Aplicación de Pruebas de Aceptación

Restoration appraisal requires implementation of monitoring programmes that quantify the change of target variables over time. The design of monitoring programmes for river restoration at a reach-scale management can only have a relatively local effect (Hughes et al. 2008). Much effort has gone into developing methodologies that can guide the process. For example, the Practical River

Restoration Appraisal Guidance for Monitoring Options (PRAGMO) (River Restoration Centre, 2011) is a guidance document on suitable monitoring for river and floodplain restoration projects. It is divided in two parts; the first part provides a summary of the more detailed information of the main body of the guidelines and the second part allows the person involved in the monitoring to assess specific elements of the guidance such as: river restoration understanding, project limitations, robust project and monitoring objectives, making informed decisions, identifying different monitoring methods, the need to prioritise monitoring aspirations and case studies. This guidance also provides a summary of key processes and components for developing a monitoring and appraisal strategy for river restoration and its associated floodplain, suggesting what are the key aspects. Another good example for restoration appraisal is

“The Flooded Forest: Guidance for policy makers and river managers in Europe on the restoration of floodplain forest” (Hughes, 2003). The document is presented in an accessible way to understand not only the key physical and biological processes involved in restoration projects but also the policy context in which restoration practitioners may proceed.

2.4.1 Adaptive Monitoring Framework-hypothesis for uncertainty Lindenmayer and Likens (2009) classify monitoring programmes into three categories: (1) passive monitoring, which is devoid of specified questions or underlying study design and has limited rationale other than curiosity, (2) mandated monitoring where environmental data are gathered as a stipulated requirement of government legislation or a political directive and (3) question-driven monitoring which is guided by a conceptual model and by a rigorous design that will typically result in a priori predictions that can be tested. As the site conditions were in-progress for this case study (i.e. gravel extraction works), a question-driven monitoring was regarded as a suitable method.

Question-driven monitoring programmes can provide insights into the ecological processes giving rise to emergent environmental patterns. Kentula (2000) suggested that one way to deal with the uncertainty of the response of the ecosystem to a restoration scheme is to use scientific principles of hypothesis

testing and model building in an Adaptive Monitoring Framework (AMF). More suggest in open-ended projects restoration goals should be framed in terms of promoting natural processes, mobile landscape mosaics and improved ecosystem services. In this project, it was proposed to employ a long-term monitoring approach that aimed to detect and evaluate changes of targeted variables in the floodplain ecosystem.

Long-term monitoring programmes are defined as “repeated field-based empirical measurements, collected continuously and then analysed for at least 10 years” (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010a). Lindenmayer and Likens (2009) quote successful examples of long-term monitoring that have several features in common, such as well formulated questions that were posed at the outset of the work, an ongoing development of new questions as initial ones were answered, robust experiment design, high quality data collection and careful attention to field data and field sample storage and strong enduring leadership among others. These examples cited include the agricultural research and monitoring project at Rothamsted in the United Kingdom (Rothamsted Research, 2009) which has contributed to environmental, economic and social sustainability, the Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest (HBEF) in New Hampshire (USA) (Likens, 2004) which has pioneered the small watershed technique as a method of studying ecosystem processes and the Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchment Partnership in southeast Queensland, Australia (Ecosystem Health Monitoring Program, 2008, cited in Lindenmayer and Likens, 2009, p. 483) which is one of the most comprehensive freshwater, estuarine and marine monitoring programs in Australia. These examples describe successful long-term monitoring programmes and can be used as a reference for other restoration projects.

It is difficult, in contrast, to find failed monitoring programme examples in the literature because they are not published; failed or ineffective monitoring programme (i.e. due to lack of consideration at the funding stage) is not considered of interest to the reader, although it would be valuable to the scientific community. Setting goals and objectives at the beginning of the project, good questions, establishing fluent communication between any stakeholder partnerships, scientists, policy-makers and managers (i.e.

organising periodic meetings), frequent use of data collected and budget estimations can help to achieve a successful and effective monitoring programme (Adapted from Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010a).

2.4.3 Successful long-term monitoring programmes

Existing methodologies are often site-specific and adjust to the spatio-temporal characteristics of the site and the type of restoration project carried out. Yet, Lindenmayer and Likens (2010a) identified some key features of successful monitoring programmes. These are: good and evolving questions, the use of a conceptual model, well-developed partnerships, strong and dedicated leadership, ongoing funding, frequent use of data, scientific productivity and maintenance of data integrity and calibration of field techniques.

Posing good questions lies at the heart of good science and effective long-term research and monitoring (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2009). The conceptual model needs to be developed at the beginning of a study, ensuring all the relevant components are captured in the project design (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010b). It is well known that most successful monitoring programmes are built on partnerships between people from different backgrounds with complementary skills; they are important because they can facilitate the flow of information (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2010a). It is important to maintain on going funding and a strong and dedicated leadership, in order to avoid the work slowing down or stopping altogether. Lindenmayer and Likens (2010a) state that the frequent use of data may stimulate new research and management questions; they strongly believe that results of a monitoring programme must be published in peer-reviewed literature contributing to scientific productivity. For

this to be applicable they recommended employing state of the art field techniques and adopting up-to-date methodologies.

2.4.4 Long-term monitoring failure

Existing projects have mentioned stakeholder participation, stakeholder education and construction criteria as being important to the success of projects (O’Donnell and Galat, 2008). Lindenmayer & Likens (2010b) state that “with questions lacking it is not possible to diagnose the cause of a change, which in turn limits predictive capability through time or space to other restoration sites; a poor study design can lead to the results of work not being written up, or when it is, making it difficult for findings to be published in reputable outlets”. The so-called “laundry list” occurs when monitoring too many things poorly rather than fewer things well (Zeide, 1994).

Other problems are the failure to properly articulate what to monitor and why, it is important to monitor targeted entities and an inappropriate assumption that there is a single approach to monitoring that is uniformly applicable to all monitoring programs (Lindenmayer and Likens, 2009).

2.5 Determining spatially relevant changes of land use and