Reaction Web

Search REACTION projects Search REACTION projects

Map REACTION projects Map REACTION projects

Project

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
- Only for some restored units.Describe:  
- Only for some criteria. Describe:  
2. Have the structural goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.3 and V.1 & V.2)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Only for some units. Describe:  
3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description:  
4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description:  
5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description:  
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)
- Very high
- High
YES 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)
YES Fully
- Partly. Explain:  
- Depend on the restored unit. Explain:  
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
- Partly. Explain: Alien or ruderal plant species are not significants in restored area but plant recovery is very low, being dominated by pionner or secundary species of plant succession; shrubs characteristic of the a 
- 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
- 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: There is not autosuccesion of Pinus halepensis plantations 
Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6):
- Yes
- No
YES Partly. Explain: only tussock grass and dwarf-shrubs communities bu 
2. Overall functioning:
How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 & V.3.5):
- Stable
- Slightly degraded
YES Seriously degraded
How is the potential for nutrient cycling? (see V.3.1, V.3.2 & V.3.3):
- High
- Medium
YES 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
- Medium
YES 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
- 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
- No
YES Partly
Resilience (e.g., to fire, pests, drought, etc., see II.6.2 and V.3.9 & V.4 ): 
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Erosion control (see II. 6.1 and IV.2.14, V.3.4, V.3.5 & VI.1.8 )
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Flood control (see II. 6.1 and VI.1.7):
- Yes
- No
YES 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
YES No
- 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
- No
YES Slightly
The protected surface (see VI.1.4): 
- Yes
- No
YES Slightly
2. Aesthetic value (see VI.1.5, VI.1.6,VI.2.7 & VI.2.8):
- Very high
- 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?
No
The project has...
- increased
- decreased
- preserved
- created
- damaged
...the cultural value of the site.
Degree of local participation (see VI.2.9):
- High
- Medium
- 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):
No
Amount of timber and non-timber goods provided :
- Very high
- 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