A framework to evaluate land degradation and restoration responses for improved planning and decision-making

Abstract

Avoiding, reducing or reversing land degradation will require increased restoration investments, carefully targeted and implemented to maximize environmental, economic and social benefits. Our objective was to develop a multi-criteria framework to assess effectiveness of land degradation responses for enhanced land use planning and restoration by evaluating both direct biophysical and socio-economic responses and indirect effects of various restoration strategies. The effectiveness of restoration responses is demonstrated for degraded forestland using a comprehensive literature review and case study in Nepal. The results show that most forestland restoration responses have an ecological focus with tree planting being the dominant direct response and economic and financial instruments the indirect responses. The results confirmed that environmental desirability was the dominant factor and economic feasibility was secondary for assessing restoration responses. Cultural acceptability was given the least consideration. Among sub-criteria, improved vegetative structure was the dominant restoration response. This study, originating from the Land Degradation and Restoration Assessment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, supports the view that the scientific community and decision-makers must give greater attention to cultural, social, technical, and political dimensions that influence the outcomes of restoration responses to solve the pervasive problem of land degradation.

The science-policy interface on ecosystems and people: challenges and opportunities

“…The concept of Nature's Contributions to People emerged from the work of IPBES as a catalyst for the importance of contextdependent views and relational perspectives (Kadykalo et al 2020). Similarly, Pandit et al (2020) developed a conceptual framework that links land degradation causes/consequences, responses, and outcomes/evaluations, and apply the framework to assess effectiveness of forest land restoration responses considering six criteria (environmental, economic, social, technical, cultural and political) and 20 sub-criteria. Advances at global levels can then cascade down towards national or regional assessments, which benefit from such advances, with these being tailor to meet local needs and available resources (Crouzat et al 2019).…”

“…Crouzat et al (2019) present a cross-sectoral and integrated analysis of mountain systems at national scale, fostering the integration of different value types towards nature in policymaking. Similarly, Pandit et al (2020) show that approaches to ecological restoration must fully embrace the cultural, social and political dimensions involved to be effective and have long-term success in moving away from ecologically dominated perspectives.…”

“…can be grounded within individual contexts (Balvanera et al 2017). As a specific example, Pandit et al (2020) show the effectiveness of community forestry policy as an indirect response to address forest land degradation in Nepal by actively engaging people in addressing environmental problems. Krug et al (2020) illustrate how the inclusion of a wide diversity of stakeholders helps integrate diverse forms of knowledge and perspectives in IPBES processes.…”

“…These political and economic inequalities result from the technical, social and international (geopolitical) division of the production and labor of the globalized capitalist world (Sala and Torchio 2019). Strategies aimed at reversing degradation need to move beyond the most obvious impacts, focusing rather on the drivers and processes underpinning the accelerated rates of degradation, as shown by Pandit et al (2020). Global food trade has reshaped the way rural communities conceive, value, relate and care for nature, transforming deeply held principles and cultural practices into business transactions.…”

“…IPBES has pioneered using a wide range of case studies (e.g. Pandit et al 2020) and regional and evidence-base balance to deliver a full range of options, drawing from regional insights lacking in global policy processes prior to the advent of IPBES.…”