Flexibility of the framework

Identifying goals for restoration and prioritizing restoration efforts are subjective processes to some extent (Palik et al. 2000) and

achieve different restoration targets.

Table 7 Schematic approach based on ecosystem services prioritize restoration action.

A more generalized scheme to prioritize restoration actions at watershed scale is proposed with references to the relative value of the disturbance factor and the ecosystem services (Table 7). In general, restoration priority is given to zones with relatively high risk of degradation (high values of the disturbance factor) as decreasing this risk should contribute to maintain the existing high values of ecosystem services and/or to increase l

lower priority is given to zones with low environmental

improvement of ecosystem services is not at risk in these zones. Here zones with high environmental risk and high number of services (or value) are priorit

the risk of degradation and loss

with high environmental risk and low ecosystem services as it is expected t service provision will increase after amelio

restoration is assigned to zones in a watershed with low environmental risk and low ecosystem services, as it is expected that ecosystem services

disturbance. And final position

Flexibility of the framework

Identifying goals for restoration and prioritizing restoration efforts are subjective processes to al. 2000) and the framework showed here can easily be modified to achieve different restoration targets.

Schematic approach based on ecosystem services (E.S.) and environmental risk for

A more generalized scheme to prioritize restoration actions at watershed scale is proposed elative value of the disturbance factor and the ecosystem services ). In general, restoration priority is given to zones with relatively high risk of degradation (high values of the disturbance factor) as decreasing this risk should contribute to maintain the existing high values of ecosystem services and/or to increase l

lower priority is given to zones with low environmental disturbance as maintenance or improvement of ecosystem services is not at risk in these zones. Here zones with high environmental risk and high number of services (or value) are prioritized for restoration due to e risk of degradation and loss of highly valued services. Second priority is given to zones with high environmental risk and low ecosystem services as it is expected t

provision will increase after ameliorating the disturbance factor. Thir

restoration is assigned to zones in a watershed with low environmental risk and low ecosystem vices, as it is expected that ecosystem services provision will increase after decreasing the position in the range of restoration priority is assigned to zones with low

109 Identifying goals for restoration and prioritizing restoration efforts are subjective processes to can easily be modified to

and environmental risk for

A more generalized scheme to prioritize restoration actions at watershed scale is proposed elative value of the disturbance factor and the ecosystem services ). In general, restoration priority is given to zones with relatively high risk of degradation (high values of the disturbance factor) as decreasing this risk should contribute to maintain the existing high values of ecosystem services and/or to increase low values. And as maintenance or improvement of ecosystem services is not at risk in these zones. Here zones with high for restoration due to of highly valued services. Second priority is given to zones with high environmental risk and low ecosystem services as it is expected that ecosystem rating the disturbance factor. Third priority for restoration is assigned to zones in a watershed with low environmental risk and low ecosystem provision will increase after decreasing the in the range of restoration priority is assigned to zones with low

environmental risk and high ecosystem s provision.

This generalization can be re

(1983; 1997) to express the potential relationships among parts of an ecosystem under different environmental conditions which work both in the same direction to favor restoration (synergy: erosion × ecosystem services) or which both set

some ecosystem characteristics thinking the restoration priority

framework for a potential synergistic effect among restored (with the above criteria) zones in a watershed. Restoration to decrease environmental risks of zon

will ensure the provision of ecosystem services with lower ecosystem services

ecosystem services provision in zones with low environmental risk. Further develo the approach presented will be necessary to show if this dynamic aspect of

zones of a watershed restored with the priority criteria presented here cases of restoration at watershed scale performed with

this way.

Fig. 35 Mandala for criteria priorization

environmental risk and high ecosystem services as no risk exists for ecosystem services

This generalization can be re-ordered in similar way to those plankton mandalas by Margalef to express the potential relationships among parts of an ecosystem under different environmental conditions which work both in the same direction to favor restoration (synergy: erosion × ecosystem services) or which both set against (erosion/ecosystem services) some ecosystem characteristics (Fig. 35.). This type of mandala can be interpreted

inking the restoration priority criteria for different zones of a watershed, but also as a framework for a potential synergistic effect among restored (with the above criteria) zones in a watershed. Restoration to decrease environmental risks of zones with high ecosystem services the provision of ecosystem services with effects in other zones of the watershed with lower ecosystem services and high environmental risk, which in turn may favor increasing

provision in zones with low environmental risk. Further develo

the approach presented will be necessary to show if this dynamic aspect of influences between zones of a watershed restored with the priority criteria presented here takes place

cases of restoration at watershed scale performed with this approach will provide advances in

priorization for different zones of a watershed

110 ervices as no risk exists for ecosystem services

ndalas by Margalef to express the potential relationships among parts of an ecosystem under different environmental conditions which work both in the same direction to favor restoration against (erosion/ecosystem services) can be interpreted for re- ria for different zones of a watershed, but also as a framework for a potential synergistic effect among restored (with the above criteria) zones in a s with high ecosystem services s of the watershed in turn may favor increasing provision in zones with low environmental risk. Further development of influences between takes place. Practical this approach will provide advances in

111