Age, experience, social goals, and engagement with research scientists may promote innovation in ecological restoration
Mohr, J.; Cummins, T.; Floyd, T.; Metcalf, E. C.; Callaway, R.; Nelson, C.
Show abstract
Innovation in ecological restoration is necessary in order to achieve the ambitious targets established in United Nations conventions and other global restoration initiatives. Innovation is also crucial for navigating uncertainties in repairing and restoring ecosystems, and thus practitioners often develop innovations at project design and implementation stages. However, innovation in ecological restoration can be hindered by many factors (e.g., time and budget constraints, project complexity, and others). Theory and research on innovation has been formally applied in many fields, yet explicit study of innovation in ecological restoration remains nascent. In order to assess the use of innovation in restoration projects, including its drivers and inhibitors, we conducted a social survey of restoration practitioners in the United States. Specifically, we assessed relationships between project-based innovation and traits of: the individual practitioner (including, for example, age, gender, experience); company (including, for example, company size and companys inclusion of social goals); project (including, for example, complexity and uncertainty); and project outcomes (such as completing the project on time/on budget and personal satisfaction with the work). We found positive relationships between project-based innovation and practitioner traits (age, gender, experience, engagement with research scientists), one company trait (companys inclusion of social goals in their portfolio), and project traits (project complexity and length). In contrast, two practitioner traits, risk aversion and the use of industry-specific information, were negatively related to project-based innovation. Satisfaction with work outcomes was positively correlated with project-based innovation. Collectively, the results provide insights into the drivers and inhibitors of innovation in restoration and suggest opportunities for research and application.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Socioecological benefits of academic greenspace for human health, plant, and pollinator diversity: a mixed-method study protocol 93%
- From intent to implementation: Factors affecting public involvement in life science research 92%
- High School Science Fair: What Students Say -- Mastery, Performance, and Self-Determination Theory 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Road networks to explore COVID-19 infection 90%
- The Actual Conditions of Person-to-Object Contact and a Proposal for Prevention Measures During the COVID-19 Pandemic 90%
- Yet another lockdown? A large-scale study on people’s unwillingness to be confined during the first 5 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Education influences knowledge about environmental issues in Washington, DC, USA 94%
- The effects of biodegradable mulch film on the growth, yield, and water use efficiency of cotton and maize in an arid region 91%
- Urban Vulnerability Assessment for Pandemic surveillance: The COVID-19 case in Bogotá, Colombia 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- The faculty-to-faculty mentorship experience: a survey on challenges and recommendations for improvements 89%
- Perceived and observed biases within scientific communities: a case study in movement ecology 89%
- Empirical evidence that diversionary feeding increases productivity in ground-nesting birds. 88%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.