Reaction Web

Search REACTION projects Search REACTION projects

Map REACTION projects Map REACTION projects


VII. SUMMARY

VII.1. ACHIEVEMENT OF PROJECT GOALS

1. Have the defined success criteria (if any) been attained? (see section III.4.6 and sections V &VI)
- Yes 
- No
- There were not defined success criteria
YES Only for some restored units.Describe: Only the Pinus pinaster unit (unit 1) had defined success criteria 
- Only for some criteria. Describe:  

2. Have the structural goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.3 and V.1 & V.2)
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Only for some units. Describe: Pinus pinaster and Pseudotsuga menziesii forest cover was fully achieved 

3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description: There are not any serious erosion problems, but the project area isn't yet in full production 

4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1)
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Description: The forest surface was increased 

5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description: The project area isn't yet in full production. Mushroom abundance in the project area resulted in an unexpected income for the local population  

6. According to survival and growth of planted/seeded species, the plantation/seeding success was:
(see V.1.4, V.1.5, V.1.6.a-g)
YES Very high
- High
- Medium
- Low
- Very low

VII.2. STRUCTURAL QUALITY

1. How natural is the composition of the restored ecosystem(s)?
(see V.2.5, V.2.6 & V.2.7)
- Fully
- Partly. Explain:  
YES Depend on the restored unit. Explain: Pseudotsuga menziesii is an exotic species 

2. How natural/mature is the structure and pattern of the restored ecosystem(s)?
(see V.2.1, V.2.2, V.2.3, V.2.4 & V.2.12)
- Fully
YES Partly. Explain: Because is homogeneous, mono-layer and even-aged stands 
- Depend on the restored unit. Explain:  

3. Presence of important biodiversity
(according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species; see V.2.9, V.2.10, V.2.11, V.2.12 & V.2.13):
- Yes
YES Medium
- No

4. In the restored area, the project has:
(according to species richness, and the presence of indicator, rare, endemic,endangered, protected species;see V.2.9)
- Increased biodiversity
- Decreased biodiversity
YES Conserved biodiversity

VII.3. FUNCTIONAL QUALITY

1. Ecosystem dynamics:
Does the restored ecosystem regenerate naturally? (see V.1.6.h,i,j & V.3.6):
-   Yes
YES Not fully. Explain: The Pseudotsuga menziesii stand does not show any natural regeneration 
Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6):
- Yes
YES No
- Partly. Explain:  

2. Overall functioning:
How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 & V.3.5):
- Stable
YES Slightly degraded
- Seriously degraded
How is the potential for nutrient cycling? (see V.3.1, V.3.2 & V.3.3):
- High
YES Medium
- Low
How is the ecosystem productivity? (see V.1.6.g, i, V.3.10, VI.2.2, VI.2.3 & VI.2.4):
- High
YES Medium
- Low

3. How is the overall ecosystem health? (see V.4)
YES Good (No relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic factors.)
- Medium (Some individuals affected; low severity level)
- Poor (Relevant pests, diseases, invasive species, or dead/damaged plants by abiotic factors.)
What are the pollution levels?
- High
- Medium
YES Low

4. The project significantly increases
Resistance (e.g., to grazing, pests, fire, drought, see II.6. and V.3.7 & V.3.8):
- Yes
YES No
- Partly
Resilience (e.g., to fire, pests, drought, etc., see II.6.2 and V.3.9 & V.4 ): 
- Yes
YES No
- Partly
Erosion control (see II. 6.1 and IV.2.14, V.3.4, V.3.5 & VI.1.8 )
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Flood control (see II. 6.1 and VI.1.7):
- Yes
YES No
- Partly

VII.4. LANDSCAPE QUALITY

1. The project significantly increases:
Forest surface (see VI.1.2): 
YES Yes
- No
- Slightly
Connectivity among patches of formerly isolated populations (see VI.1.4.c,d & VI.1.5):
- Yes
- No
YES Slightly
Integration among forests and other habitats (see VI.1.2 & VI.1.5d,e):
- Yes
- No
YES Slightly
Habitat diversity (see VI.1.2):
YES Yes
- No
- Slightly
The protected surface (see VI.1.4): 
YES Yes
- No
- Slightly

2. Aesthetic value (see VI.1.5, VI.1.6,VI.2.7 & VI.2.8):
- Very high
YES High
- Medium
- Low

VII.5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS

1. Cultural value (see VI.1.3, VI.2.7 & VI.2.8):
Does the project area have particular cultural significance to local inhabitants?
Yes
The project has...
- increased
- decreased
YES preserved
- created
- damaged
...the cultural value of the site.
Degree of local participation (see VI.2.9):
- High
- Medium
YES Low

2. Has the project generated ecosystem goods for the local population?
(see VI.2.1, VI.2.2, VI. 2.3 & VI.2.4):
Yes
Amount of timber and non-timber goods provided :
- Very high
YES High
- Medium
- Low

3. Has the project enhanced ecosystem services?
(see III.1.4 and V.3, VI.1.7 & VI.1.8):
Yes
Description:  

4. Does the project contribute to fix/support/increase rural population by increasing tourist and recreational value, by direct employment, or by providing homeland?
(See VI.2.5, VI.2.6, VI.2.7):
- Yes
YES No
- Slightly

REACTION: This research is supported by the "Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development" programme, under contract EVK2-2002-80025