A tenuous link: Information transfer between urban ecological research and restoration practice

Despite a growing theoretical understanding of restoration ecology, this scientific knowledge is not typically well linked to restoration practitioner decision-making. Urban restoration projects are increasing worldwide due to the myriad ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits restored ecosystems provide, but if not linked to ecological theory these projects may not achieve long-term goals such as restoration of ecosystem structure and function. We conducted an Aotearoa New Zealand-wide survey of urban forest restoration practitioners using a combination of open-ended and fixed-answer questions to better understand drivers behind their planning, implementation, and management of restoration projects. We chose urban forest restoration as a model system because these practitioners are faced with extraordinary social pressures to restore under severely degraded ecological conditions, and therefore require reliable, efficient methods for success. Our goals were to 1) understand trends in practitioner decision making 2) identify weak links in knowledge transfer between restoration ecology research and ecological restoration practice, and 3) suggest targeted methods to strengthen information transfer between researchers and practitioners. Our survey identified a tenuous link between current scientific knowledge regarding best-practice restoration and practitioner actions. While best-practice recommends setting of specific, measurable objectives to restore ecosystems, the sample of Aotearoa New Zealand urban restoration practitioners surveyed tend to have broad, vague objectives and focus on restoration of simple ecosystem components such as a canopy of early successional plant species. Practitioners also prioritise management actions like planting or weed control over project planning and quantitative monitoring, despite projects requiring these for long-term success. Results indicate practitioners source knowledge equally through interpersonal interactions (e.g. with ecologists and fellow practitioners) and traditional forms of science communication (e.g. books and scientific articles). This suggests that prioritising interactive, interpersonal modes of science communication would help strengthen knowledge transfer. Additionally, providing practitioners with time-saving resources, adequate funding, and guidance to navigate socio-ecological constraints that arise in urban projects will improve restoration outcomes.