Cited by 29Coastal and Marine ManagementHydrology and Sediment Transport ProcessesSustainability and Climate Change Governance

Estuary ecosystem restoration: implementing and institutionalizing adaptive management

Open access
Ebberts, Blaine D., Zelinsky, Ben D., Karnezis, Jason P., Studebaker, Cynthia A., Lopez‐Johnston, Siena, Creason, Anne M., Krasnow, Lynne, Johnson, Gary E. +1 more·2018·Restoration Ecology

Abstract

We implemented and institutionalized an adaptive management (AM) process for the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program, which is a large‐scale restoration program focused on improving ecosystem conditions in the 234‐km lower Columbia River and estuary. For our purpose, “institutionalized” means the AM process and restoration programs are embedded in the work flow of the implementing agencies and affected parties. While plans outlining frameworks, processes, or approaches to AM of ecosystem restoration programs are commonplace, their establishment for the long‐term is not. This article presents the basic AM process and explains how AM was implemented and institutionalized. Starting with a common goal, we pursued a well‐understood governance and decision‐making structure, routine coordination and communication activities, data and information sharing, commitment from partners and upper agency management to the AM process, and meaningful cooperation among program managers and partners. The overall approach and steps to implement and institutionalize AM for ecosystem restoration explained here are applicable to situations in which it has been incomplete or, as in our case, the restoration program is just getting started.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/rec.12562

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Time lags may impose limits on management control of the system, which need to be addressed by long-term monitoring within adaptive management or structured decision-making frameworks.

    “Time lags may impose limits on management control of the system, which need to be addressed by long-term monitoring within adaptive management or structured decision-making frameworks (WebTable 3; Neckles et al. 2015; Ebberts et al. 2017).”

    From Applying cumulative effects to strategically advance large‐scale ecosystem restoration (2021) · cites this paper as Ebberts et al. 2017

    The Components section describes monitoring over multiple years and using the results to adjust decisions within an adaptive-management process; the Results section says comprehensive evaluation occurs every 4–5 years to allow enough new data to accumulate. The copy does not say that time lags limit management control, or discuss structured decision-making as an alternative framework. Page numbers were not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • As changes occur, continuing ecosystem management may be more or less active and adaptive according to the decision framework and depending on the results of monitoring.

    “As changes occur, continuing ecosystem management may be more or less active and adaptive according to the decision framework and depending on the results of monitoring (WebTable 3; Neckles et al. 2015; Ebberts et al. 2017).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Johnson GE, Ebberts BD, Zelinsky BD (2012) Ecosystem-based wetland conser- vation and restoration in the Lower Columbia River and estuary, U.S.A.: a description of the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program. Journal of Chongqing Normal University 29:94-103

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ebberts, B. D., Zelinsky, B. D., Karnezis, J. P., Studebaker, C. A., Lopez‐Johnston, S., Creason, A. M., Krasnow, L., Johnson, G. E., & Thom, R. M.
Affiliations
  • United States Army Corps of Engineers (US)
  • Bonneville Power Administration (US)
  • Fish and Wildlife Division, Bonneville Power Administration, 905 NE 11th Avenue Portland OR 97208 U.S.A.
  • NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (US)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Gary E.
Venue
Restoration Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08-25
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
360-369
ISSN
  • 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-100X
OpenAlex
W2750513690
Cited by
27
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • California Department of Fish and Wildlife
  • Bonneville Power Administration
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
  • Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
Keywords
adaptive management, Columbia River estuary, institutionalization, decision-making structures, inter-agency coordination, stakeholder collaboration, large-scale restoration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review