How to make complexity look simple? Conveying ecosystems restoration complexity for socio-economic research and public engagement

Abstract

Ecosystems degradation represents one of the major global challenges at the present time, threating people’s livelihoods and well-being worldwide. Ecosystem restoration therefore seems no longer an option, but an imperative. Restoration challenges are such that a dialogue has begun on the need to re-shape restoration as a science. A critical aspect of that reshaping process is the acceptance that restoration science and practice needs to be coupled with socio-economic research and public engagement. This inescapably means conveying complex ecosystem’s information in a way that is accessible to the wider public. In this paper we take up this challenge with the ultimate aim of contributing to making a step change in science’s contribution to ecosystems restoration practice. Using peatlands as a paradigmatically complex ecosystem, we put in place a transdisciplinary process to articulate a description of the processes and outcomes of restoration that can be understood widely by the public. We provide evidence of the usefulness of the process and tools in addressing four key challenges relevant to restoration of any complex ecosystem: (1) how to represent restoration outcomes; (2) how to establish a restoration reference; (3) how to cope with varying restoration time-lags and (4) how to define spatial units for restoration. This evidence includes the way the process resulted in the creation of materials that are now being used by restoration practitioners for communication with the public and in other research contexts. Our main contribution is of an epistemological nature: while ecosystem services-based approaches have enhanced the integration of academic disciplines and non-specialist knowledge, this has so far only followed one direction (from the biophysical underpinning to the description of ecosystem services and their appreciation by the public). We propose that it is the mix of approaches and epistemological directions (including from the public to the biophysical parameters) what will make a definitive contribution to restoration practice.

The economics of peatland restoration

“…2. The survey, and in particular the information materials, received a lot of positive feedback from respondents (discussed in Martin-Ortega et al 2017). This caused us to develop the (slightly modified) version of the whole information package provided in the survey up to the description of choice scenarios into a communication tool, to be accessed here: http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/peatland-modules/?type=learning.…”

“…Two additional attributes correspond to two spatial criteria aimed at capturing people's preferences with respect to areas where restoration should be prioritized. Two criteria emerged to be relevant in preparatory focus groups with the public (Byg et al 2017;Martin-Ortega, Glenk, and Byg 2017): (1) the degree of peatland concentration in an area and (2) the degree of remoteness or accessibility of a peatland. With respect to the first criterion (degree of peatland concentration), participants found it relevant to preserve either 'the heart of peatlands' or 'the little that is left'.…”

More in Good Condition or Less in Bad Condition? Valence-Based Framing Effects in Environmental Valuation

“…Based on e perts predictions, the ecological condition of peatlands will deteriorate in the absence of additional restoration efforts, while it may improve through extra restoration. In our survey, we relied on the classification of peatlands ecological condition provided in Martin-Ortega, Glenk and Byg (2017) that combines information on land use, indicators of ecosystem functioning (such as height of water table or presence of indicators species) and ecosystem service provision with respect to wildlife, water quality and greenhouse gas emissions to classify peatlands into bad, intermediate and good ecological condition. Martin-Ortega, Glenk and Byg (2017) argue that their classification of peatlands ecological condition is scientifically robust and can be widely understood by members of the public in a survey using a combination of text and visual aids.…”

Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers

“…Although this study is not intended to be representative of all Dutch peat farmers, we propose that the viewpoints identified from the Q analysis provide a first insight that farmers are not averse to landscape-scale policy making. Since the interpretation of the profiles was mainly conducted by authors with a scientific background, we encourage the wider Dutch farming community, particularly the collectives, to use these three motivational profiles as a contextual setting for an open discussion or workshop with farmers and other relevant peatland actors (e.g., [57]).…”