Monitoring and management

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring plays a crucial role in the post-implementation phase of restoration projects, as it serves to determine whether restoration targets have been met.^[3],[5] Without a comprehensive monitoring plan, it is not possible to conclude the effectiveness of restoration, as there is no point of comparison between the restored peatland and the desired conditions. By developing a robust monitoring plan, restoration practitioners can determine the efficacy of treatments and adapt or modify approaches to better achieve the desired outcomes.^[6],[3],[7] This could include, for example, adjusting management practices or modifying the project goals and objectives. Monitoring also helps determine whether funds were spent effectively,^[3] allowing for improved restoration planning and funding allocation in future projects.

Monitoring design

The monitoring program should be designed during the planning phase, before any restoration treatments are implemented,^[4] and should be based on established goals to ensure monitoring parameters are effective indicators of restoration efficacy.^[7] For example, a project intended to increase biodiversity or the presence of endangered peatland species will have different indicators than one aimed at GHG reduction. To further ensure that monitoring parameters are appropriately defined, protocols should be formulated through consultation with experts and utilize scientifically supported methods.^[7] While some desired outcomes of peatland restoration are immediate (e.g., changing the water table level), others (e.g., re-establishment of a functioning peat-forming ecosystem) may take years to decades.^[2] Long-term monitoring may be required to evaluate the complete outcomes of restoration treatments. Due to these long-term requirements, protocols should be systematic and standardized to allow for continuity of monitoring by different individuals and parties, as responsibilities are likely to change throughout the restoration process.^[7]

Typically, monitoring is divided into two phases: pre-restoration and post-restoration monitoring. Pre-restoration, or baseline monitoring, occurs before restoration treatments to serve as a reference point for the initial site’s functioning and is a foundational component of the monitoring plan. Post-restoration monitoring occurs after restoration treatments and is compared with baseline levels to determine the extent to which restoration targets are being reached.

Experimental design

To allow for effective evaluation of restoration impacts, monitoring plans should follow an experimental design. A standard experimental design for monitoring ecological restoration projects is the Before-After Control-Impact (BACI) protocol.^[1] In a BACI design, monitoring indicators are measured before and after restoration treatments on the restoration site, and at a control site with no treatments. This provides two points of reference: the pre-restoration baseline (how the site functioned before restoration) and the control site trajectory (separating observed restoration effects from natural variability). BACI designs should have adequate spatial replication at the restoration and control sites to allow for a more robust determination of restoration impacts by separating them from other effects.^[7]

Monitoring parameters

Peatland restoration monitoring parameters depend on various factors, including the peatland status and associated goals^[6] or the available financial and technical resources.^[8] These factors, in combination with the multitude of potential monitoring parameters, make monitoring programs highly project-specific. To address the ambiguity involved in selecting appropriate monitoring indicators, the European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment have provided recommendations for harmonized peatland monitoring protocols.^[9] Although these parameters and protocols were developed for assessing peatland condition generally, they still serve as relevant indicators for measuring the efficacy of restoration. For a list of mandatory parameters directly relevant to peatland restoration, see Table x.

In addition to these indicators, the restoration treatments should be monitored to ensure proper functioning. As treatments for restoring peatlands primarily aim to achieve rewetting, monitoring the function of restoration treatments often involves assessing the condition of water control structures (e.g., dams, bunds).^[3]

As monitoring is dependent on the project budget, restoration practitioners should consider the long-term costs of desired monitoring techniques. Low-budget restoration projects should use low-cost techniques to enable effective monitoring. Projects with larger budgets can consider higher-cost monitoring techniques, provided they are beneficial for evaluating restoration outcomes. Examples of low and high-cost monitoring techniques are shown in Table X. As incorporating replicates increases monitoring costs, the optimal number of replicates should balance maximal benefits and minimal costs.^[6]

Monitoring considerations

The timing of monitoring can, for some parameters, significantly alter the results. For example, if groundwater discharge has been identified as an indicator parameter, measurements should be taken when conditions are dry.^[3] Thus, consideration should be given to the temporal influence on the variability of monitoring data.

This webpage is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all monitoring techniques for restoration, but rather to inform restoration practitioners of key concepts to consider when designing a monitoring plan. Consideration of these factors will allow for more effective evaluation of peatland restoration. For more comprehensive documents outlining specific monitoring parameters and protocols, see Šefferová Stanová (2025).^[9]

Data collection

Monitoring is the basis for determining whether restoration targets have been reached. Thus the data collected during this process is critical to ensure reliable conclusions can be made.

Methods for data collection should be clearly outlined in the monitoring plan and follow standardized and systematic protocols to ensure quality assurance and standards are upheld throughout the data collection process. Having well-defined protocols can allow for easy training of monitoring responsibilities throughout the restoration project and help prevent observation bias.^[7]

Equally important to well-defined protocols and training for data collection is developing an extensive data management plan to ensure the collected data can effectively support the evaluation process. A data management plan should cover file formats and structures, and outline file backup and data redundancy protocols.^[7] Ensuring that data is collected and managed according to pre-established protocols will contribute to effective long-term project evaluation.

Evaluation

The data collected during monitoring are analyzed to determine the extent to which restoration targets are being reached by comparing post-restoration conditions with pre-restoration conditions, control-site conditions, and/or reference-model conditions. Šefferová Stanová (2025) recommends using the distance from the reference condition as a measure of restoration success.^[9] The distance from the reference condition is defined as the difference between a variable’s measured value and its reference level (i.e., the desired value established during the planning phase). This framework provides tangible values that restoration practitioners can use to determine the efficacy of restoration efforts.

Another widely used technique for evaluating restoration outcomes is the 5-star system paired with the ecological recovery wheel, recommended by Gann et al. (2019).^[1] These tools provide a systematic framework for comparing site conditions to a reference model to assess the effectiveness of restoration. Note that the 5-star system and the Ecological Recovery Wheel should be adapted to the respective restoration project.

Determining how well targets were met allows practitioners to assess the efficacy of restoration, and whether funding was well spent.^[3] Determining which treatments were or were not effective will enable enhanced selection of restoration treatments in future projects, leading to more effective spending. In addition to evaluating the impacts of restoration, the monitoring plan and protocols should also be assessed.^[7] Restoration practitioners should consider whether monitoring is providing the information required to evaluate restoration impacts to determine whether technical adjustments to the monitoring program are required to assess restoration outcomes more effectively. The outcomes of the restoration treatment evaluation will determine whether management interventions are needed.

Ongoing Management

Restored peatlands, like most restoration sites, will often require some level of ongoing management after treatments to prevent the site from regressing into a degraded state.^[1] The level of ongoing management required will depend on various factors, including the characteristics of the restoration site, the present stressors, and the available funding. Ongoing management can include either pre-scheduled preventative maintenance or adaptive management, which is determined based on the monitoring results.

Management Activities

Preventative Maintenance

Preventative maintenance activities are pre-scheduled interventions aimed at preventing the site from slipping into a degraded state. They should be included in the monitoring and maintenance plan, which is developed through consultation with local stakeholders. Maintenance protocols and costs should also be outlined in this plan. Examples include:

• Maintenance of water control structures to ensure appropriate water levels are maintained on-site.^[3]
• Removal of undesired vegetation to encourage the establishment and succession of desired peatland species. The removal of encroaching trees and shrubs can be beneficial for short-term restoration when rewetting has not been successful due to drought.^[10] However, removal of encroaching shrubs and trees has also been linked to increased seedlings in the cleared area due to the greater light availability and the surface peat acting as an effective germination medium.^[11]
• Mowing to assist with the regrowth of peatland specialist species while suppressing the growth of other dominant, undesired species. Worth noting, mowing with large machinery can also reduce habitat heterogeneity of restored peatlands by destroying microtopography, leading to losses of rare species that require heterogeneity.^[12]

The above examples of preventative maintenance illustrate the complexity of peatland management, with no consistent management protocols applying to all restoration projects. Preventative management techniques should be carefully selected with the ultimate goal of establishing passive restoration, in which the natural conditions are restored and the site becomes self-regulating.^[3]

Adaptive Management

Adaptive management is the process of evaluating information gained during monitoring to continuously work towards desired restoration outcomes by employing new management techniques.^[1] When monitoring indicates that the restoration trajectory is deviating from targets, adaptive management serves as a framework to determine the best course of action to achieve restoration targets. This process supports restoration while simultaneously gaining insight into the efficacy of various restoration treatment and management techniques.