Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236

The assessment of restoration of habitat in urban wetlands

J.E. Grayson*, M.G. Chapman, A.J. Underwood
Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities, Marine Ecology Laboratories A11,
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Received 7 March 1998; accepted 10 August 1998

Abstract

Wetlands in urban areas are often restored in an attempt to reduce the loss of such habitats. Unfortunately, the success, or
otherwise, of programmes of restoration has rarely been systematically gauged. Through not knowing whether programmes of
restoration are successful or not, valuable resources potentially continue to be wasted, wetland habitats remain degraded and
the methods of restoration are not assessed for future programmes of restoration.
Several factors have contributed to poor assessment of restoration of urban wetlands. First, often the goals of restoration
have been unrealistic because they failed to consider that wetlands in urban areas are subjected to ongoing and often large-
scale anthropogenic disturbances. Second, goals of restoration often have not been clearly dened and, consequently,
predictive hypotheses were not formulated to test for the success of restoration. Third, even when success of restoration has
been assessed, this has not always been adequate because of inappropriate sampling design.
Such problems can be overcome by treating restoration of habitat as experiments and using the knowledge gained from each
project to improve future programmes of restoration. This will ensure that the remaining semi-natural habitats along coasts in
urban areas can be more effectively managed. # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Management; Restoration; Urban habitat; Wetland

1. Introduction onments. More area has been lost from terrestrial

Restoration of habitat can include rectifying an
impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the
affected environment (Lewis, 1990). It aims to ensure
that further loss of habitat does not occur and/or that
severely degraded patches of habitat are returned to a
more natural and functional state. Restoration of
degraded habitats is particularly important for marine
and estuarine ecosystems, especially in urban envir-
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-2-93514282; fax: +61-2-
93516713; e-mail: jgrayson@bio.usyd.edu.au
habitats, but much of this is past restoring, particularly
where it has been covered by concrete and buildings
(Zedler, 1996a). Some of the last remaining semi-
natural areas around many coastal cities are patches of
coastal habitats. Nevertheless, there has been substan-
tial loss of wetlands because of destruction from lling
and dredging for agriculture and urban development
(Zedler, 1992; Stricker, 1995; Simenstad and Thom,
1996). In the past two hundred years, sixty percent of
the coastal wetlands in New South Wales (NSW),
Australia, have been lost or degraded (Bowen et al.,
1995). In addition to absolute loss of habitat, degrada-

0169-2046/99/$19.00 # 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S0169-2046(98)00108-X
228 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
tion of estuarine habitat that is already fragmented has
continued because of development on shorelines and
watersheds (Simenstad and Thom, 1992; State of the
Environment Advisory Council, 1996).
Urban wetlands, although subjected to many dis-
turbances, still provide many functions which make
their restoration important. These include provision of
habitat for commercially important sh and wildlife
species (Zedler and Weller, 1990; Simenstad and
Thom, 1992, 1996) and recreational, educational
and aesthetic values (West, 1995) which are particu-
larly important given that little natural habitat is
available in cities. Particular problems for restoration
of urban wetlands include ongoing disturbances,
choosing between creation of new wetlands and
restoring the existing ones, often severely damaged
wetlands and determining how to decide whether
restoration has been successful.
In this paper, the concept of restoration is examined
in terms of its applicability to urban wetlands, espe-
cially with respect to current denitions of restoration
as applied to urban situations (Chapman and Under-
wood, 1997). Three related concepts are examined.
The rst is the need to dene carefully what are the
goals of restoration. Second (and consequent on the
rst) is the need to gauge the success, or otherwise, of
a programme of restoration. The third concept is that
the previous two necessitate consideration of neces-
sary requirements of experimental and sampling
design to ensure valid and efcient assessments of
restoration projects (Chapman and Underwood,
1997). Some practical problems in the evaluation of
the success of restoration are also considered.
2. Problems with ongoing disturbances
Wetlands in urban areas are continually subjected
to anthropogenic disturbances, such as, pollution
(Zedler, 1992), fragmentation of habitat (Zedler,
1996a) and recreational use (Anderson, 1995).
Although not necessarily directly related to degrada-
tion, such interacting disturbances make it difcult to
determine the precise causes of degradation. It is
important to understand the types of perturbations
affecting a wetland before appropriate action can
be taken to restore it (Glasby and Underwood,
1996).
Disturbances may be sustained (a press disturbance)
or short-term (a pulse disturbance) and may elicit
press or pulse responses (Bender et al., 1984; Under-
wood, 1989, 1993; Glasby and Underwood, 1996). An
example of a pulse disturbance is an oil-spill con-
tamination is acute but short-term. In contrast, a press
disturbance is a long-term disturbance, such as urban
run-off from roads and footpaths.
Ecological responses to a pulse disturbance, such as
a chemical spill, may be short-term many individuals
may be killed, but, once the chemical is cleaned up or
diluted, populations may recover. Alternatively,
responses may be long-term many individuals are
killed, allowing new species to colonise the newly
available space. The new species prevent the recovery
of the original population, causing a permanent reduc-
tion in numbers, even though the disturbance has gone
(e.g. the assemblage may change permanently; Glasby
and Underwood, 1996). Press disturbances, such as
urban run-off, may also elicit either a press or a pulse
response. For example, many individuals may be
killed and the continuous press disturbance prevents
recruitment, so the population can never re-establish
(a press response). Alternatively, organisms may adapt
to continuous contamination, in which case popula-
tions show a short-term pulse response to the press
disturbance.
Despite the difculties associated with time-courses
and duration of disturbances, different action will be
necessary depending on whether disturbances and
their responses are pulse or press. If a press response
was caused by a press disturbance, removing the
disturbance may restore the habitat. If, on the other
hand, a press response was originally caused by a
pulse disturbance which no longer exists, it cannot be
removed. Restoration will be relatively easier where
degradation of the wetland was caused by a pulse
disturbance that has ended and its direct inuences are
gone.
3. Structure and function
Wetlands in urban areas are often restored or cre-
ated to full a specic function (e.g. to provide habitat
for wildlife; Zedler and Weller, 1990). Despite these
aims, measures of structure, instead of function, are
often used to evaluate the success of such projects.
 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
This is done because structure is much easier to
measure than is ecological function. It is assumed
that if the pattern of structure looks right, the system
will also function correctly (Simenstad and Thom,
1996). Structure and function are, however, not the
same. Restoration of one does not necessarily mean
restoration of the other. The structure, or pattern of an
ecosystem describes the various physical and biolo-
gical parts of that ecosystem, such as biomass and
composition of species at any point in time (Jackson
et al., 1995; Zedler, 1996b). Function, on the other
hand, includes the interactions of organisms with one
another and with the physical environment (Jackson
et al., 1995). This requires examination of processes
that occur through time, such as persistence of species,
productivity, capacity to assimilate pollutants and
recycling of nutrients (Brinson and Rheinhardt,
1996; Zedler, 1996b).
The structure and/or function of restored wetlands
may be different from `natural' wetlands. For exam-
ple, the wetland may be made to function as a pond to
control pollution because this is considered to be the
most appropriate use of the land. Under these circum-
stances, it may not be necessary for the restored
wetland to have the same structure as a natural wet-
land. Restored wetlands may have different plants
from those in natural wetlands, because the ones
chosen during restoration are easier to cultivate. Alter-
natively, the restored wetland may be expected to
function as a bird sanctuary and recreational area
because environmental and social factors have been
chosen to be important. In this case, it should probably
look `natural' (have appropriate structure) in addition
to functioning properly. The structure of the restor-
ed wetland may be different from that of a natural
wetland.
Function is often difcult to measure because it
requires examination of interactions through time.
Structure is easier to measure because it only requires
description of what is present at one time. Never-
theless, there are complex hierarchical spatial patterns
in abundances of many organisms in wetlands (Chap-
man and Underwood, 1997; Chapman, 1998), and
sampling designs to measure accurately these spatial
patterns are necessarily complex. There is a need for
research to ascertain where and under what circum-
stances structure and function are linked if measure-
ments of structure are to be used to provide
229
information to predict the functions of a wetland.
Some food webs measure function because they show
how each species (or trophic level) affects other
species (or trophic levels); for example, a particular
species may prey on another species, thereby creating
space for yet another species. Most food webs are,
however, measures of structure. They are simply a list
of species and their potential connections. They pro-
vide little information about the biological and phy-
sical processes that cause this structure (Dayton,
1984). If the processes that maintain structure are
not known, it may be impossible to recreate them.
To ensure that wetlands are structured and function
correctly, species that have important functional roles
must be identied and an effort made to reinstate these
species as a major aim of restoration.
The time-courses for restoration of structure or
function are usually different. Structure such as the
composition and density of macrofaunal assemblages,
may resemble controls in as little as three years
(Simenstad and Thom, 1996). The development of
an adequately functioning ecosystem can often take
many years (Mitsch and Wilson, 1996). Jackson et al.
(1995) stated that successful restoration, that is, ade-
quate functioning of a wetland, should occur within
1050 years, with preliminary evidence visible in 1
10 years. Different functions within the system do,
however, develop at different rates. For example,
hydrological functions can be restored fairly quickly,
whereas accumulation of nutrients takes longer to
achieve. In contrast, it may take several years for a
wetland to be able to support interacting and function-
ing diverse populations of wildlife (Thompson, 1992).
When monitoring the success or failure of restora-
tion of a wetland, the length of time for which
monitoring is done is critical. In many programmes
of restoration, monitoring has been stopped as soon as
the structure looks right (Simenstad and Thom, 1996).
Without further assessment of variables that relate to
various relevant functions of the restored habitat, it
cannot be determined whether the wetland ever func-
tions in the desired or predicted manner.
4. End-points of restoration
Many denitions of restoration identify an end-
point, that is they dene what the wetland is supposed
230 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
to be like once restoration work is completed (e.g.
Saunders et al., 1993; Baldwin et al., 1994; Kane,
1994; Cairns, 1995; West, 1995). It may not be
possible to dene any end-point in a very disturbed
system. In urban areas, there is a great deal of com-
petition for use of land, with social, economic and
environmental issues to consider when deciding on the
appropriate use. In urban situations, therefore, wet-
lands are more likely to be restored or created to
provide a specic function (or group of functions)
such as treatment of water or protection of wildlife,
rather than to be restored to some apparently natural
state.
Nevertheless, where restoration is supposed to be to
a natural state, a prior or historical condition has often
been dened as the end-point. Thus, actions are taken
in an attempt to develop the same structure and
function as it had before it was degraded. Denitions
which include a prior state as an end-point for restora-
tion rely on the concept of a `balance of nature', in
which ecological structure is supposedly predictable.
This theory implies that nature is in equilibrium or
static (Botkin, 1990; Jackson et al., 1995; Wyant et al.,
1995). If this theory were correct, the situation pre-
vailing in the wetland at any time before it was
disturbed would represent an appropriate prior state
for restoration. Nevertheless, this theory fails to recog-
nise the nature of biological systems which are not
static and unchanging (Turner, 1994) and which have
many different prior states, even in undisturbed sys-
tems (Chapman and Underwood, 1997).
Second, denitions of restoration that include an
unspoiled condition as the end-point for restoration
(Kane, 1994) have additional difculties. They sug-
gest that, had the ecosystem not been damaged, it
would have remained in the same `unspoiled' state
until the present. These days, there is probably no such
thing as an unspoiled condition in any urban habitat.
This is an impossible outcome because, once an area
has been disturbed, it is unreasonable to anticipate it
can ever again be truly `undisturbed'.
5. Problems of determining success of restoration
of wetlands in urban environments
It is important that restoration of habitat is success-
ful, otherwise resources that could be more usefully
used in other types of management are wasted. Never-
theless, many restoration projects exist for which
success or failure is unknown because it has not been
assessed (Erwin, 1990; Bowen et al., 1995; Race and
Fonseca, 1996). In such cases, valuable resources such
as money and time may have been wasted, wetlands
may not have been prevented from degradation and,
more importantly, future programmes of restoration
will continue to use the same, untested and potentially
inadequate methods. In such projects, the opportunity
to determine appropriate methods for restoration and
to gather information about the best ways to achieve
specic ecological aims is lost.
In some regions, destruction of wetlands is allowed
as part of development provided that other wetlands
are created or restored (e.g. in New South Wales,
Australia, under State Environmental Planning Policy
14 (Coastal Wetlands), NSW; New South Wales Gov-
ernment, 1985). Obviously, where the success of the
latter is not measured, there is potentially increasing
destruction of wetland without any compensatory
mitigation. This is a serious problem because there
are few remaining wetlands (Bowen et al., 1995).
Assessing the success of ecological restoration must
have a scientic basis. Underwood (1990) described
the components of experiments in ecology and the
relationship between these and managerial procedures
(which are, themselves, experiments). These relation-
ships have been expanded in Underwood (1995). The
scientic components of management include obser-
vations (e.g. that benthic fauna in the wetland is
depauperate compared to natural wetlands). One
model to explain these observations is that benthic
fauna in the wetland is depauperate because the wet-
land has poor tidal ushing. An appropriate hypothesis
from this model is that, if tidal ushing were improved
in the wetland by digging drainage channels, the
diversity and abundance of benthic fauna would
increase to be greater than in control locations where
no change is made to drainage. Further, it is hypothe-
sised that diversity and abundance will change so that
they match those in natural wetlands. The null hypoth-
esis is that diversity and abundance will not change or
will indeed deteriorate after the managerial actions.
The null hypothesis is tested by evaluating the out-
come of restoration. Note that explicit goals and
hypotheses are necessary to ensure that subsequent
evaluation (or monitoring) is actually sampling the
 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236 231

appropriate variables. Therefore, if restoration is

planned within such a framework and appropriately
evaluated, it is an experiment within this general
scientic framework (Underwood, 1990). Such a frame-
work will allow the results of restoration to be
reliably interpreted, provided that suitable indepen-
dent replication can be incorporated into the study.
An appropriate sampling design must be used to
evaluate the success or failure of restoration. In some
studies, a restored wetland has been compared only to
a reference wetland, that is, a wetland that has not been
degraded (e.g. Kentula et al., 1992). For a complete
evaluation of restoration, it is, however, necessary to
compare the restored site to replicated reference sites
(non-degraded natural wetlands) and appropriate con-
trol sites (degraded wetlands which are not being
restored). Otherwise, any changes in the restored
wetland cannot be unambiguously attributed to the
restoration work. The restored wetland must change to
be similar to the reference wetlands, but, if the
improvements are to be attributed to the programme
of restoration, similar changes must not occur in the
control wetlands (Chapman and Underwood, 1997).
Hence, the appropriate hypothesis would predict that
if tidal ushing is improved in a wetland by digging
drainage channels, diversity or abundance of benthic
fauna will (a) change to be different from the
untouched, control wetlands and (b) change to be
similar to undisturbed, reference wetlands. If suitable
reference and/or control sites are not available in a
project, there will be serious consequences for deter-
mining whether restoration is successful and that work
Fig. 1. Different possibilities of events during a restoration project.
can stop. If there are no reference sites, it is impossible
(a) The restoration site (*) and control sites (~,~) become
to establish whether goals have been achieved. similar to reference sites (&,&) at Time 4 because of a general
If no controls can be identied and the restoration change operating in the area; (b) the reference sites become similar
site is, consequently, compared only to reference sites to the control sites and the restoration site at Time 4 because of a
and it changes to become similar to them, it would be change affecting the entire system; and (c) the restoration site
becomes different from control sites at Time 4, but has not yet
assumed that work done in restoration had been
become similar to reference sites.
successful. There would, however, be no basis for
this assumption which could well be wrong. Compar-
ison with control sites may, however, show that these without effect, because the methods do not actually
were also changing to become more similar to refer- restore habitat.
ence sites (Fig. 1(a)) due to some general phenomena In addition, if a restoration site were compared only
operating in the area. The restoration work may, to reference sites, a second confusion may occur. If
therefore, be largely irrelevant restoration occurred more widespread deterioration were occurring, the
naturally. Without comparison with control sites, this reference sites would degrade to become more like
could not be known. The same methods of restoration the site being restored (Fig. 1(b)). This can happen
may be used in future programmes of restoration but under many circumstances, for example, in urban
232 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
areas where remnant wetlands are surrounded by
urbanised catchments. When restored sites are similar
to reference sites, restoration would be interpreted as
successful when, in fact, it has failed. Control sites are
necessary to full the requirement that the site being
restored should become different from sites that are
not being restored, not just similar to reference sites.
Control sites are also needed to determine the rate at
which restoration is happening, even though it may not
be complete. Only by making comparisons with con-
trol and reference sites is it possible to demonstrate
that a site being restored is changing to be different
from controls (Fig. 1(c)), but has not yet become like
the reference areas. There may not yet have been
enough time for restoration to be effective. Alterna-
tively, restoration may not be satisfactory and may
never result in complete restoration. After a lapse of
sufcient time (estimated from time-scales of natural
change in undisturbed, reference areas; see below) to
be sure about the conclusion, the project site is not
different from controls and references and the project
must be deemed unsuccessful.
In addition, once a restoration site becomes similar
to the reference sites, monitoring is often stopped. It is,
however, always possible that recovery will not be
sustained, that is, the match may only be transitory
(see the discussions in Pielou, 1974; Underwood,
1989). This is illustrated for a site where restoration
seems complete after a certain amount of time (Time 4
in Fig. 2). Later, the restored site reverts back towards
control conditions. If sampling ceases, say between
times 4 and 6, restoration would incorrectly be con-
sidered complete. Monitoring must, therefore, con-
tinue after such a state has been achieved, although
probably at a reduced rate. The problem is to know
Fig. 2. The restoration site (*) becomes different from control
sites (~,~) and similar to reference sites (&,&) at Time 4, but
changes back towards control values after Time 6.
Fig. 3. Temporal variation in diversity ( ) changes from before
to after the start of restoration (at the time of the arrow) but mean
diversity (- - -) remains constant.
how long the restored site must appear to be restored,
before remedial work can be discontinued. Informa-
tion about the time-scales of natural change in undis-
turbed areas would allow expectations for recovery to
be more clearly dened (Underwood, 1996). Use can
also be made of techniques to determine how many
independent times of sampling are needed to indicate
that a system can be considered at some relatively
unchanging condition (e.g. Keough and Butler, 1983).
Restoration might alter the diversity and/or tem-
poral and spatial variability of assemblages compared
with control or reference sites (Warwick and Clarke,
1993; Underwood, 1994). For example, the diversity
of the assemblage may be more variable through time
after restoration than it was before, although the mean
diversity of the assemblage may stay the same
(Fig. 3). Mean diversity may be the same from before
to after restoration work, so analysing only the means
would give the incorrect message that restoration work
had no effect (Fig. 3). When the variances around the
mean are also considered, it can be seen that diversity
is more variable through time after restoration than
before, presumably as a result of restoration work.
Spatial and temporal variability in the area being
restored should be contrasted with levels of natural
variation (Warwick and Clarke, 1993; Chapman et al.,
1995). Differences between locations could then be
unambiguously attributed to the restoration work
(Underwood, 1991, 1992).
As discussed earlier, it is impossible to expect that
urban wetlands continually affected by ongoing
anthropogenic disturbances could ever be restored
to a completely natural state. It is, therefore, necessary
to dene some minimal criteria for recovery. It is not
adequate to state that recovery has occurred because
 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
some measure in the restored site becomes similar to
that measure in reference sites and different from that
in control sites. Imprecise sampling gives large con-
dence intervals around mean values. When sampling
is imprecise, a real and continuing difference between
a restored site and reference sites would not be
detected as signicant when using statistical tests
(McDonald and Erickson, 1994; Underwood, 1996).
This may result in restoration being declared success-
ful, with no further work or monitoring of recovery,
even though the system has not actually been restored.
A more appropriate goal is that the restoration site
must recover to some pre-determined value chosen to
represent the minimal acceptable level for restoration.
An example might be a project with the aim of
increasing the richness of species (e.g. the number
of plants) in a degraded salt marsh. It might be
appropriate to dene an acceptable level of restoration
to be, say, 85% of the average richness in several
reference areas. To determine that the restored site has
a number of species equal to or larger than the
specied minimum requires precise sampling. Impre-
cise samples with large condence intervals would
lead to the conclusion that the site was not yet restored,
even though the mean number of plants exceeded the
85% target. Decisions would then be made to continue
restoration (or to re-evaluate how to do it), resulting in
more effort and, probably, more precise subsequent
sampling and, eventually, a correct decision that
restoration has been achieved. Thus, McDonald and
Erickson's (1994) procedure encourages managerial
decisions that conform to the precautionary principle
(Chapman and Underwood, 1997).
6. Examples of practical problems
Although many restoration projects are deemed
successful, few have actually used scientic experi-
mental design to ensure that appropriate data were
collected to assess restoration (Erwin, 1990; Zedler
and Weller, 1990). In many cases, success was not
assessed at all (Erwin, 1990; Race and Fonseca, 1996;
Zedler, 1996a). In other projects, short-term monitor-
ing was done to evaluate compliance with conditions
of permits, but no predictive hypotheses were tested to
evaluate the success of the project (e.g. Race and
Fonseca, 1996).
233
Many projects are driven by the conditions under
which permits are issued. Permits state what the
proponent must do to mitigate the effects of develop-
ment and success is determined solely in terms of
compliance with these conditions (Erwin, 1990). The
time-frame of monitoring set by the life of the permit
is often not adequate to collect sufcient data to
evaluate the success or failure of a project (Erwin,
1990). Furthermore, once the mitigator is freed of
liability (e.g. at the end of the life of the permit), there
may be no mechanism for detecting or correcting
problems (Zedler, 1996a). Many programmes of
restoration have been deemed successful simply
because conditions of permits have been met.
Surveys of mitigation projects (e.g. Quammen,
1986; Race, 1985) have shown that many projects
were unsuccessful, usually because the requirements
of permits were not met or were, anyway, inadequate
to result in restoration (Race and Fonseca, 1996).
One example of the use of inappropriate scientic
method is the Lake Pillans Wetland Rehabilitation
Project (Lithgow, NSW, Australia). One of the objec-
tives dened for this project was to `enhance' the site
as habitat for native fauna (Kuginis and Hindmarsh,
1996). Enhancement was done in order to incorporate
as much variety of habitat as possible into the design.
An increase in the diversity of habitats was expected to
increase the diversity of wildlife. Sampling of macro-
invertebrates was used to determine the effectiveness
of creation of habitat. Success was claimed because
there was an apparent increase in the diversity of
macroinvertebrates from before to after construction
of new habitat (Kuginis and Hindmarsh, 1996). This is
not realistic because it does not state by how much the
diversity of macroinvertebrates should have increased
to be considered rehabilitated. Any (even slight)
increase in diversity from before to after construction
would, therefore, be identied as success of the pro-
ject. Furthermore, no appropriate scientic method
was used to assess whether the stated objective had
been achieved. Instead, the number of families of
macroinvertebrates and avifauna in the site were
recorded once before and twice (which were added
together effectively giving one time of sampling)
after construction in as many as possible types of
habitat in the area. Comparisons of these two numbers
means nothing without knowledge of natural temporal
variability.
234 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
Even if substantial increases in diversity were
recorded, these would need to be evaluated against
what was happening in reference areas in order to
determine success or failure of the restoration process
because any apparent increase in diversity could, in
fact, be due to some natural phenomenon in the area
and not to the creation of new habitat. Finally, as
discussed in detail earlier, several reference and con-
trol sites are necessary (Fig. 3) to evaluate the success
of creation of habitat. There were no control or
reference areas in this project.
It cannot be determined, therefore, whether or not
this project was successful and whether or not the
methods used to create habitat worked. It is not
possible to know whether new habitat was, in fact,
created nor whether there was any increase in the
diversity of fauna. The wetland may still be degraded
and depauperate. If the same methods are used in other
projects, they may lead to other wetlands remaining
degraded. Conversely, a poor method of detecting the
success of restoration could easily have produced a
negative outcome (i.e. diversity decreased and the
project was deemed unsuccessful), when, in fact,
diversity actually increased and therefore the techni-
que of restoration was successful. In this case, a
successful technique for restoration would likely have
been abandoned. Many projects have similar, if not all,
problems of this project as illustrated in reviews by
Erwin (1990), Zedler and Weller (1990), Race and
Fonseca (1996) and Zedler (1996a).
7. Conclusions
7.1. Define carefully what are the goals of
restoration
Restoration is often done to attempt to reduce the
amount of loss of habitat from urban areas. It is often,
however, not clear what are the goals of restoration
(i.e. what are the end-points). The end-points of
restoration must be dened in such a way that pre-
dictive hypotheses can be formulated and tested, for
example, an end-point that requires recovery of the
wetland to some stated minimal criteria. End-points
for restoration which require returning the wetland to
some previous dened state are unrealistic because
they are impossible to achieve.
7.2. Determine the success or otherwise of
restoration
If the goals of restoration are clearly dened
and predictive hypotheses have been formulated, it
is possible to gauge the success or otherwise of
restoration work. Many previous projects have not
adequately gauged the success or otherwise of restora-
tion work. This must not continue to be the normal
process, because, otherwise, resources will be wasted
and other similar projects may inherit the same poten-
tially useless methods. This will result in continued
degradation, in place of restoration.
Acknowledgements
We thank D. O'Connor for her contribution to this
paper and M. Lincoln-Smith for his useful comments.
The preparation of this paper was supported by
the Australian Research Council, Special Research
Centres grant.
References
Anderson, P., 1995. Ecological restoration and creation: a review.
Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 56(suppl.), 187211.
Baldwin Jr., A.D., de Luce, J., Pletsch, C., 1994. Introduction:
ecological preservation versus restoration and invention. In:
Baldwin Jr., A.D., de Luce, J., Pletsch, C. (Eds.), Beyond
Preservation: Restoring and Inventing Landscapes. University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 316.
Bender, E.A., Case, T.J., Gilpin, M.E., 1984. Perturbation
experiments in community ecology: theory and practice.
Ecology 65, 113.
Botkin, D.B., 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the
Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New York.
Bowen, R., Stephens, N., Donnelly, P., 1995. SEPP 14 Wetland
protection and the role of mitigation. Wetlands (Australia) 14,
612.
Brinson, M.M., Rheinhardt, R., 1996. The role of reference
wetlands in functional assessment and mitigation. Ecol. Appl.
6, 6976.
Cairns Jr., J., 1995. Restoration ecology: protecting our national
and global life support systems. In: Cairns Jr. J. (Ed.),
Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems, second edn. CRC Press,
Inc., Boca Ranton, pp. 112.
Chapman, M.G., 1998. Relationships between spatial patterns of
benthic assemblages in a mangrove forest using different levels
of taxonomic resolution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 162, 7178.
Chapman M.G., Underwood, A.J., 1997. Concepts and issues in
restoration of mangrove forests in urban environments. In:
 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
Klomp, N., Lait, I. (Eds.), Frontiers in Ecology: Building the
Links. Elsevier Science, pp. 103114.
Chapman, M.G., Underwood, A.J., Skilleter, G.A., 1995. Varia-
bility at different spatial scales between a subtidal assemblage
exposed to the discharge of sewage and two control
assemblages. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 189, 103122.
Dayton, P.K., 1984. Processes structuring some marine commu-
nities: are they general? In: Strong, D.R., Simberloff, D., Abele,
L.G., Thistle, A.B. (Eds.), Ecological Communities: Concep-
tual Issues and the Evidence. Princeton University Press, NJ,
pp. 181200.
Erwin, K.L., 1990. Freshwater marsh creation and restoration in the
southeast. In: Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E. (Eds.), Wetland
Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island
Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 233265.
Glasby, T.M., Underwood, A.J., 1996. Sampling to differentiate
between pulse and press perturbations. Environ. Monit.
Assessment 42, 241252.
Jackson, L.L., Lopoukhine, N., Hillyard, D., 1995. Ecological
restoration: a definition and comments. Restor. Ecol. 3(2), 71
75.
Kane, G.S., 1994. Restoration or preservation? Reflections on a
clash of environmental philosophies. In: Baldwin Jr., A.D., de
Luce, J., Pletsch, C. (Eds.), Beyond Preservation: Restoring and
Inventing Landscapes. University of Minnesota Press, Minnea-
polis, pp. 6984.
Kentula, M.E., Brooks, R.P., Gwin, S.E., Holland, C.C., Sherman,
A.D., Sifneos, J.C., 1992. In: Hairston, A.J. (Ed.), An Approach
to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and
Creation. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., pp. 171.
Keough, M.J., Butler, A.J., 1983. Temporal changes in species
number in an assemblage of sessile marine invertebrates. J.
Biogeogr. 10, 317330.
Kuginis, L., Hindmarsh, B., 1996. Lake Pillans Wetland rehabilita-
tion two years on. In: Proceedings of the Soil and Water
Conference, Beyond the Drain, Sydney Hilton, 1215 Septem-
ber, pp. 19.
Lewis (III), R., 1990. Creation and restoration of coastal plain
wetlands in Florida. In: Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E. (Eds.),
Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science.
Island Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 73101.
McDonald, L.L., Erickson, W.P., 1994. Testing for bioequivalence
in field studies: has a disturbed site been adequately reclaimed?
In: Fletcher, D.F., Manly, B.F.J. (Eds.), Statistics and Environ-
mental Monitoring. University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New
Zealand, pp. 183197.
Mitsch, W.J., Wilson, R.F., 1996. Improving the success of wetland
creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design.
Ecol. Appl. 6(1), 7783.
New South Wales Government, 1985. State Environmental
Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands. Department of
Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney.
Pielou, E.C., 1974. Population and Community Ecology: Principles
and Methods. Gordon and Breach, New York.
Quammen, M.L., 1986. Measuring the success of wetland
mitigation. Nat. Wetlands Newslett. 8(5), 68.
235
Race, M.S., 1985. Critique of present wetlands mitigation policies
in the United States based on an analysis of past restoration
projects in San Francisco Bay. Environ. Manage. 9, 7182.
Race, M.S., Fonseca, M.S., 1996. Fixing compensatory mitigation:
what will it take?. Ecol. Appl. 6, 94101.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J., Ehrlich, P.R., 1993. Repairing a
damaged world: an outline for ecological restoration. Surrey
Beatty and Sons Pty Ltd, Chipping Norton, New South Wales.
Simenstad, C.A., Thom, R.M., 1992. Restoring wetland habitats in
urbanised Pacific Northwest estuaries. In: Thayer, G.W. (Ed.),
Restoring the nation's marine environment. Maryland Sea
Grant College, Maryland, pp. 423471.
Simenstad, C.A., Thom, R.M., 1996. Functional equivalency
trajectories of the restored Gog-Le-Hi-Te estuarine wetland.
Ecol. Appl. 6, 3856.
Stricker, J., 1995. Reviving wetlands. Wetlands (Australia) 14, 20
25.
State of the Environment Advisory Council, 1996. Australia: State
of the Environment. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Aus-
tralia.
Thompson, J.R., 1992. Wetland restoration in Iowa. In: Thompson,
J.R. (Ed.), Prairies, the Restoration of Forests, Natural Land-
scape and Communities in Iowa Wetlands. University of Iowa
Press, Iowa City, pp. 78102.
Turner, F., 1994. The invented landscape, In: Baldwin Jr., A.D., de
Luce, J., Pletsch, C. (Eds.), Beyond preservation: restoring and
inventing landscapes. University of Minnesota Press, Minnea-
polis, pp. 3566.
Underwood, A.J., 1989. The analysis of stress in natural
populations. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 37, 5178.
Underwood, A.J., 1990. Experiments in ecology and management:
their logics, functions and interpretations. Aust. J. Ecol. 15,
365389.
Underwood, A.J., 1991. Beyond BACI: Experimental designs for
detecting human environmental impacts on temporal variations
in natural populations. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 42, 569
587.
Underwood, A.J., 1992. Beyond BACI: the detection of environ-
mental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 161, 145178.
Underwood, A.J., 1993. The mechanics of spatially replicated
programmes to detect environmental impacts in a variable
world. Aust. J. Ecol. 18, 99116.
Underwood, A.J., 1994. On Beyond BACI: sampling design that
might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecol. Appl.
4, 315.
Underwood, A.J., 1995. Ecological research and (and research into)
environmental management. Ecol. Appl. 5, 232247.
Underwood, A.J., 1996. Detection, interpretation, prediction and
management of environmental disturbances: some roles for
experimental marine ecology. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 200, 1
27.
Warwick, R.M., Clarke, K.R., 1993. Increased variability as a
symptom of stress in marine communities. J. Exp. Mar. Biol.
Ecol. 172, 215226.
West, R.J., 1995. Rehabilitation of seagrass and mangrove sites
success and failures in NSW. Wetlands (Australia) 14, 1319.
236 J.E. Grayson et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 43 (1999) 227236
Wyant, J.G., Meganck, R.A., Ham, S.H., 1995. A planning and
decision-making framework for ecological restoration. Environ.
Manage. 19(6), 789796.
Zedler, J.B., 1992. Restoring cordgrass marshes in southern
California. In: Thayer, G.W. (Ed.), Restoring the nation's
marine environment. Maryland Sea Grant College, Maryland,
pp. 751.
Zedler, J.B., 1996a. Coastal mitigation in southern California: the
need for a regional restoration strategy. Ecol. Appl. 6(1), 8493.
Zedler, J.B., 1996b. Ecological issues in wetland mitigation:
an introduction to the forum. Ecol. Appl. 6(1), 33
37.
Zedler, J.B., Weller, M.W., 1990. Overview and future directions.
In: Kusler, J.A., Kentula, M.E. (Eds.), Wetland creation and
restoration: the status of the science. Island Press, Washington,
D.C., pp. 405413.