Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNtshotsho, Phumza
dc.contributor.authorReyers, Belinda
dc.contributor.authorEsler, Karen
dc.date.accessioned2012-12-04T08:21:24Z
dc.date.available2012-12-04T08:21:24Z
dc.date.issued2012-03
dc.identifier.citationNtshotsho, P., Reyers, B. and Esler, K.J. (2012). No evidence-based restoration without a sound evidence base: a reply to Guldemond et al. Resoration Ecology 20(2) 158-159.en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1150
dc.description.abstractEvidence-based practice is not possible without an evidence base. Guldemond et al. confuse our attempt at assessing the status of the evidence base of restoration programs in South Africa with attempting to assess whether restoration is evidence-based. While we fully agree with them that there is a need to assess whether practitioners use evidence in their decision-making, we assert that use of evidence is the last step in the evidence-based approach. It is preceded by the generation (and documentation) of evidence through baseline condition assessment, proper goal setting,sound monitoring of the impacts of the chosen intervention as well as effective dissemination of resulting evidence. To answer the question whether restoration is evidence-based would require the assessment of all stages from generation to use. We chose to start at the beginning, a logical place to start.en
dc.description.sponsorshipCSIRen
dc.format.extent467086 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSociety for Ecological Restoration Internationalen
dc.subjectIndicatorsen
dc.subjectMonitoringen
dc.subjectRestoration Practitionersen
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen
dc.titleNo Evidence-Based Restoration Without a Sound Evidence Base: A Reply to Guldemond et al.en
dc.typeJournalArticlesen
dc.cibjournalRestoration Ecologyen
dc.cibprojectInvasive and remediation effects on biodiversityen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record