In the eye of the beholder: Reconciling interpretations of forest landscape restoration

Abstract

Although forest restoration is not a new concept, it has recently gained in popularity.Forest landscape restoration (FLR) in particular may be said to have acted as an ambassador for the wider restoration cause. Yet how different communities and disciplines interpret this complex term has implications for their implementation decisions. Although the term FLR is used widely, it signifies different things to different people. Ambiguity may prove to be both an asset and a liability. The objective of this article is to understand how different disciplines interpret FLR. I first review the diversity of terms and definitions related to the broad concept of restoration and then identify the interpretations different groups make of the term 'forest landscape restoration'. Five constructs are proposed based on these interpretations. The ultimate aim is to facilitate FLR implementation by raising awareness among practitioners and policymakers of the variety of interpretations of FLR, associated with different disciplines and communities of practice, and to facilitate the identification of common ground so that implementation can proceed. I conclude that there are significant divergences on the objectives of the term FLR and propose opportunities for collaboration, including through the sustainable development goals, to scale up restoration in the face of such divergences.

International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition

“…climate resilience, food and water security, biodiversity conservation). FLR has been interpreted in different ways (Mansourian ) leading to different constructs of FLR (e.g. safeguarding biodiversity, reducing land degradation, supporting sustainable timber production).…”

Putting the pieces together: Integration for forest landscape restoration implementation

“…An understanding of what comprises land and forest degradation, and preferences for management scenarios, can depend on individuals' backgrounds and value systems; a social scientist may perceive the landscape differently than an ecologist, or an industrial business person's view may differ from that of a small‐scale subsistence farmer (Carmenta, Zabala, Daeli, & Phelps, ; Mansourian, ). The multiplicity of interests in forests—as an object of exploitation, a basis for local livelihoods, as biodiversity‐rich ecosystems, as places for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and a global resource to protect, manage, and restore—spans many disciplines, sectors, and actors (Baker, Eckerberg, & Zachrisson, ; Mansourian, ). For example, forest scientists and ecologists have sought to understand the dynamics of forest ecosystems to restore ecosystem functions on degraded forest lands and improve habitat quality for key species (Higgs, ; Hobbs & Norton, ; Lamb, Erskine, & Parrotta, ; Palmer, Falk, & Zedler, ), whereas development organisations have seen restoration as a tool to reverse land degradation, enhance rural livelihoods, supply communities with fuelwood and other forest products, improve water and soil quality, and protect agricultural fields and coastlines (MEA, ).…”

“…Yet, there is surprisingly little collaboration among scientists, FLR planners, practitioners, and policymakers (Mansourian, ; Riggs et al, ). There is also little cross‐disciplinary use of knowledge from relevant forestry and non‐forestry disciplines.…”

“…There is also little cross‐disciplinary use of knowledge from relevant forestry and non‐forestry disciplines. More generally, there is limited knowledge sharing and awareness of different values, and collaboration has rarely transcended disciplines, sectors, or even geographical scales in efforts related to FLR (Caughlin et al, ; Mansourian, ; Reinecke & Blum, ). Such collaboration is important to ensure that multiple environmental, economic, and social objectives encompassing a range of values for forest restoration can be fulfilled, reconciled, and mainstreamed through policies (Reinecke & Blum, ).…”

Tourism and rewilding: an introduction – definition, issues and review

“…As such, the literature on rewilding, like the literature on wilderness, highlights the confusion at what, at first glance, may appear to be quite clear terminology (Hall & Page, 2014). Indeed, as with the wilderness concept rewilding also potentially becomes problematic when it comes to its operationalisation (Corlett, 2016;Jørgensen, 2015;Koninx, 2018;Lorimer et al, 2015;Lorimer & Driessen, 2013Mansourian, 2018;Svenning et al, 2016). For example, in a study of wildland managers in the Scottish uplands Deary and Warren (2019) found that all managers valued wildness and biodiversity highly but that there was significant divergence in the interpretations and practices of rewilding, especially with respect to: the value and perceptions of naturalness, the use of management interventions, the value of cultural heritage and traditional land uses, and the place of people within wildland.…”