Enhancing feasibility: Incorporating a socio-ecological systems framework into restoration planning

Abstract

Forest restoration is the counterforce to deforestation. In many parts of the world it mitigates forest loss and degradation, but success rates vary. Socio-political variables are important predictors of effectiveness of restoration activities, indicating that restoration strategies need to be locally adapted. Yet, contextual assessments of the biophysical, social and political characteristics of forest restoration are rare. Here, we integrate a social-ecological systems framework with systematic decision-making to inform forest restoration planning. We illustrate this approach through a prioritization analysis in a community-based forest restoration context in Paser District, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. We compare the solutions of our integrated framework with those identified on the basis of biophysical criteria alone. We discover that incorporating a socio-political context alters the selection of priority areas. While the social feasibility and political permissibility can be enhanced, ecological benefits are likely to be reduced and/or opportunity costs of alternative land uses are to be increased. Our conceptual framework allows the appraisal of potential trade-offs between social and ecological outcomes of alternative options, and has the potential to evaluate the efficiency of existing policies. Empirical testing in a range of contexts is required to ensure broad applicability and transferability of our conceptual framework.

Bosques ribereños del trópico húmedo de México: un caso de estudio y aspectos críticos para una restauración exitosa

“…Desde esta perspectiva, abordar la restauración únicamente desde sus aspectos ecológicos resultaría incompleto. Una estrategia de restauración debe integrar información sobre aspectos ecológicos, sociales y legales (Budiharta, Meijaarda, Wells, Abram y Wilson, 2016), así como considerar la relación beneficio-costo que resulta de sus acciones (Kimball et al, 2015). En América Latina, por ejemplo, aunque los aspectos técnicos de la restauración han sido bien desarrollados, es muy reciente la consideración de la dimensión social para guiar la restauración y su potencial para satisfacer las necesidades humanas (Ceccon y Pérez, 2016).…”

“…En América Latina, por ejemplo, aunque los aspectos técnicos de la restauración han sido bien desarrollados, es muy reciente la consideración de la dimensión social para guiar la restauración y su potencial para satisfacer las necesidades humanas (Ceccon y Pérez, 2016). Son escasas las evaluaciones integrales de los aspectos ecológicos, sociales y legales de la restauración de bosques (Budiharta et al, 2016). El presente trabajo aborda algunos aspectos que emergen de la problemática de la restauración de bosques ribereños en…”

Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook

“…Several studies use only biophysical criteria (biodiversity, vegetation cover, natural regeneration potential, ecosystem functions) to identify priority or target areas for restoration (Gimona and van der Horst 2007;Zhou et al 2008;Trabucchi et al 2014;Rappaport et al 2015;Schulz and Schröder 2017), whereas others include economic criteria such as restoration implementation and opportunity costs, or farm profitability (Crossman and Bryan 2009;Lagabrielle et al 2011;Wilson et al 2011;Crouzeilles et al 2015;Zweiner et al 2017). Three studies emphasize social feasibility and biophysical suitability criteria (Orsi and Geneletti 2010;Uribe et al 2014;Vogler et al 2015) and one study includes political feasibility, based on government restrictions on land use for agroforestry in production forests (Budiharta et al 2016). The study by Tobón et al (2017) identifies priority sites for restoration within the entire country of Mexico, to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity Aichi Target 15 to restore 15% of terrestrial ecosystems at minimal cost.…”

“…Prioritizing areas of medium to high natural regeneration potential results in high cost savings, and also produces high benefits in terms of carbon storage, water quality and biodiversity . Budiharta et al (2016) focused their analysis of restoration prioritization in Indonesia on local treebased agroforestry, which provides livelihoods for local communities and contributes to food security, while offering multiple ecological benefits of tree cover. The agroforestry systems used in this region over the past 300 years are commonly established through enrichment planting in degraded forests or young secondary forests, using seedlings and wildlings of various tree species.…”

“…For example, Budiharta et al (2016) tested four restoration scenarios to examine how different evaluation criteria for spatial prioritization of agroforestry interventions on degraded forestlands in East Kalimantan, Indonesia, generate tradeoffs in social and ecological benefits for local communities. The results provide guidance for decision makers by comparing outcomes of alternative scenarios, based on different combinations of initial constraints.…”