Search REACTION projects Map REACTION projects

Project General Description Data Sources Climate Topography Geology Soils & Ecology Degradation, Impacts & Drivers Restoration Goals Planning & Financing Technical Monitoring & Assessment Landscape & Environmentetal Assessment Socio-Economic Assessment Summary Judgements Units Documents / Images

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 - Partly Only for some units. Describe: Unit1 is not very far from the structural goal, a mixed cork oak stand with stone pine, although pines are actually dominating. The other Units follow different directions.   3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3) - Yes - No Partly Description: Precipitation fluxes interception objectives have been attained in all Units but in n.4   4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1) - Yes - No Partly Description: Foret area has increased in all Units, except in Unit4.   5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2) - Yes No - Partly Description: Cork production goal is far from being attained   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 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:   Depend on the restored unit. Explain: Pinus pinea, well adapted yet, was not part of the species composition before intervention   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:   Depend on the restored unit. Explain: The adult pine stand is excessively dense in Unit 1. In Unit 2 it is less dense, a young oaks stand is developing underneath. In Unit 3 the Q. ilex dominated maquis structure is well developed   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 - 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 - Not fully. Explain:   Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6): - Yes - No Partly. Explain: Successional dynamics are evident only in Unit 2   2. Overall functioning: How are the soil characteristics? (see V.3.3, V.3.4 & V.3.5): Stable - Slightly degraded - Seriously degraded How is the potential for nutrient cycling? (see V.3.1, V.3.2 & V.3.3): - High 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 Medium - Low 3. How is the overall ecosystem health? (see V.4) 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 - Partly Resilience (e.g., to fire, pests, drought, etc., see II.6.2 and V.3.9 & V.4 ):  Yes - No - Partly Erosion control (see II. 6.1 and IV.2.14, V.3.4, V.3.5 & VI.1.8 ) Yes - No - Partly Flood control (see II. 6.1 and VI.1.7): - Yes No - Partly VII.4. LANDSCAPE QUALITY 1. The project significantly increases: Forest surface (see VI.1.2):  Yes - No - Slightly Connectivity among patches of formerly isolated populations (see VI.1.4.c,d & VI.1.5): Yes - No - Slightly Integration among forests and other habitats (see VI.1.2 & VI.1.5d,e): - Yes - No Slightly Habitat diversity (see VI.1.2): Yes - No - Slightly The protected surface (see VI.1.4):  - Yes No - 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? Yes 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): Yes 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: Water fluxes control has been enhanced   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 - No Slightly

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