A standard framework for assessing the costs and benefits of restoration: introducing The Economics of Ecosystem Restoration

A Framework for Estimating Economic Impacts of Ecological Restoration

Ecological restoration projects are designed to improve natural and cultural resources. Spending on restoration also stimulates economic impacts to the restoration economy through the creation or support of jobs and business activity. This paper presents accessible methods for quantifying the economic impacts supported by restoration spending and is written to be a guide and toolbox for an interdisciplinary audience of restoration practitioners and economists. Measuring the economic impacts of restoration can be challenging due to lacking or limited data. The complex, collaborative, and heterogeneous nature of restoration projects can make it difficult to clearly track costs, contributing to limited availability and inconsistency in restoration cost data. And business classification systems, such as the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), do not include restoration-sectors that consistently describe the patterns of restoration spending. The aims of this paper are to (1) provide restoration practitioners and program managers with a clear understanding of the application of economic impact analyses to restoration, (2) provide a framework for collecting project cost data for economic impact analyses, and (3) provide modeling best practices and an example application of the framework.

Carbon dioxide removal through ecosystem restoration: Public perceptions and political participation

We compare public perceptions of restoring different ecosystems to increase CO2 uptake in Germany, through focus groups and a general population survey. Among focus group participants forests were highly popular, peatlands evoked negative associations, and seagrass was largely unknown. Nevertheless, the restoration of all ecosystems was viewed positively. We contrast these reactions to those of survey respondents who had not received additional information on restoration. They voiced narrower, less diverse opinions centering around afforestation. Further, focus group participants preferred expert-led restoration decisions, citing low trust in politicians' technical competence. Contrary to common policy recommendations, also beyond the German context, participants did not emphasize the need of citizen participation and were not strongly concerned about land use conflicts or compensation of affected user groups. The results imply that the public underestimates the political complexity of negotiation processes in ecosystem governance, which are becoming increasingly relevant in the international policy landscape.

The added value of the long-term ecological research network to upscale restoration in Europe

Achieving global restoration targets poses challenges including the need for long-term research and effective monitoring of success, fostering collaborations across diverse fields and actors, ensuring the availability of suitable reference ecosystems, and securing sustained funding. Yet, these conditions are often lacking, limiting the effectiveness of restoration. We provide an overview of ecological restoration practices in the pan-European region of the Long-term Ecological Research Network (eLTER) and demonstrate the importance of eLTER and its potential contributions to support the implementation of the EU Nature Restoration Law. We developed an online questionnaire to collect information on eLTER restoration experts and restoration projects details including the use of eLTER contributions (e.g. infrastructure, data and knowledge), between November 2021 and March 2022. We identified 62 restoration experts and 42 restoration projects from 18 countries. Our results show that eLTER restoration expertise covers most of the European habitats, diverse degradation states and restoration techniques. Most restoration projects (78%) involved long-term monitoring exceeding the average project lifespan, which has proven necessary to achieve restoration success. No common protocol was used for monitoring and evaluation or cost-benefit estimates, but respondents reported effective projects, mostly financed from national funds, and benefits in five ecosystem services on average covered per project. Key eLTER contributions included providing reference ecosystems, biotic and abiotic background data, and interdisciplinary discussion or stakeholder management. Ecological restoration is time intensive and requires long-term research and monitoring standardization to fully understand the restoration process and to ensure comparability across ecosystems. The eLTER network can help address these challenges providing added-value contributions through its infrastructure, long-term datasets, diversity of expertise and strategies that can help identify best restoration practices and support the EU Nature Restoration Law. Finally, additional and long-term funding from the EU and the private sector is needed to achieve global larger-scale restoration targets.

Assessing evidence on the impacts of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation: a systematic map of primary and secondary research from subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions

BACKGROUND

Nature-based interventions (NbIs) for climate change mitigation include a diverse set of interventions aimed at conserving, restoring, and/or managing natural and modified ecosystems to improve their ability to store and sequester carbon and avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent projections estimate that terrestrial NbIs can lead to more than one-third of the climate change mitigation necessary to meet the Paris Climate Agreement by 2030. Further, these interventions can provide co-benefits in the form of social and ecological outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the potential benefits, a clear characterization of the distribution and occurrence of evidence which supports linkages between different types of NbIs and outcomes for climate change mitigation, ecosystems, and people remains poorly understood.

METHODS

This systematic map assesses the evidence base on the links between NbIs and climate change mitigation, social, and ecological outcomes in tropical and subtropical terrestrial regions. We searched three bibliographic databases, 65 organization websites, and conducted backward citation chasing within 39 existing evidence syntheses to identify relevant articles. Additionally, we reached out to key informants for additional sources of evidence. We then used machine learning to rank returned results by relevance at the title and abstract stage and manually screened for inclusion using predefined criteria at the title, abstract, and full text stages. We extracted relevant meta-data from included articles using an a priori coding scheme. Lastly, we conducted a targeted, complementary search to identify relevant review and synthesis articles to provide broader context for the findings of the systematic map.

REVIEW FINDINGS

We included 948 articles in this systematic map. Most of the evidence base (56%) examined links between protection, natural resource management, and restoration interventions with changes to 'proxy' outcomes for climate change mitigation (changes to land condition, land cover, and/or land use). Other areas with high occurrence of articles included linkages between interventions within natural resource management and trees in croplands categories and changes to aboveground carbon storage and/or sequestration (17% of articles). A key knowledge gap was on measured changes in GHG emissions across all intervention types (6% of articles). Overall, articles in the evidence base did not often assess changes in co-benefits alongside direct or indirect changes for climate change mitigation (32%). In most cases, the evidence base contained studies which did not explicitly test for causal linkages using appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental designs.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for NbIs is significant and growing; however, key gaps in knowledge hamper the ability to inform ongoing and future investment and implementation at scale. More comprehensive evidence is needed to support causal inference between NbIs and direct outcomes for climate change mitigation to better determine additionality, permanence, leakage, and other unintended consequences. Similarly, priorities emerging from this map include the need for coordinated and harmonized efforts to collect diverse data types to better understand whether and how other outcomes (e.g. social, ecological) of NbIs can be achieved synergistically with mitigation objectives. Understanding potential benefits and trade-offs of NbIs is particularly urgent to inform rapidly expanding carbon markets for nature.

Fifteen essential science advances needed for effective restoration of the world's forest landscapes

There has never been a more pressing and opportune time for science and practice to collaborate towards restoration of the world's forests. Multiple uncertainties remain for achieving successful, long-term forest landscape restoration (FLR). In this article, we use expert knowledge and literature review to identify knowledge gaps that need closing to advance restoration practice, as an introduction to a landmark theme issue on FLR and the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Aligned with an Adaptive Management Cycle for FLR, we identify 15 essential science advances required to facilitate FLR success for nature and people. They highlight that the greatest science challenges lie in the conceptualization, planning and assessment stages of restoration, which require an evidence base for why, where and how to restore, at realistic scales. FLR and underlying sciences are complex, requiring spatially explicit approaches across disciplines and sectors, considering multiple objectives, drivers and trade-offs critical for decision-making and financing. The developing tropics are a priority region, where scientists must work with stakeholders across the Adaptive Management Cycle. Clearly communicated scientific evidence for action at the outset of restoration planning will enable donors, decision makers and implementers to develop informed objectives, realistic targets and processes for accountability. This article paves the way for 19 further articles in this theme issue, with author contributions from across the world. This article is part of the theme issue 'Understanding forest landscape restoration: reinforcing scientific foundations for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration'.

Tropical Forest Landscape Restoration in Indonesia: A Review

Indonesia has the second-largest biodiversity of any country in the world. Deforestation and forest degradation have caused a range of environmental issues, including habitat degradation and loss of biodiversity, deterioration of water quality and quantity, air pollution, and increased greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Forest restoration at the landscape level has been conducted to balance ecological integrity and human well-being. Forest restoration efforts are also aimed at reducing CO2 emissions and are closely related to Indonesia’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) from the forestry sector. The purpose of this paper is to examine the regulatory, institutional, and policy aspects of forest restoration in Indonesia, as well as the implementation of forest restoration activities in the country. The article was written using a synoptic review approach to Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR)-related articles and national experiences. Failures, success stories, and criteria and indicators for forest restoration success are all discussed. We also discuss the latest silvicultural techniques for the success of the forest restoration program. Restoration governance in Indonesia has focused on the wetland ecosystem such as peatlands and mangroves, but due to the severely degraded condition of many forests, the government has by necessity opted for active restoration involving the planting and establishment of livelihood options. The government has adapted its restoration approach from the early focus on ecological restoration to more forest landscape restoration, which recognizes that involving the local community in restoration activities is critical for the success of forest restoration.