Four approaches to guide ecological restoration in Latin America

There is strong upswing in conservation and restoration efforts in Latin America (LA), particularly in the recent decades after several countries have committed to international agreements such as the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Initiative 20×20, and the Bonn Challenge. To fulfill these agreements, the practice of ecological restoration has to be defined based on ecological knowledge, but also on the specific social, economic, and legal aspects of each country in the region. Here, we give some examples about the national understanding of ecological restoration in 10 countries of LA. We identify difficulties and opportunities to define restoration priorities and needs, and discuss some approaches to cope with economic constraints and agreements, including the potential role of restoration networks in this process. On the basis of the socioecological complexity of these countries and the expectations they have in relation to restoration, we proposed four approaches to guide restoration practice and policy in the region: (1) including biodiversity and ecosystem services approach into ecosystem restoration initiatives; (2) promoting restoration in their frequently human‐modified landscapes; (3) accounting for cost–benefit trade‐offs; and (4) assembling “horizontal” communication frameworks. These approaches should be based at national levels, but adapted to local‐regional levels, in a bottom‐up perspective. We consider that national and international restoration networks in the region can help to overcome difficulties, fostering a solid scientific community, helping to develop national approaches that better match the specific conditions of each country and enhancing communication among different groups of stakeholders.     

The Economic and Employment Impacts of Forest and Watershed Restoration

Globally, ecological restoration activities are increasing in response to environmental, economic, and cultural trends that value ecological capital for the services provided by healthy functioning ecosystems. To ensure continued investment in ecological restoration, practitioners and researchers need to identify links to the benefits accrued to society from ecological restoration practice and policy. Nonetheless, a recent review of published literature on ecological restoration concludes that the policy and socioeconomic contributions of ecological restoration are often ignored. To help fill this gap, we describe the policy context of a sustained program of forest and watershed restoration in Oregon, U.S.A. and report on three related studies on the market structure and resulting economic impacts of this program of work in Oregon. The first study examines the experiences of watershed councils (n = 52) in mobilizing human resources for ecological restoration. The second focuses on the businesses and firms (n = 190) that participate in Oregon's restoration economy. The third analyzes the employment and economic impacts from a sample of Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board restoration grants (n = 99). We found that the sustained program of restoration work in Oregon has conferred significant benefits to Oregon's economy. These impacts largely accrue to rural areas in need of economic development opportunities due to declines in traditional resource management activities. In addition to approximately 16 jobs supported per million dollars invested in ecological restoration, a sustained investment in restoration has created both new local organizational capacity in watershed councils and other community‐based partners and business opportunities especially in rural Oregon.     

South–south cooperation for large‐scale ecological restoration

Natural capital degradation worldwide signals the growing need for larger investments in both nature conservation and ecosystem services provision and management. The role of large‐scale ecological restoration is a vital part of the work that is needed. One important way to advance the science, practice, and policy on ecological restoration is to develop and promote bilateral and multilateral cooperation among and within countries. In this article, we explore prospects for south–south cooperation for large‐scale ecological restoration. Emphasis is given to experience and expertise sharing, cofinancing, and codevelopment of new knowledge and know‐how for more effective policy and practice worldwide, especially in developing and newly industrialized countries.     

A modest proposal for restoration ecology

Restoration ecology struggles to mitigate human‐caused ecological damage. Non‐native species are a particular challenge. This article describes two restoration attempts following introduced species in California and then makes a radical culling proposal. Environmental regulations, legal protections, and restoration projects are necessary to preserve ecosystem services, but such policies are often unpopular. Restorers often struggle when public opinion opposes evidence‐based practice, and this occurs particularly when the interventions involve killing mammals. Therefore, restoration efforts may benefit from more attention to how individuals perceive the acceptability of environmental policies and how to communicate policy options effectively for individuals to make informed decisions. Restoration ecology can follow the recent shift of medicine away from imperatives and toward informed patient choice. Restoration projects may benefit from recent advances in psychology and communication that help individuals make policy decisions that align with their personal values.     

The emergence of the social‐ecological restoration concept

Many ecosystems in the world are the result of a close interaction between local people and their environment, which are currently recognized as social‐ecological systems (SoES). Natural catastrophes or long‐standing social and political turmoil can degrade these SoES to a point where human societies are no longer autonomous and their supporting ecosystems are highly degraded. Here, we focus on the special case of the restoration of SoES that we call social‐ecological restoration (SoER), which is characterized as a restoration process that cannot avoid simultaneously dealing with ecological and social issues. In practice, SoER is analogous in many ways to the general principles of ecological restoration, but it differs in three key aspects: (1) the first actions may be initially intended for human groups that need to recover minimum living standards; (2) the SoER process would often be part of a healing process for local people where cultural values of ecosystems play an essential role; and (3) there is a strong dependency on external economic inputs, as the people belonging to the SoES may be incapable of reorganizing themselves on their own and supporting ecosystems can no longer self‐recover. Although it might not be desirable or necessary to call all restoration projects with a social component an SoER, the use of this concept may help in defining early restoration targets that may prevent conflicts among users in the long term. From the perspective of other disciplines, SoER would be more appropriately perceived as programs of “social‐ecological recovery” in the long term.     

Assessing the Evidence Base for Restoration in South Africa

If restoration is to become effective, able to compete for limited funds and truly adaptive, it must become evidence‐based. Three of the conditions essential for the establishment and advancement of evidence‐based restoration are (1) collection of baseline information; (2) setting clearly defined goals; and (3) relevant and adequate monitoring. Using a literature review, complemented with an online survey, we reviewed 10 restoration programs in South Africa to assess whether current restoration practice meets these conditions. The review showed good collection of baseline information and the setting of restoration goals that span ecological and socioeconomic considerations. However, to a large extent goals were poorly defined, there was more monitoring of inputs than outcomes, and monitoring of ecological indicators was inconsistent. These shortcomings can undermine restoration impacts, as well as the future sustainability of these expensive programs. We conclude with recommendations on how to mainstream the requirements of evidence‐based restoration into current and proposed restoration programs.     

Behavior change and sustainability of ecological restoration projects

Addressing socio‐economic factors in ecological restoration projects is critical for the effectiveness of restoration practices and scaling of restoration efforts. To achieve sustainability of restoration projects, the drivers of human activity leading to the degradation need to be addressed. An under‐researched concept in ecological restoration is the impact of behavior change of stakeholders and communities involved, despite the strong link prior research has shown to exist between environmental quality and human behavior. This article explores the importance of addressing the behavioral change of stakeholders engaged in restoration to achieve sustainability of efforts; it investigates how behavior change models are linked and represented in global environmental governance documents, and it discusses how behavioral intervention and policy instruments could be included in ecological restoration projects. For future work, the article proposes the integration of behavior change interventions in the design of restoration projects and policies.     

A Striking Profile: Soil Ecological Knowledge in Restoration Management and Science

Available evidence suggests that research in terrestrial restoration ecology has been dominated by the engineering and botanical sciences. Because restoration science is a relatively young discipline in ecology, the theoretical framework for this discipline is under development and new theoretical offerings appear regularly in the literature. In reviewing this literature, we observed an absence of in‐depth discussion of how soils, and in particular the ecology of soils, can be integrated into the developing theory of restoration science. These observations prompted us to assess the current role of soil ecological knowledge in restoration research and restoration practice. Although soils are universally regarded as critical to restoration success, and much research has included manipulations of soil variables, we found that better integration of soil ecological principles could still contribute much to the practice of ecosystem restoration. Here we offer four potential points of departure for increased dialog between restoration ecologists and soil ecologists. We hope to encourage the view that soil is a complex, heterogeneous, and vital entity and that adoption of this point of view can positively affect restoration efforts worldwide.     

Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals

Many ecosystems have been transformed, or degraded by human use, and restoration offers an opportunity to recover services and benefits, not to mention intrinsic values. We assessed whether restoration scientists and practitioners use their projects to demonstrate the benefits restoration can provide in their peer‐reviewed publications. We evaluated a sample of the academic literature to determine whether links are made explicit between ecological restoration, society, and public policy related to natural capital. We analyzed 1,582 peer‐reviewed papers dealing with ecological restoration published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2008 in 13 leading scientific journals. As selection criterion, we considered papers that contained either “restoration” or “rehabilitation” in their title, abstract, or keywords. Furthermore, as one‐third of the papers were published in Restoration Ecology, we used that journal as a reference for comparison with all the other journals. We readily acknowledge that aquatic ecosystems are under‐represented, and that the largely inaccessible gray literature was ignored. Within these constraints, we found clear evidence that restoration practitioners are failing to signal links between ecological restoration, society, and policy, and are underselling the evidence of benefits of restoration as a worthwhile investment for society. We discuss this assertion and illustrate it with samples of our findings—with regards to (1) the geographical and institutional affiliations of authors; (2) the choice of ecosystems studied, methods employed, monitoring schemes applied, and the spatial scale of studies; and (3) weak links to payments for ecosystem service setups, agriculture, and ramifications for public policy.     

Science Driven Restoration: A Candle in a Demon Haunted World—Response to Cabin (2007)

Cabin (2007) asks whether formal science is an effective framework and methodology for designing and implementing ecological restoration programs. He argues that beyond certain ancillary benefits, restoration science has little of practical value to offer the practice of restoration. He goes on to suggest that restoration science most often represents an impediment to restoration practice because an “ivory tower” mentality limits the utility of experiments and diverts research dollars away from answering practical questions. His conclusion is that a nonscientific gardening approach may be more effective at restoring degraded ecosystems. We disagree with this perspective because: (1) restoration science has moved beyond exclusively using “square grids” placed on small patches of land to examine treatment effects on species representation; (2) Cabin’s critique greatly undervalues the contribution of science to restoration practice even where the input of restoration scientists is not directly evident; and (3) the practice of restoration is unlikely to advance beyond small‐scale and truly haphazard successes without well‐designed studies that can provide peer‐reviewed and widely accessible published information on the mechanisms underlying both successes and failures. We conclude that through integration with other disciplines, restoration science increasingly will provide novel approaches and tools needed to restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function at stand to landscape scales. As with the broader role of science in the human enterprise ( Sagan 1996 ), the contribution of restoration science to restoration practice can only grow as the discipline matures.     

Could 2021–2030 be the decade to couple new human values with ecological restoration? Valuable insights and actions are emerging from the Colombian Amazon

Looking ahead to the United Nations' 2021–2030 Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, we would like to ponder and discuss two fundamental goals to improve, mainstream, and scale up ecological restoration. The first is to cultivate alternative visions of the human dimension in relation to ecological restoration and other restorative activities. The second is to develop shared protocols for planning, revamping, and monitoring the progress of social goals related to ecological restoration within the social construction theoretical framework, based on three interrelated dimensions: stakeholder‐based problem definition, social representations, and legitimation. We draw on ongoing work in Caquetá (Colombian Amazonia) to consider how these dimensions may be incorporated into tangible restoration practices. Caquetá is facing the highest deforestation rates in the Amazonian region due to a highly volatile sociopolitical context and recent armed conflicts that have claimed thousands of victims to date. We conclude that the work in Caquetá demonstrates a process of social construction that effectively couples new human values with ecological restoration. Our work also provides evidence that the human dimension of restoration is a central issue in the restoration of human, social, and ecosystem health and must be integrated into the framework of the coming Decade of Ecosystem Restoration.     

区域尺度生态修复空间辨识研究进展

区域尺度辨识生态修复空间是进行生态恢复与重建的重要前提,对区域生态文明建设和可持续发展具有重要作用。如何构建科学合理、面向政策和民众需求的生态修复空间辨识指标体系,目前已成为生态学研究的热点问题之一。系统梳理生态空间评价理论,综合构建生态修复空间辨识框架,包括评价对象的选择、评价指标筛选的原则、指标体系构建的主要方法和评价指标权重设定等方面,在区域生态评价的基础上,强调政策目标、民众需求,构建了生态质量、生态系统服务、生态系统健康3个方面18个指标,能够较全面反映区域生态空间主要特征,以期为构建区域尺度生态修复空间辨识指标体系提供参考,为生态恢复和重建提供科学依据。研究还展望了区域尺度下生态修复空间辨识的重点发展方向,即加强复合生态系统理论的应用,统筹社会、经济、自然因子开展综合评价,并推动多尺度评价结果的融合与应用。     

基于生态安全格局理论的国土空间生态修复分区模拟——以粤港澳大湾区为例

国土空间生态修复分区有助于推动生态修复工作的整体性和系统性。利用国土空间生态安全格局理论进行生态修复分区是一种较为经典的模式，但现有分区技术方案对高强度人类活动导致的土地利用景观变化考虑不足，不能很好的适应城市群尺度国土空间生态安全格局的塑造需求。设计了一种基于情景模拟的国土空间生态修复分区方案，该框架首先通过耦合空间马尔科夫链与元胞自动机模型模拟城镇化发展末期的土地利用景观格局；然后利用"生态源地-生态廊道-生态网络"理论构建国土空间生态安全格局基本骨架；最后根据最小累积阻力模型划分出生态修复关键区、调节区和双修区等类型。粤港澳大湾区案例研究表明：（1）土地利用景观变化对生态修复分区方案影响较大，不同景观格局导致的分区规模差异可达国土空间的10%左右；（2）国土空间生态修复分区需要充分考虑高强度人类活动对景观格局变化的潜在影响，进而使得生态修复分区政策更有利于国土空间生态安全格局塑造目标的实现。研究构建的国土空间生态修复分区技术方案可进一步深化生态安全格局理论在国土空间规划应用上的认知。     

An Assessment of Introductory Restoration Courses in the United States and Canada

A considerable number of institutions offer courses in restoration ecology and its application, ecological restoration. We quantified the scope and structure of introductory restoration courses at 67 post‐secondary institutions by reviewing institutional course catalogs and course syllabi. Most courses were available at Research‐level institutions. More than half of the courses were offered within departments that focused on natural resource management, and were required or optional in a degree program. Most courses were taught in classroom settings during the academic year and were geared toward advanced students. Course titles suggested an emphasis on the science of restoration ecology over the practice of ecological restoration, and learning objectives focused primarily on concepts and less on skills and attitudes. Assessment was largely via conventional methods, notably exams. Many courses assigned readings from the primary literature; there was little consensus in terms of text selection. We conclude that restoration is being presented to students as an advanced undertaking and in largely theoretical terms. Although we were unable to consider other important elements such as thematic content, class size, or pedagogical method, our study provides a baseline assessment of introductory restoration courses that can be used to evaluate changes in restoration education or opportunities for restoration education in other countries. These results can inform the development of new introductory restoration courses, and raise important considerations in light of the development of a Practitioners' Certification Program by the Society for Ecological Restoration.     

The human genome as public: Justifications and implications

Since the human genome was decoded, great emphasis has been placed on the unique, personal nature of the genome, along with the benefits that personalized medicine can bring to individuals and the importance of safeguarding genetic privacy. As a result, an equally important aspect of the human genome – its common nature – has been underappreciated and underrepresented in the ethics literature and policy dialogue surrounding genetics and genomics. This article will argue that, just as the personal nature of the genome has been used to reinforce individual rights and justify important privacy protections, so too the common nature of the genome can be employed to support protections of the genome at a population level and policies designed to promote the public's wellbeing. In order for public health officials to have the authority to develop genetics policies for the sake of the public good, the genome must have not only a common, but also a public, dimension. This article contends that DNA carries a public dimension through the use of two conceptual frameworks: the common heritage (CH) framework and the common resource (CR) framework. Both frameworks establish a public interest in the human genome, but the CH framework can be used to justify policies aimed at preserving and protecting the genome, while the CR framework can be employed to justify policies for utilizing the genome for the public benefit. A variety of possible policy implications are discussed, with special attention paid to the use of large‐scale genomics databases for public health research.     

我国生态产品价值实现政策的配置与优化——基于政策文本分析

为促进城乡区域协调发展，推动地区生态产业化和产业生态化，完善生态产品价值实现的多元化路径和政策制度体系，对当前中央和地方政府发布的生态产品价值实现相关政策文本展开分析，并提出优化建议，为后续相关政策配置与优化提供参考。通过选取2019年-2022年8月间36份生态产品价值实现政策文本作为研究对象，构建政策工具-政策目标二维分析框架，借助质性分析工具Nvivo12对其进行量化分析和综合评价。研究发现，政策文件以通知和实施方案为主；政策工具覆盖较为全面，但内部存在分配不太协调的现象。政策目标维度中生态环境优美化受关注度较高，而生态产业高效化较少。工具-目标配置上，存在多对多的关系，不同政策目标对应的政策工具也存在差异。为进一步优化生态产品价值实现的政策供给，从政策工具上应以战略、具体规划为重点，平衡政策工具内部结构比例；从政策目标上应强调从金融和技术方面助推生态产品价值实现的同时，也需要加强法规管制力度，推出更专业化和可操作性的具体举措，因地制宜凸显区域化特色和差异，真正将生态产品价值实现政策落到实处，确保成果看得见摸得着。     

Using structured decision‐making to set restoration objectives when multiple values and preferences exist

Achieving global targets for restoring native vegetation cover requires restoration projects to identify and work toward common management objectives. This is made challenging by the different values held by concerned stakeholders, which are not often accounted for. Additionally, restoration is time‐dependent and yet there is often little explicit acknowledgment of the time frames required to achieve outcomes. Here, we argue that explicitly incorporating value and time considerations into stated objectives would help to achieve restoration goals. We reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on restoration of terrestrial vegetation and found that while there is guidance on how to identify and account for stakeholder values and time considerations, there is little evidence these are being incorporated into decision‐making processes. In this article, we explore how a combination of stakeholder surveys and workshops can be used within a structured decision‐making framework to facilitate the integration of diverse stakeholder values and time frame considerations to set restoration objectives. We demonstrate this approach with a case of restoration decision‐making at a regional scale (southeast Queensland, Australia) with a view to this experience supporting similar restoration projects elsewhere.     

The Two-Culture Problem: Ecological Restoration and the Integration of Knowledge

The terms “ecological restoration” and “restoration ecology” are frequently interchanged. Restoration ecology is the suite of scientific practices that constitute an emergent subdiscipline of ecology. Ecological restoration is the ensemble of practices that constitute the entire field of restoration, including restoration ecology as well as the participating human and natural sciences, politics, technologies, economic factors, and cultural dimensions. This paper is motivated by the concern that the broader practice of restoration may become narrowed over the next decade as a result of zealous attention to scientific and technological considerations, and that restoration ecology will trump ecological restoration. Scientific and technological acumen is necessary for successful restoration, but insufficient. Maintaining a broader approach to restoration requires respect for other kinds of knowledge than science, and especially the recognition of a moral center that is beyond the scope of science to address fully. An example of integrated restoration is presented: the ecological and cultural restoration of Discovery Island (near Victoria, British Columbia, Canada) by the Lekwungen people (Songhees First Nation).     

Evolutionary biology and practical conservation: bridging a widening gap

At the ecosystem, species and population level, available measures suggest that average rates of loss of populations and habitats are now around 1% per year and seem likely to increase in the future. Habitat conversion continues in most parts of the world, especially in areas of high species richness, and novel threats, especially climate change, will pose new challenges. With this pressure, maintaining evolutionary processes in natural populations will be critical to longer term persistence, and will often require specific planning relevant to the context. However, in many areas of policy and practice, urgent actions tend to focus on pattern-based analyses and considerations of evolutionary and ecological processes are neglected. At a variety of levels, from setting goals to implementing conservation management at the site or species level, there are simple adjustments that can be made. Improved methods for integrating the work of scientists and policymakers is recommended, from the beginning to end of the planning process.     

Ecosystem Restoration is Now a Global Priority: Time to Roll up our Sleeves

Ecosystem restoration is now globally recognized as a key component in conservation programs and essential to the quest for the long‐term sustainability of our human‐dominated planet. Restoration scientists and practitioners are now on the frontline and will be increasingly called upon to get involved in large scale programs addressing immediate environmental crises and challenges. Here, we summarize the advances in mainstreaming ecological restoration in global environmental policy deliberations during the last year, culminating in the recent meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. We also provide key references for those seeking more information, and set out an agenda as to how the restoration community could respond to and act upon these recent developments. However, we underline the need for caution and prudence; we must not promise more than we can deliver. Thirty years after the emergence of ecological restoration as a scientific discipline and practice, there remain many obstacles and misconceptions about what can be achieved at large scales. Yet, clearly the old adage applies here: nothing ventured, nothing gained.