Coastal Habitat Restoration Survey
Cite this dataset
Hughes, A. Randall et al. (2020). Coastal Habitat Restoration Survey [Dataset]. Dryad. https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.mpg4f4qxf
Abstract
Online expert elicitation survey of the membership of Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) and International Coral Reef Society (ICRS). This dataset includes responses to a series of questions exploring scientist and practitioner experience restoring particular coastal habitats (coral reefs, oyster reefs, mangroves, salt marsh, and seagrasses), as well as perceptions of the purpose of restoration, site selection practices, the types of metrics used to evaluate restoration success, and the potential challenges to successful restoration.
Methods
We conducted an online expert elicitation survey of the membership of Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) and International Coral Reef Society (ICRS), two organizations focused on coastal habitat restoration with members representing academia, government, and non-governmental organizations within the U.S and internationally. The standardized online survey was developed and pretested by the authors and hosted and administered through Qualtrics Research Suite. The survey was distributed by email to membership lists of both organizations by the organization leadership. The email invitation was sent to CERF members in January 2017 and to ICRS members in April 2017. We received 67 responses from CERF members and 41 responses from ICRS members. Five additional respondents who belonged to both organizations were excluded from our analyses. Because we did not have access to the membership lists for either organization, we were unable to calculate a response rate. Of those who were qualified to take the survey by virtue of having some restoration experience, the completion rate was 63%.
This dataset includes responses to a series of questions exploring scientist and practitioner experience restoring particular coastal habitats (coral reefs, oyster reefs, mangroves, salt marsh, and seagrasses), as well as perceptions of the purpose of restoration, site selection practices, the types of metrics used to evaluate restoration success, and the potential challenges to successful restoration (see Appendix A for a list of survey questions). We included responses to a question regarding the perceived importance of genetic diversity for restoration success as an indicator of innovative restoration practices. For experience with individual coastal habitats, the purpose of restoration, and metrics used to evaluate restoration success, we calculated the percentage of respondents responding affirmatively to a given habitat/purpose/metric. We measured each respondent’s perceptions of the challenges to successful restoration on an ordinal Likert-type scale from 1 to 4: not a challenge (1); minor challenge (2); moderate challenge (3); major challenge (4). The importance of genetic diversity was also measured on an ordinal Likert-type scale from 1 to 5: do not know (0); not at all important (1); slightly important (2); moderately important (3); very important (4); extremely important (5). The survey also included sociodemographic questions to document gender, age, education, U.S./international, type of employer (academia, state government, federal government, non-governmental organization, other), years in restoration, and the percentage of restoration efforts that they have been involved in which have been published in the scientific literature.
We used Chi-square tests to analyze whether the proportion of each habitat restored, the purpose of restoration efforts, the metrics measured, and site selection methods differed between organizations. To analyze the data regarding challenges to successful restoration and the importance of genetic diversity overall and by habitat, we used non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine whether the ordinal responses for each threat differed between the two organizations. We used linear models with a fixed factor of organization to test whether age, years in restoration, or the percentage of restoration efforts published differed between organizations. Finally, we tested differences in gender identity, type of employer, domestic/international, or highest degree by organization using Chi-square tests. All analyses were run in R Studio v.1.1.442 using the base packages.
Usage notes
These data were used in the analyses presented in Hughes, A. R., Edwards, P., Grabowski, J. H., Scyphers, S., & Williams, S. L. (2020). Differential incorporation of scientific advances affects coastal habitat restoration practice. Conservation Science and Practice. doi:10.1111/csp2.305
The metadata of this dataset is also registered at the Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office: https://www.bco-dmo.org/dataset/806786
This dataset package contains the following 3 files:
- coastal_survey.csv: the results of the online survey in comma separated format
- CoastalHabitatSurvey_OnlineSurveyQuestions.pdf: The survey questions itself in pdf format
- README.txt: Additional information on the dataset including the dataset column descriptions
Parameters/Column headers descriptions:
| Name | Description | Units | Missing data identifier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oysters restored | Yes/no whether respondent has restored oysters | Not applicable | NA |
| Marshes restored | Yes/no whether respondent has restored salt marshes | Not applicable | NA |
| Seagrasses restored | Yes/no whether respondent has restored seagrasses | Not applicable | NA |
| Mangroves restored | Yes/no whether respondent has restored mangroves | Not applicable | NA |
| Corals restored | Yes/no whether respondent has restored corals | Not applicable | NA |
| Number of habitats restored | Sum of number of coastal habitats (oysters, marsh, seagrasses, mangroves, corals) restored | Integer from 0-5 | NA |
| Research purpose | Yes/no whether research has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Remediation purpose | Yes/no whether remediation has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Habitat purpose | Yes/no whether habitat enhancement has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Fisheries purpose | Yes/no whether fisheries enhancement has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Water quality purpose | Yes/no whether improving water quality has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Biodiversity purpose | Yes/no whether enhancing biodiversity as been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Protection purpose | Yes/no whether protection of people or property has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Erosion purpose | Yes/no whether erosion control has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Carbon purpose | Yes/no whether carbon sequestration has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Community purpose | Yes/no whether community engagement has been the purpose of restoration | Not applicable | NA |
| Economic metrics | Yes/no whether economic metrics have been used to monitor restoration success | Not applicable | NA |
| Social metrics | Yes/no whether social metrics have been used to monitor restoration success | Not applicable | NA |
| Community metrics | Yes/no whether community outreach metrics have been used to monitor restoration success | Not applicable | NA |
| Ecological metrics | Yes/no whether ecological metrics have been used to monitor restoration success | Not applicable | NA |
| Geophysical metrics | Yes/no whether geophysical metrics have been used to monitor restoration success | Not applicable | NA |
| Poor water ordinal | Degree to which poor water quality is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Disease ordinal | Degree to which disease is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Coastal development ordinal | Degree to which coastal development is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Permitting ordinal | Degree to which permitting and regulations are a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Public awareness ordinal | Degree to which public awareness or support is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Site availability ordinal | Degree to which site availability is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Storms ordinal | Degree to which storms are a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Herbivory or predation ordinal | Degree to which herbivory or predation is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Competition ordinal | Degree to which competition is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Invasive species ordinal | Degree to which invasive species are a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Climate change ordinal | Degree to which climate change is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Boating ordinal | Degree to which boating is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Dredge ordinal | Degree to which dredge and fill is a challenge to successful restorationon on a scale from 1 (not a challenge) to 4 (major challenge) | Likert scale | NA |
| Genetic diversity is important restoration strategy ordinal | Degree to which respondent agrees that genetic diversity is an important restoration strategy on a scale from 1 (do not agree at all) to 5 (agree a great deal) | Likert scale | NA |
| Importance of oyster genetic diversity ordinal | Degree to which respondent agrees that genetic diversity is important for oyster restoration on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). No answer or don't know coded as NA. | Likert scale | NA |
| Importance of marsh genetic diversity ordinal | Degree to which respondent agrees that genetic diversity is important for marsh restoration on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). No answer or don't know coded as NA. | Likert scale | NA |
| Importance of seagrass genetic diversity ordinal | Degree to which respondent agrees that genetic diversity is important for seagrass restoration on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). No answer or don't know coded as NA. | Likert scale | NA |
| Importance of coral genetic diversity ordinal | Degree to which respondent agrees that genetic diversity is important for coral restoration on a scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). No answer or don't know coded as NA. | Likert scale | NA |
| Societies | Society that respondent belongs to: Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) or International Coral Reef Society (ICRS) | Not applicable | NA |
| Gender | Gender that respondent identifies with: male, female, prefer not to answer | Not applicable | NA |
| Percentage of restoration projects published | Self-reported percentage of restoration projects that have been published | 0-100 | NA |
| Site selection - need vs. success | Categorical response regarding what determines where you conduct restoration: where restoration is most likely to be ecologically successful; where restoration is most needed ecologically; where restoration is most needed to benefit society; where restoration is most likely to be permitted or funded; other | Not applicable | NA |
| Site selection - picking site vs. habitat | Categorical response to which is more challenging: picking an appropriate site to restore a given habitat; picking an appropriate habitat to restore a given site | Not applicable | NA |
| Most important for selecting restoration site | Categorical response for what factor is most important for selecting restoration sites: access and logistical feasibility; permitting or regulations; appropriate environmental conditions; available funding; geographic proximity | Not applicable | NA |
| Country | Categorical response to in which country do you reside | Not applicable | NA |
| Birth year | Free numerical response to what is your birth year | Numerical | NA |
| Highest degree | Categorical response to what is your highest degree: High school diploma or GED; Bachelors; Masters; PhD | Not applicable | NA |
| Employer | Categorical response to which of the following best describes your employer: national government; state or provincial government; academic institution; non-governmental organization; private for-profit organization; local municipality; other | Not applicable | NA |
Funding
National Science Foundation, Award: OCE-1652320