of the data confirmed our expectation and revealed a gap between locally and nationally significant topics. Local-only topics tended to score responses of less than 33%. Nationally significant topics generally scored responses approaching two-thirds or more. We elected to be conservative and apply a 40 percent cut-off; training topics that scored above 40% we deemed to be of significant national interest. Topics scoring less than 40% were considered to be of local-only interest. We applied this cut-off to the six categories of training topics, but allowed a single exception, as described in the next paragraph.

3. In evaluating the responses about training needs related to climate, we noted particularly high scores for two related topics: applying climate vulnerability assessments to habitat restoration projects (70.3%) and assessing climate vulnerability (38.8%) (Fig. 5). Strictly speaking, assessing climate vulnerability should have dropped from further consideration as a nationally significant topic since it scored less than 40%. There appear to be differences between conducting a climate vulnerability assessment and applying the results of that assessment to a habitat restoration project. However, it is not clear that the latter can occur without the former having already occurred. This question probably could have been better-designed. However, it did not seem appropriate to discard an important piece of data in this case.

We considered the climate vulnerability assessment and applicability questions as two parts of the same thing. We believe the audience is telling us that restoration ecologists need to understand how to conduct a climate vulnerability assessment and be able to apply the outcomes of that assessment to adaptively manage on-going restoration projects if necessary, or to evaluate and plan future projects from initial feasibility studies that take climate vulnerabilities into account. Training is needed for practitioners to accomplish both of these objectives.




Knowledge and experience. There is a gap between academic knowledge on one hand, knowledge gained through on-the-job experience on the other, and job expectations facing restoration ecologists entering the job market. Although trained (usually) as physical scientists, among the skills that may be demanded of them are what might be called people management skills: creating successful partnerships, engaging diverse stakeholders, managing and resolving conflict, negotiating, communicating effectively, facilitating public meetings, and working and learning collaboratively. Few job entrants are confident that they have these skills. Since these skills were developed to help individuals and groups reduce barriers to communication, resolve conflict and realize mutual goals and objectives in habitat conservation projects, training to acquire these skills will likely translate into improved support for community-supported habitat restoration projects.

Training in social skills and strategies that enable people holding diverse points of view to work together in order to address local environmental degradation transcends purely technical training. Community support for habitat restoration can be as critical – perhaps even more critical – to a habitat restoration project’s success than having access to the latest technical tools and protocols.

Monitoring and evaluation. Another training gap lies in the categories of science and monitoring and project planning and management. The absence of long-term monitoring was frequently pointed out as a significant gap in evaluating the success of restoration projects. Nearly 80% of respondents emphasized the need for training in project design and evaluation. Training is needed both in techniques for monitoring and evaluating the projects, and for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the social and civil processes that build community support for restoration.

Required skills. The audience isolated key skills that we conclude should be considered prerequisite for fully-qualified restoration ecologists. These include the range of skills that are required to plan, design and implement habitat restoration projects, plan and oversee monitoring programs, monitor native vegetation and control the spread of invasive plants. The audience’s responses confirm that academic training is a necessary cornerstone for a comprehensive learning process that further benefits from interactions with colleagues and peers, from opportunities for professional development and training, and from literature.

The results of this assessment provide a basis for understanding the training needs of a large, diverse audience of practitioners representing both scientific and non-scientific disciplines and working on a national scale. While this assessment sheds light on broadly-defined training needs, for individual National Estuarine Research Reserves, training coordinators will be obliged to conduct more detailed assessments within the parameters of the current survey to fully discern the needs of restoration ecologists working locally.




Data not considered. This survey followed usual coastal training program guidelines for need assessments by querying the audience about times and places and methods preferred for receiving training. We are not reporting those results here because they are not nationally significant (although convenience for local stakeholders and clients is important for making coastal training events accessible to decision makers).

IV. Conclusion

From grassroots beginnings a quarter century and more ago, the art and science of restoration ecology has matured as a carefully structured endeavor that incorporates principles of ecosystem-based management, collaborative community-supported decision making, and monitoring to manage the conservation of critical habitat, including marshes, estuaries, streams, bays and other wetlands. Graduates enter the field of ecological restoration well-equipped for doing science, but less-well equipped for critical aspects of their jobs that involve communicating with decision makers, collaborating with community groups and building trusting relationships with stakeholders. They need training to plan, design, manage and evaluate restoration projects, and to monitor and evaluate projects over long term. They would also benefit from training or technical assistance in creating effective partnerships, managing conflict, negotiating, and from the development of best management practices for planning, designing and implementing habitat restoration projects.

The educative emphasis in restoration ecology is on academic training in science. The key to successful ecological restoration may lie in training that focuses on trusting relationships and shared values with people who care passionately about the quality of life in their communities and environment, and in their own uniquely human habitat.

V. Acknowledgements

We thank these individuals for their assistance in developing and administering the survey: Rosalyn Kilcollins, coastal training coordinator (Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve, Apalachicola, Fla.), Tonna Marie Surgeon Rogers, coastal training coordinator (Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, Woods Hole, Mass.), Kristen Goodrich, coastal training coordinator (Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, Imperial Beach, Calif.), Nina Garfield, program coordinator (Estuarine Reserves Division, National Estuarine Research Reserves System, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); Matthew Chasse, program representative, ERD/NERRS/OCRM/NOS/NOAA, and Tina O’Connell, program representative, ERD/NERRS/OCRM/NOS/NOAA.

VI. References




Anderson, M.K. (2005). Tending the Wild: Native American knowledge and the management of California's natural resources. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23856-7

Aronson, J., Aguirre, N., and Munoz, J. (2010). Ecological restoration for future conservation professionals: Training with conceptual models and practical exercises. Ecological Restoration, 28(2), 175-181.

Aronson, J., Clewel, A. F., Blignaut, J.N., and Milton, S.J. (2006). Ecological restoration: A new frontier for nature conservation and economics. Journal for Nature Conservation, 14, 135-139.

Benoit, J. 2011 personal communication. “…with so many dimensions to restoration, it is really hard to track actual number. We have an email list of about 11,000 individuals we send info to, but many of those I wouldn’t consider to be part of the professional audience, but would guess at least half that number, if not more, would qualify as professionals…as a rough estimate I’d say about 6,000 to 7,000 professionals.”

Cabin, R.J. (2007). Science-driven restoration: A square grid on a round earth? Restoration Ecology, 15(1), 1-7.

Campbell, S.P., Fuller, A.K., and Patrick, D.A (2005). Looking beyond research in doctoral education. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment, 3, 153-160.

Clark, T.W. (2001) Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: Professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conservation Biology, 15, 31-39.

Gilliam, O. (2002). The Limitless City: a primer on the urban sprawl debate. ISBN 1-55963-833-8. Paperback. Island Press, 1718 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Suite 300, Washington, D.C. p.49.

Goodman, W.M., editor (1914). The First Exposition of Conservation and its Builders: An Official History of the National Conservation Exposition, excerpted from Documentary Chronology of Selected Events in the Development of the American Conservation Movement, 1847-1920, U.S. Library of Congress website, accessed Dec. 16, 2011. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amrvhtml/cnchron6.html

Higgs, E. (2005). The two-culture problem: Ecological Restoration and the integration of knowledge. Restoration Ecology, 13(1), 159-164.

Howell, E.A., Harrington, J.A., and Glass, S.B. (2012). Introduction to Restoration Ecology. Washington: Island Press.

Johnson, K. N., J. F. Franklin, J. W. Thomas, and J. Gordon. 1991. Alternatives for management of late-successional forests of the Pacific Northwest. Report to the Agricultural Committee and




the Merchant Marine Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county almanac and sketches here and there. Oxford University Press, New York.

Mervis, J. (2001). Student survey highlights mismatch of training, goals. Science, 291, 408-409.

Muir, M.J. and Schwartz, M.W. (2009). Graduate education in conservation: Academic training for a non-academic workplace. Conservation Biology, 23(6), 1357-1368.

Nelson, C.R., Schoennagel, T. and Gregory, E.R. (2008). Opportunities for academic training in the science and practice of restoration within the United Sates and Canada. Restoration Ecology, 16, 225-230.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended through Pub. L. No. 109-58, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Restore America’s Estuaries (2011). Jobs & dollars: Big returns from coastal habitat restoration. Retrieved on December 6, 2011 from http://www.estuaries.org/images/81103-RAE_17_FINAL_web.pdf

Schultz, P. W. (2011), Conservation Means Behavior. Conservation Biology, 25: 1080–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x

Society for Ecological Restoration International (2004). The SER Primer on Ecological Restoration, Version 2. Society for Ecological Restoration Science and Policy Working Group. http://www.ser.org/reading_resources.asp

Shah, A., Treby, E., May, V., and Walsh, P. (2007). Bridging the divide between academia and practitioners: Training coastal zone managers. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50, 859-871.

Solem, M., Cheung, I., and Schlemper, M.B. (2008). Skills in professional geography: An assessment of workforce need and expectations. The Professional Geographer, 60(3), 356-373.

Sliter, D. et al., 2009. Joint External Review of Training Activities: Findings and Improvement Options. Global Evaluations & Applied Research Solutions (GEARS) Inc. Decatur, GA 30038.

An Assessment of the Training Needs of Restoration Ecologists in North America (2012)

Documents

Transcript of An Assessment of the Training Needs of Restoration Ecologists in North America (2012)