Recovery Assessment: The Process Needed After Impacts Have Exceeded Sustainability Limits

Recovery Assessment: The Process Needed After Impacts Have Exceeded Sustainability Limits

Bryan Jenkins

University of Adelaide, Australia

Available online: 
| Citation

© 2020 IIETA. This article is published by IIETA and is licensed under the CC BY 4.0 license (



Recovery assessment is the process needed after impacts of development exceed sustainability limits. This contrasts with impact assessment whose purpose is to avoid, minimise or mitigate adverse effects of development. Despite decades of impact assessments, state-of-environment reports indicate deteriorating environmental quality. one solution emerging to reverse this trend is “recovery assessment” – the process of developing management interventions to address environmental damage and degradation. The paper places impact assessment and recovery assessment in the context of managing socio-ecological systems based on four phases of the adaptive cycle: exploitation (use of resources), accumulation (build-up of effects of resource use), disturbance/release (when effects exceed sustainability limits), and reorganisation (restructuring of the system after disturbance). Restructuring leads to either a degraded system (i.e. unsustainable) or recovery of the system (i.e. sustainable). impact assessment addresses the exploitation and accumulation phases to keep development within sustainability limits, while recovery assessment addresses the reorganisation phase after sustainability limits are exceeded. Four case studies are presented to illustrate the recovery assessment concept and new environmental management techniques associated with the concept. The first is the Exxon Valdez oil spill. interventions to address spill damage and natural recovery processes have been extensively monitored. the technique of “net- environmental-benefit” evolved from this work. The second is the Fundão tailings-dam failure. Restoration investigations used the technique of “equivalency-analysis”. The third is the Great barrier reef which is degrading not only because of impacts of cyclone damage, land-based contamination and rise in sea-temperature, but also because reef ecosystem recovery processes have been compromised. Enhanced natural recovery techniques are being developed to address ecological deterioration. the fourth is fire management at uluru. The European approach of fire suppression reduced fire frequency but led to major fires causing ecological and development damage. Indigenous fire management techniques have led to ecological recovery and reduced damage.


Recovery assessment, Sustainability limits, Oil spill recovery, Tailings dam failure, Reef ecosystem recovery, Fire management, Adaptive cycle, Managing socioecological systems


[1] Gunderson, L.H. & Holling, C.S., Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems, Island Press: Washington DC, 2002.

[2] S higenaka, G., Twenty-five Years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill: NOAA’s Scientific Support, Monitoring and Research, NOAA Office of Response and Restoration: Seattle, 2014.

[3] E sler, D., Ballachey, B., Matkin, C., Cushing, D., Kaler, R., Bodkin, J., Monson, D., Esslinger, G. & Kloecker, K., Timelines and mechanisms of wildlife population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Deep Sea Research Part II, 147, pp. 36–42, 2018.

[4] E froymson, R.A., Nicolette, J.P. & Suter, G.W. II, A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation or Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge TN, 2003.

[5] BHP Billiton, Annual Report 2016, BHP Billiton Limited: Melbourne, 2016.

[6] E hrman, C., Development and Application of a Resilience Model for Restoration of the Rio Dôce Basin, Brazil. Presented at International Association of Impact Assessment Conference IAIA18, 16–19 May 2018, Durban.

[7] S anchez, L., Alger, K., Alonso, L., Barbosa, F., Brito, M., Laureano, F., May, P., Roeser, H. & Kakabadse, Y., Impacts of the Fandão Dam failure: A pathway to sustainable and resilient mitigation, Rio Dôce Panel Thematic Report No. 1, IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.

[8] C armo, F., Kamino, L., Junior, R., Campos, I., Carmo, F., Silvino, G., Castro, K., Mauro, M., Rodrigues, N., Miranda, M. & Pinto, C., Fundao tailings dam failures: the environment tragedy of the largest technological disaster of Brazilian mining in global context, Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 15, pp. 145–151, 2017.

[9] B ooth, P., Use of Habitat Equivalency Analysis in the Resilience Model for Restoration of the Rio Dôce Basin, International Association of Impact Assessment Conference IAIA18, 16–19 May 2018, Durban.

[10] N ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Habitat Equivalency Analysis (revised), NOAA : Silver Spring MD, 2000.

[11] H ughes, T.P. & Kerry, J.T., Back-to-back bleaching has now hit two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef, The Conversation, available at, (accessed 25 May 2018).

[12] H ughes, T.P., Kerry, J.T., Baird, A.H., Connolly, S.R., Chase, T.J., Dietzel, A., Hill, T., Hoey, A.S., Hoogenboom, M.O., Jacobsen, M., Kerswell, A., Madin, J.S., Mieog, A., Paley, A.S., Pratchett, M.S., Torda, G. & Woods, R.M., Global warming impairs stockrecruitment dynamics of corals, Nature, 568, pp. 387–390.

[13] I nternational Panel on Climate Change, Global Warming of 1.5ºC: Summary for Policy Makers, WMO & UNEP.

[14] M arshall, P. & Schuttenberg, H. A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Townsville, 2006.

[15] H arriot, V., Coral Lipids and Environmental Stress, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 25, pp. 131–139, 1993.

[16] I ndependent Expert Panel, Advice on Responding to Mass Coral Bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, Outcomes of Workshop, available at (accessed 5 May 2017).

[17] M arshall, P. & Schuttenberg, H., A Reef Manager’s Guide to Coral Bleaching, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Townsville, 2006.

[18] A nthony, K., Bay, L.K., Costanza, R., Firn, J., Gunn, J., Harrison, P., Heyward, A., Lundgren, P., Mead, D., Moore, T., Mumby, P.J., van Oppen, M.J.H., Robertson, J., Runge, M.C., Suggett, D.J., Schafelke, B., Wachenfeld, D. & Walshe, T. New interventions are needed to save coral reefs. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1, pp. 1420–1422, October 2017.

[19] A ustralian Government and Queensland Government, Reef 2050 long term sustainability plan. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, 2015.

[20] D epartment of State Development Infrastructure and Planning, Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report. Department of state Development Infrastructure and Planning: Brisbane, 2014.

[21] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Townsville, 2014.

[22] A ustralian Government and Queensland Government, Reef 2050 Plan Investment Framework, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra, 2016.

[23] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Reef Blueprint: Great Barrier Reef Blueprint for Resilience, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority: Townsville, 2017.

[24] D irector of National Parks, Uluṟu – Kata Tjuṯa National Park Management Plan 2010–2020, Director of National Parks: Canberra, 2010.

[25] Williams, J., Fire regimes and their impacts on the mulga (Acacia aneura) landscapes of central Australia. Australian fire regimes: Contemporary Patterns (April 1998–March 2000) and Changes since European Settlement, eds. J. Russell-Smith, R. Craig, A.M. Gill, R. Smith & J.E. Williams, Department of the Environment and Heritage: Canberra, ACT , 2002.

[26] D uguid, A., Brock, C. & Gabrys, K., A review of fire management on central Australian conservation reserves: towards best practice, Chapter 5. Desert Fire: fire and regional land management in the arid landscapes of Australia, eds. G. Edwards, & G. Allan, DKCRC Report 37, Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre: Alice Springs, pp. 209–308, 2009.

[27] B astin, G. & Allan, G., After the smoke has cleared: 2011 fire in central Australia, Range Management Newsletter, 12(2) pp. 3–6, Australian Rangeland Society, 2012.