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
YES 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
- Partly
Only for some units. Describe: in U.4 natural tree vegetation has recovered, in U.2 not yet though it is "on the trajectory", in U.3 conifers did not grow well enough and natural vegetation is still in bad conditions due to grazing 

3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3)
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Description: erosion control goals have been achieved, timber production was not important  

4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1)
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Description: forest area recovery, an implicit goal of the project, has generally been attained  

5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2)
- Yes
YES No
- Partly
Description: the economic goal of contributing to reduce conifer timber deficit, was presented as a secondary goal in the project and actually more as a supporting justification than a realistic objective  

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
YES 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)
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)
YES Fully
- Partly. Explain:  
- 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
- 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:  
Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6):
- Yes
- No
YES Partly. Explain: in Units 2 and 4 a mixed mediterranean oaks format 

2. Overall functioning:
How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 & V.3.5):
YES Stable
- 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
- 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
- No
YES 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 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
- High
YES 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...
YES increased
- decreased
- 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):
No
Amount of timber and non-timber goods provided :
- Very high
- High
- Medium
YES Low

3. Has the project enhanced ecosystem services?
(see III.1.4 and V.3, VI.1.7 & VI.1.8):
Yes
Description: main watershed protection and erosion control goals have been attained  

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