Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation

Ecological restoration requires a holistic view of the interconnectedness between degraded areas, remaining ecosystems, and the repercussions of land use and other socioeconomic costs. In this study, we analyze how biological priorities for restoration change when ecological, social, and economic feasibility are considered. A multi‐criteria approach was used to prioritize restoration areas, using the Mexican side of the transboundary Grijalva‐Usumacinta basin (78,831 km2) as a study model, one of Mexico's most important regions, thanks to its hydrology, biology, and social conditions. Fourteen indicators of biological value and feasibility for restoration were identified. The results showed that when considering only biological factors (B scenario), 9.35% of the basin area had high or very high priority for restoration within or near natural protected areas (NPAs). When including feasibility (B + F scenario), the area with high to very high priority values for restoration increased to 34.3%. This means that many feasible areas had medium or low biological priority for restoration, and consequently, in many cases, there is a tradeoff between the possible biological recovery versus viability derived mainly from socioeconomic factors. Without discerning where restoration can offer the most pronounced ecological and socioeconomic benefits, efforts risk being misdirected or squandered. This approach provides a suitability assessment useful for decision‐makers and stakeholders because it generates a more complete picture of opportunities and threats to make a final selection of priority areas for intervention.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Changes In Priority For Restoration When Considering Biologi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not only biology matters: socioeconomic factors change land prioritization for restoration

Jácome‐Flores,

Popoca‐Cruz,

Sanaphre‐Villanueva

2023

“…Although this might seem obvious, the long-term viability of restoration interventions is often neglected in practice (Frietsch et al 2023). This is, among others, caused by limited funding (Höhl et al 2020) and the project-bound design of many restoration interventions (Tedesco et al 2023). Examples from around the world show how a lack of long-term thinking in restoration practice significantly limits the potential of restoration interventions and can even lead to more harm than good.…”

Section: Collecting Baseline Data and Restoring Historicalmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of international restoration principles for ecosystem restoration practice in Rwanda

Frietsch,

Fischer,

Kaplin

et al. 2024

The restoration of degraded ecosystems is considered a key strategy to contribute to ecological integrity and human well‐being. To support restoration practice, 10 “Principles to guide the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030” were conceived through a consultative process and put forward by a group of leading international restoration actors. The extent to which these principles can inform successful restoration activities on the ground, however, remains largely unknown. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods, we probed 32 stakeholders who plan, manage, and implement restoration in Rwanda to elicit which factors they perceive as most important for successful restoration based on the UN Decade principles. Using the Q‐methodology, we discovered that participants overall agreed that the UN Decade principles are relevant to inform successful ecosystem restoration in the study area. Further, the Q‐study revealed three distinct groups of stakeholders with different priorities in terms of opinions on restoration aims, stakeholder involvement, and relevant spatial scales. Based on semi‐structured interviews, we identified four considerations for successful restoration that require special attention in future restoration interventions in the study area: (1) restoring historical conditions, (2) collecting baseline data, (3) increasing local communities' sense of ownership, and (4) pursuing a long‐term vision for restoration activities. To address these considerations and thereby harvest the potential of ecosystem restoration to benefit both people and nature in the long run, diverse stakeholders with different priorities for restoration need to come together to discuss possible differences in their perceived priorities, perspectives, and approaches.

“…Ecosystem restoration has been rapidly expanding worldwide, particularly following the global call by the UN that declared the period from 2021 to 2030 as the Decade of Restoration (Brancalion et al 2022), with over 60 nations committing to restore more than 200 million hectares of forest landscapes by 2030 as part of the Bonn Challenge (Tedesco et al 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How have RPAS helped monitor forests and what can we apply in forest restoration monitoring?

Sinegalia,

Santoro,

Molin

2023

We are currently experiencing an unprecedented moment in forest restoration, where monitoring activities in recovery areas play a vital role in problem identification and method adaptation. However, it is crucial to shift away from expensive traditional methodologies and develop technologies that enable large‐scale monitoring using more accessible and cost‐effective tools. In an effort to provide an evidence‐based perspective, we conducted a systematic review of how remotely piloted aircraft systems equipped with various sensors have been employed for forest monitoring. We consulted three databases and included 53 articles in our review. The results revealed a trend toward research in tropical ecosystems, with forest structure being the most frequently assessed attribute, and canopy height being the most widely measured structural indicator. Red‐green‐blue sensors were commonly used, both individually and in combination with others, and there was a noticeable shift toward the use of light detection and ranging. Data validation primarily relied on forest inventory methods, often involving comparisons of outputs from different sensors and the use of artificial intelligence algorithms. Despite the wide range of studies utilizing sensor‐equipped drones to analyze forest attributes, there is a notable scarcity of research specifically addressing the application of these technologies in forest restoration monitoring. Filling this research gap is essential, as employing techniques that enable large‐scale monitoring, such as aerial photogrammetry and remote sensing, aligns with current trends and contributes to global commitments to environmental restoration and conservation.