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: Unit2 is well advanced on its restoration track. Unit1 has suffered delayed thinning. Unit3 has naturally recovered very well since charcol production stopped. Unit4 is a rocky zone included in projec 

3. Have the functional goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.4 and V.3)
- Yes
- No
YES Partly
Description: Main environmental goal (precipitation interception) has been well attained. 

4. Have the landscape goal(s) been attained? (see III.1.5 and VI.1)
YES Yes
- No
- Partly
Description: Forest area has increased 

5. Have socio-economic goals been attained? (see III.1.6-8 and VI.2)
- Yes
- No
- Partly
Description: there were not economic goals 

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)
- Fully
- Partly. Explain:  
YES Depend on the restored unit. Explain: P.pinea is exotic in the area, though well adapted (U1 & U2), fully natural in th other units 

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:  
YES Depend on the restored unit. Explain: Only Unit3 expresses well typical vegetation structure of the area (that, on the other hand, might not be interpreted as an undisturbed natural/mature structure!) 

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)
YES 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:  
Do natural successional dynamics occur? (see V.3.6):
- Yes
- No
YES Partly. Explain: In Unit2, thanks to timely thinnig, natural succes 

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
- 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 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
YES No
- 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
- Low

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

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