Understand the biological complexity to target environmental restoration actions

Journal title TERRITORIO
Author/s Stefano Gomarasca, Fabrizio Stefani
Publishing Year 2025 Issue 2023/107
Language Italian Pages 5 P. 58-62 File size 149 KB
DOI 10.3280/TR2023-107007
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Biological monitoring plays a key role in the choose of the environmental redevelopment directions, and the collaboration between monitoring technicians and project governance is fundamental for the project success. However, the relationship between the two actors is often not balanced. These situations often lead to the role of monitoring not being considered strategic. Sometimes, to complicate matters, very complex environmental assessment methodologies are applied, which may be not coherent with each other. Furthermore, the lack of funds and the often limited time represent a big problem for the real needs of the work. Overall, the article explores problems and possible solutions with the aim of indicating the best paths to take.

Keywords: monitoring; natural capital; governance

  1. Blignaut J., Aronson J., de Groot R., 2014, «Restoration of Natural Capital: A Key Strategy on the Path to Sustainability». Ecological Engineering, 65: 54-61.
  2. Comitato Capitale Naturale, 2022, Quinto rapporto sullo stato del capitale naturale in Italia. Roma: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Sicurezza Energetica. www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/Capi- taleNaturale/V_Rapporto_CN.pdf (accesso: 2024.06.21).
  3. England J., Angelopoulos N., Cooksley S., Dodd J., Gill A., Gilvear D., Johnson M., Naura M., O’Hare M., Tree A., Wheeldon J., Wilkes M.A., 2021,
  4. «Best Practices for Monitoring and Assessing the Ecological Response to River Restoration». Water, 13(23): 3352.
  5. ipbes-Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2019, Media Release: Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’. https://ipbes. net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment#_Scale_of_Loss (accesso: 2024.06.21).
  6. Johnson C.N., Balmford A., Brook B.W., Buettel J.C., Galetti M., Guangchun L., Wilmshurst J.M., 2017, «Biodiversity Losses and Conservation Responses in the Anthropocene». Science, 356(6335): 270-275.
  7. Kimball S., Lulow M., Sorenson Q., Balazs K., Fang Y.C., Davis S.J., O’Connell M., Huxman T.E., 2015, «Cost-Effective Ecological Restoration». Restoration Ecology, 23, 6: 800-810.
  8. McKinley D.C., Miller-Rushing A.J., Ballard H.L., Bonney R., Brown H., Cook-Patton S.C., Evans D.M., French R.A., Parrish J.K., Phillips T.B., Ryan S.F., Shanley L.A., Shirk J.L., Stepenuck K.F., Weltzin J.F., Wiggins A., Boyle O.D., Briggs R.D., Chapin S.F., Hewitt D.A., Preuss P.W., Soukup M.A., 2017, «Citizen Science Can Improve Conservation Science, Natural Resource Management, and Environmental Protection». Biological Conservation, 208: 15-28.
  9. Roche J., Jensen E.A., Jensen A.M., Bell L., Hurley M., Taylor A., Bois-
  10. senin C., Chase J., Cherouvis S., Dunne K., Kashmina J., Massarani L., Planchard J., Russo P., Smyth F., 2023, «Bridging Citizen Science and Science Communication: Insights from a Global Study of Science Communicators». Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11: 1259422.
  11. Sandifer P.A., Sutton-Grier A.E., Ward B.P., 2015, «Exploring Connections Among Nature, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-Being: Opportunities to Enhance Health and Biodiversity Conservation». Ecosystem Services, 12: 1-15.
  12. Siddig A.A.H., Ellison A.M., Ochs A., Villar-Leeman C., Lau M.K., 2016,
  13. «How do Ecologists Select and Use Indicator Species to Monitor Ecological Change? Insights from 14 Years of Publication in Ecological Indicators». Ecological Indicators, 60: 223-230.
  14. Wagenknecht K., Woods T., Nold C., Ru¨fenacht S., Voigt-Heucke S., Caplan A., Hecker S., Vohland K., 2021, «A Question of Dialogue? Reflections on How Citizen Science Can Enhance Communication Between Science and Society». Journal of Science Communication, 20, 03: A13. DOI: 10.22323/2.20030213

Stefano Gomarasca, Fabrizio Stefani, Comprendere la complessità biologica per indirizzare gli interventi di ripristino ambientale in "TERRITORIO" 107/2023, pp 58-62, DOI: 10.3280/TR2023-107007