Assessing seagrass restoration requires looking beyond biological recovery to include environmental, social, and management factors. To address this in Cu Lao Cham Nature Reserve, Vietnam, we developed a 31-indicator Monitoring–Evaluation–Learning and Drivers–Pressures–State–Impact–Response (MEL–DPSIR) framework spanning five key dimensions. We derived indicator targets from international standards, national policy, baseline data, and local stakeholder input. Using a fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation, the Biological–Ecological dimension received the highest integrated weight (0.34), followed by Community Livelihoods (0.28), while Learning received the lowest weight (0.05)—a ranking that proved robust under sensitivity testing. Because empirical restoration data are not yet available, this paper presents the framework design rather than empirical testing. Ultimately, our framework offers a flexible decision-support tool meant to be refined through real-world monitoring cycles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tuấn et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: