Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Case study reporting – is a change on the way?

Case study reporting – is a change on the way? This EMR issue includes a number of articles focusing on‐ground restoration in Australia and New Zealand. We are lucky to be able to offer readers overviews of restoration in each country, as well as a number of reports on individual on‐ground projects (‘case studies’). The issue’s guest editorial by David Norton, for example, provides a perspective on ecological restoration in New Zealand where internationally outstanding work is being carried out on the conservation management of threatened species. This piece is complemented by numerous short summaries (a new article type in the second half of the journal) which showcase some of New Zealand’s on‐ground projects. The issue also includes an in‐depth perspective on restoration in Australia, as well as feature articles on two projects – Donaghy’s Corridor in north Queensland and the Regent Honeyeater Project in northern Victoria – which aim to reintegrate habitats for suites of native species in Australian agricultural lands. These articles are complemented by a range of short notes; a comment piece on ways to ensure the restoration of scattered trees in the landscape as habitat for the Superb Parrot; and a report of a methodology which allows groups to develop their own vegetation restoration activity database to assist monitoring of on‐ground works. Announcing the Top 25 Australasian projects The New Zealand and Australian case studies published in this issue have all been successfully listed as Australasia’s ‘Top 25’ ecological restoration projects, selected from a field of some 50 nominations. Reports of all the Top 25 (listed below in alphabetical order) and Highly Commended projects are accessible through the Society for Ecological Restoration International’s Global Restoration Network (GRN) hub: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/countries/australianew‐zealand/ . Top 25 projects (alphabetical order) 1 Alpine wetland restoration (NSW/ACT/VIC) 2 Arid Recovery (SA) 3 Bounceback (SA) 4 Bushy Park Sanctuary, NZ 5 Clarence Floodplain Project (NSW) 6 Fiordland Island Restoration (NZ) 7 Gondwana Link Project (WA) 8 Grassy Groundcover Research Project (Vic) 9 Great Barrier Reef Restoration (Qld) 10 Greening Western Sydney (NSW) 11 Jarrah forest ecosystem restoration following bauxite mining (WA) 12 Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (NSW) 13 Lord Howe Island Ecological Restoration project (NSW) 14 Mana Island Scientific Reserve (NZ) 15 Maungatautari Ecological Island (NZ) 16 Puckapunyal Military Area (Vic) 17 Rotoiti Nature Recovery Project (NZ) 18 Sea to Lake Hume Fishways Project (NSW, Vic, SA) 19 Southern Atherton Tablelands Wildlife Corridors (Qld) 20 Sydney Bushcare (NSW) 21 Sydney Olympic Parklands (NSW) 22 Te Urewera Mainland Island (NZ) 23 Tiritiri Matangi Island (NZ) 24 Watering Wetlands on Murray Floodplain Private Properties (NSW) 25 ZEALANDIA‐Karori Sanctuary (NZ) A turning point for practitioner reporting? The significance of the search for the Top 25 projects is not only that people visiting the GRN website can gain some insight into these outstanding projects, but also that the managers of each project have gone to substantial effort to report on their projects in a way that is consistent with reporting criteria, developed by EMR’s judging panel after wide consultation. In some cases, this is the first time that reports describing the context and actions have been combined with evaluation of success against the project’s goals and communicated to a broader audience. Case study reporting is a key to communication in the field of ecological restoration. It can allow qualitative discussion of projects as a whole based on a combination of hard data and subjective evaluation, set firmly within a practical context. Compared with researchers, however, practitioners and managers are famously reluctant to put time and effort into producing such reports. When you consider that management organizations often employ communications officers to write advisory material and their on‐ground staff are required to write innumerable internal reports, however, the explanation cannot be as simple as practitioners and managers simply not having the time, skills or resources to write up their work for their peers. The completion of reports by all 43 invited participants in the search for the Top 25 Australasian restoration projects – along with publication of up to 50 case study features over the first 10 years of EMR’s short history – shows that, given appropriate support and encouragement, practitioners and managers do find the time and demonstrate the skill required for sound reporting. In my view, better explanations for the reluctance to report might be lack of awareness of opportunities for case study reporting and, particularly, lack of directives to project staff by manager’s who may not be aware of what reporting and communication can offer an organization. Economics do matter, so it may need to be argued that there are economic benefits of putting time into reporting. Managers should consider that writing up a project, particularly the process of evaluating results against the project’s goals, improves an organization’s capacity to adapt future works to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. Publication of rigorous reports provide substantial increases in credibility, which can assist with future funding applications. Finally, reporting should be seen simply as a sound investment – putting something into the bank of knowledge from which you would like to continuously draw. When everyone contributes, the net benefit is far greater than the sum of the inputs. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ecological Management & Restoration Wiley

Case study reporting – is a change on the way?

Tein, McDonald
Ecological Management & Restoration , Volume 10 (2) – Aug 1, 2009
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/case-study-reporting-is-a-change-on-the-way-QZ5VE447oF

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
© 2009 Ecological Society of Australia
ISSN
1442-7001
eISSN
1442-8903
DOI
10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00468.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This EMR issue includes a number of articles focusing on‐ground restoration in Australia and New Zealand. We are lucky to be able to offer readers overviews of restoration in each country, as well as a number of reports on individual on‐ground projects (‘case studies’). The issue’s guest editorial by David Norton, for example, provides a perspective on ecological restoration in New Zealand where internationally outstanding work is being carried out on the conservation management of threatened species. This piece is complemented by numerous short summaries (a new article type in the second half of the journal) which showcase some of New Zealand’s on‐ground projects. The issue also includes an in‐depth perspective on restoration in Australia, as well as feature articles on two projects – Donaghy’s Corridor in north Queensland and the Regent Honeyeater Project in northern Victoria – which aim to reintegrate habitats for suites of native species in Australian agricultural lands. These articles are complemented by a range of short notes; a comment piece on ways to ensure the restoration of scattered trees in the landscape as habitat for the Superb Parrot; and a report of a methodology which allows groups to develop their own vegetation restoration activity database to assist monitoring of on‐ground works. Announcing the Top 25 Australasian projects The New Zealand and Australian case studies published in this issue have all been successfully listed as Australasia’s ‘Top 25’ ecological restoration projects, selected from a field of some 50 nominations. Reports of all the Top 25 (listed below in alphabetical order) and Highly Commended projects are accessible through the Society for Ecological Restoration International’s Global Restoration Network (GRN) hub: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/countries/australianew‐zealand/ . Top 25 projects (alphabetical order) 1 Alpine wetland restoration (NSW/ACT/VIC) 2 Arid Recovery (SA) 3 Bounceback (SA) 4 Bushy Park Sanctuary, NZ 5 Clarence Floodplain Project (NSW) 6 Fiordland Island Restoration (NZ) 7 Gondwana Link Project (WA) 8 Grassy Groundcover Research Project (Vic) 9 Great Barrier Reef Restoration (Qld) 10 Greening Western Sydney (NSW) 11 Jarrah forest ecosystem restoration following bauxite mining (WA) 12 Kooragang Wetland Rehabilitation Project (NSW) 13 Lord Howe Island Ecological Restoration project (NSW) 14 Mana Island Scientific Reserve (NZ) 15 Maungatautari Ecological Island (NZ) 16 Puckapunyal Military Area (Vic) 17 Rotoiti Nature Recovery Project (NZ) 18 Sea to Lake Hume Fishways Project (NSW, Vic, SA) 19 Southern Atherton Tablelands Wildlife Corridors (Qld) 20 Sydney Bushcare (NSW) 21 Sydney Olympic Parklands (NSW) 22 Te Urewera Mainland Island (NZ) 23 Tiritiri Matangi Island (NZ) 24 Watering Wetlands on Murray Floodplain Private Properties (NSW) 25 ZEALANDIA‐Karori Sanctuary (NZ) A turning point for practitioner reporting? The significance of the search for the Top 25 projects is not only that people visiting the GRN website can gain some insight into these outstanding projects, but also that the managers of each project have gone to substantial effort to report on their projects in a way that is consistent with reporting criteria, developed by EMR’s judging panel after wide consultation. In some cases, this is the first time that reports describing the context and actions have been combined with evaluation of success against the project’s goals and communicated to a broader audience. Case study reporting is a key to communication in the field of ecological restoration. It can allow qualitative discussion of projects as a whole based on a combination of hard data and subjective evaluation, set firmly within a practical context. Compared with researchers, however, practitioners and managers are famously reluctant to put time and effort into producing such reports. When you consider that management organizations often employ communications officers to write advisory material and their on‐ground staff are required to write innumerable internal reports, however, the explanation cannot be as simple as practitioners and managers simply not having the time, skills or resources to write up their work for their peers. The completion of reports by all 43 invited participants in the search for the Top 25 Australasian restoration projects – along with publication of up to 50 case study features over the first 10 years of EMR’s short history – shows that, given appropriate support and encouragement, practitioners and managers do find the time and demonstrate the skill required for sound reporting. In my view, better explanations for the reluctance to report might be lack of awareness of opportunities for case study reporting and, particularly, lack of directives to project staff by manager’s who may not be aware of what reporting and communication can offer an organization. Economics do matter, so it may need to be argued that there are economic benefits of putting time into reporting. Managers should consider that writing up a project, particularly the process of evaluating results against the project’s goals, improves an organization’s capacity to adapt future works to ensure the desired outcomes are achieved. Publication of rigorous reports provide substantial increases in credibility, which can assist with future funding applications. Finally, reporting should be seen simply as a sound investment – putting something into the bank of knowledge from which you would like to continuously draw. When everyone contributes, the net benefit is far greater than the sum of the inputs.

Journal

Ecological Management & Restoration – Wiley

Published: Aug 1, 2009

There are no references for this article.