% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Cabin:10923,
author = {Cabin, R. and Clewell, A. and Ingram, M. and McDonald, T.
and Temperton, V. M.},
title = {{B}ridging {R}estoration {S}cience and {P}ractice:
{R}esults and {A}nalysis of a {S}urvey from the 2009
{S}ociety for {E}cological {R}estoration {I}nternational
{M}eeting},
journal = {Restoration ecology},
volume = {18},
issn = {1061-2971},
address = {Oxford [u.a.]},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
reportid = {PreJuSER-10923},
pages = {783 - 788},
year = {2010},
note = {We thank all of the 2009 SERI delegates who completed our
survey so thoughtfully, SERI for facilitating this survey
and supporting our Special Session, and all of the attendees
at this Session for their excellent and stimulating
contributions.},
abstract = {Developing and strengthening a more mutualistic
relationship between the science of restoration ecology and
the practice of ecological restoration has been a central
but elusive goal of SERI since its inaugural meeting in
1989. We surveyed the delegates to the 2009 SERI World
Conference to learn more about their perceptions of and
ideas for improving restoration science, practice, and
scientist/practitioner relationships. The respondents'
assessments of restoration practice were less optimistic
than their assessments of restoration science. Only $26\%$
believed that scientist/practitioner relationships were
“generally mutually beneficial and supportive of each
other,” and the “science–practice gap” was the
second and third most frequently cited category of factors
limiting the science and practice of restoration,
respectively (“insufficient funding” was first in both
cases). Although few faulted practitioners for ignoring
available science, many criticized scientists for ignoring
the pressing needs of practitioners and/or failing to
effectively communicate their work to nonscientists. Most of
the suggestions for bridging the gap between restoration
science and practice focused on (1) developing the necessary
political support for more funding of restoration science,
practice, and outreach; and (2) creating alternative
research paradigms to both facilitate on-the-ground projects
and promote more mutualistic exchanges between scientists
and practitioners. We suggest that one way to implement
these recommendations is to create a “Restoration
Extension Service” modeled after the United States
Department of Agriculture's Cooperative Extension Service.
We also recommend more events that bring together a fuller
spectrum of restoration scientists, practitioners, and
relevant stakeholders.},
cin = {ICG-3},
ddc = {570},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)ICG-3-20090406},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Ecology},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000283718000001},
doi = {10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00743.x},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/10923},
}