HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zedler, J. B. Search for Related Content

Perspective

Success: An Unclear, Subjective Descriptor of Restoration Outcomes

The continuing development of the science of restoration is muddled by unclear and inconsistent use of the term "success." In recent issues of two journals, Restoration Ecology and Ecological Engineering, 116 papers employed the term to predict outcomes, judge outcomes, describe criteria for judging projects, or refer to an ecosystem attribute, all in the restoration context. Only ten papers used "failure." In this article I argue that ecologists can communicate with greater clarity and objectivity by omitting or clarifying the word success when publishing in the scientific literature. Many uses can easily be dropped (for example, compliance success can become compliance, and establishment success can be establishment). A common term, "restoration success" would be clearer if replaced with more specific terms (for example, project completion, achieving dense plant cover, supporting high species richness, or colonization by target species). At minimum, authors can define the term and use it consistently. When meant as a value judgment, it would help to say, "In my opinion, the project was a success" (or failure) and then specify on what basis the judgment was made. Thus, I recommend abstinence, substitution, and clarification of the term success to aid communication and help restoration ecology mature as a science.

Keywords: clarity, failure, objectivity, restoration science, scientific communication, success