Time for a paradigm shift toward a restorative culture

The United Nations' recent declaration of a Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) conveys the immense scales of degradation we face and the urgency of ecological recovery. Yet it speaks predominantly to productivity‐based approaches that may poorly balance conservation and development goals. As a result, it overlooks or distorts the very real potential for the holistic restoration of natural and cultural ecosystems to achieve lasting social and human health and well‐being benefits, and help stem the grotesque loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health in these times. There is need for a profound paradigm shift to address the prevailing economic and political climate that is keeping our world and biosphere on their current ominous trajectory. Such a paradigm shift could be based on the idea of a “restorative culture.” Practically, this could proceed by coupling the foundational philosophies and modus operandi of restoration ecology with public health medicine. The outcome would be an era of more healthy and more science‐ and knowledge‐driven sustainable restoration and local redevelopment. A restorative culture would recognize the fundamental linkages between ecosystems and human health, and consider biodiversity as fundamental to personal, community, and cultural well‐being and resilience. This requires public–private and community and individual partnerships at city, township, and watershed scales, as well as progressive industry champions working in collaboration with governments and the United Nations.     

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.     

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

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.     

Integrated climate sensitive restoration framework for transformative changes to sustainable land restoration

Sustainable land restoration is the key to restore degraded land, halt biodiversity loss, and reinstate ecosystem services for human well‐being. Restoration needs to be planned and conducted with due recognition to growing climate uncertainty with an evolved understanding of the future restoration targets. The present opinion article attempts to provide an overview on an integrated climate sensitive restoration framework that recognizes the local participation in mapping degraded lands, identification of species for supporting species modeling to better understand climate uncertainty. Involvement of citizen science‐based restoration monitoring tools can contribute to big data analytics for ecological monitoring and policy support. The Framework potentially helps in sustainable land restoration by transformative changes for achieving the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), Sustainable Development Goals 15, and addressing the post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. However, to realize success, climate finance mechanisms to drive restoration should be seriously considered for reducing bias and enhancing opportunities of equitable sharing in the era of corruption, authoritarianism, and regulatory capture.     

Measuring and monitoring restored ecosystems: can remote sensing be applied to the ecological recovery wheel to inform restoration success?

The commencement of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration has highlighted the urgent need to improve restoration science and fast-track ecological outcomes. The application of remote sensing for monitoring purposes has increased over the past two decades providing a variety of image datasets and derived products suitable to map and measure ecosystem properties (e.g. vegetation species, community composition, and structural dimensions such as height and cover). However, the operational use of remote sensing data and derived products for ecosystem restoration monitoring in research, industry, and government has been relatively limited and underutilized. In this paper, we use the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) ecological recovery wheel (ERW) to assess the current capacity of drone-airborne-satellite remote sensing datasets to measure each of the SER's recommended attributes and sub-attributes for terrestrial restoration projects. Based on our combined expertise in the areas of ecological monitoring and remote sensing, a total of 11 out of 18 sub-attributes received the highest feasibility score and show strong potential for remote sensing assessments; while sub-attributes such as gene flows, all trophic levels and chemical and physical substrates have a reduced capacity for monitoring. We argue that in the coming decade, ecologists can combine remote sensing with the ERW to monitor restoration recovery and reference ecosystems for improved restoration outcomes at the local, regional, and landscape scales. The ERW approach can be adapted as a monitoring framework for projects to utilize the benefits of remote sensing and inform management through scalable, operational, and meaningful outcomes.     

The importance of ecological memory for trophic rewilding as an ecosystem restoration approach

Increasing human pressure on strongly defaunated ecosystems is characteristic of the Anthropocene and calls for proactive restoration approaches that promote self‐sustaining, functioning ecosystems. However, the suitability of novel restoration concepts such as trophic rewilding is still under discussion given fragmentary empirical data and limited theory development. Here, we develop a theoretical framework that integrates the concept of ‘ecological memory’ into trophic rewilding. The ecological memory of an ecosystem is defined as an ecosystem's accumulated abiotic and biotic material and information legacies from past dynamics. By summarising existing knowledge about the ecological effects of megafauna extinction and rewilding across a large range of spatial and temporal scales, we identify two key drivers of ecosystem responses to trophic rewilding: (i) impact potential of (re)introduced megafauna, and (ii) ecological memory characterising the focal ecosystem. The impact potential of (re)introduced megafauna species can be estimated from species properties such as lifetime per capita engineering capacity, population density, home range size and niche overlap with resident species. The importance of ecological memory characterising the focal ecosystem depends on (i) the absolute time since megafauna loss, (ii) the speed of abiotic and biotic turnover, (iii) the strength of species interactions characterising the focal ecosystem, and (iv) the compensatory capacity of surrounding source ecosystems. These properties related to the focal and surrounding ecosystems mediate material and information legacies (its ecological memory) and modulate the net ecosystem impact of (re)introduced megafauna species. We provide practical advice about how to quantify all these properties while highlighting the strong link between ecological memory and historically contingent ecosystem trajectories. With this newly established ecological memory–rewilding framework, we hope to guide future empirical studies that investigate the ecological effects of trophic rewilding and other ecosystem‐restoration approaches. The proposed integrated conceptual framework should also assist managers and decision makers to anticipate the possible trajectories of ecosystem dynamics after restoration actions and to weigh plausible alternatives. This will help practitioners to develop adaptive management strategies for trophic rewilding that could facilitate sustainable management of functioning ecosystems in an increasingly human‐dominated world.     

Restoration Success: How Is It Being Measured?

The criteria of restoration success should be clearly established to evaluate restoration projects. Recently, the Society of Ecological Restoration International (SER) has produced a Primer that includes ecosystem attributes that should be considered when evaluating restoration success. To determine how restoration success has been evaluated in restoration projects, we reviewed articles published in Restoration Ecology (Vols. 1[1]–11[4]). Specifically, we addressed the following questions: (1) what measures of ecosystem attributes are assessed and (2) how are these measures used to determine restoration success. No study has measured all the SER Primer attributes, but most studies did include at least one measure in each of three general categories of the ecosystem attributes: diversity, vegetation structure, and ecological processes. Most of the reviewed studies are using multiple measures to evaluate restoration success, but we would encourage future projects to include: (1) at least two variables within each of the three ecosystem attributes that clearly related to ecosystem functioning and (2) at least two reference sites to capture the variation that exist in ecosystems.     

废黄河三角洲生态修复设想

生态系统退化导致生态系统为人类生存和发展提供的物品和服务功能下降,从而阻碍区域经济和社会发展。本文以废黄河三角洲为例,分析了废黄河三角洲生态系统退化的自然和人为应力以及生态系统的退化过程。针对废黄河三角洲生态现状,提出了生态修复的目标及措施,采取自然恢复和人工干预的手段,加强水生生态系统修复和生物多样性的提高,实现区域经济与生态协调发展。     

区域生态恢复规划及其关键问题

生态恢复是一项长期的根本性生态建设措施,需要有区域性整体规划与长期维持的具体安排。目前,区域生态恢复规划却未受到足够的关注。重点讨论了区域生态恢复规划的内涵、理论基础、规划原则及关键问题,这些问题的探讨对于提升生态恢复效率,增强生态恢复的科学性具有重要意义。区域生态恢复规划从宏观整体性的角度对区域内所实施的生态恢复工程进行统筹规划,对区域内实施的具体恢复规划具有指导意义。区域生态恢复以不同生态功能区的主导生态功能为恢复目标。在退化生态系统诊断的基础上,确定在哪里恢复。通过局地恢复治理与区域调控相结合的恢复策略,实现生态链与产业链的结合,其本质则是实现生态建设与社会经济的协调发展。     

生态系统健康研究进展

健康的生态系统一般被视为环境管理的终极目标,进行生态系统健康研究对探索区域与生态系统可持续发展具有重要意义。随着国际生态与健康学会(International Association for Ecology and Health)的解体,生态系统健康研究视角出现转型。系统梳理了近年来国际上有关生态系统健康概念及其评估方法、指标的新进展,通过文献统计和重要文献引用揭示了国际生态系统健康研究的发展历程,提出了从生态系统健康到生态健康再到生态文化健康的三大核心框架发展阶段,生态系统健康的研究对象和范围正在不断扩充。资源环境研究领域是国内研究者应用生态系统健康概念与方法的优势领域,在区域尺度上评价生态系统的健康更贴近资源环境和社会文化交互作用的复合表征理念。因此,我国生态系统健康研究的趋向不仅应包括在生态系统尺度上研究的继续深化,也应包含对生态文化健康概念的完善与应用,并发挥地理-生态视角的区域集成研究优势,从而有效指导区域生态与环境政策制定与实施。     

典型红壤区自然生态修复的适用性

自然修复主要通过封山育林、禁止农作、禁牧禁伐措施,减少人类对环境的扰动,利用自然生态环境的自我演替能力,恢复生态环境,实现生态平衡。自然修复作为一种成本低、无污染的生态修复手段很早就受到人们重视,但关于自然修复适用范围的研究较少。为了正确认识自然修复的适用性,选择了我国南方红壤地区长期遭受严重土壤侵蚀危害的福建省长汀县为研究对象,通过对长期自然修复样地的监测资料分析,发现在坡度条件为20%—30%下,当植被覆盖度低于20%的退化阈值时,严重的土壤侵蚀引发的土壤肥力损失将导致生态系统自我退化,自然修复不仅无法改善当地的生态系统,反而会引起生态系统的进一步恶化。由此可见,自然修复并不适合所有的生态系统,当生态系统退化到一定程度时,退化生态系统必须通过人工干预来修复。因此,必须探索适合当地的生态修复模式,在生态系统退化突破阈值时,红壤丘陵区应通过恢复土壤肥力、促进自然植被覆盖度增加、综合提高生态系统健康水平。     

粤港澳大湾区水生态修复及展望

水是生态系统物质循环和能量流动的重要纽带,水生态系统修复在区域生态系统修复中起到关键作用。粤港澳大湾区剧烈人类活动对江河湖库生态系统造成破坏和干扰,江河湖库污染严重,水生物减少,导致流域水生态服务功能退化甚至丧失;从生态修复科学内涵出发,判断湾区水生态系统健康状况已处于非生物控制跃迁阈值之下;针对该形势,从工程建设、水环境治理、空间规划和管理机制四个方面,梳理湾区近期开展的与水生态修复相关的水生态文明建设、水污染防治行动计划、水生态空间划定和推进河长制等工作,并对其中用到的技术、指标和制度进行条理;然后以茅洲河流域综合治理和广东万里碧道作为水生态修复的点、面代表,从水生态修复的整体目标、采用的技术措施、效果评价的指标体系和管理制度方法等方面分析当前的工作现状;总结湾区现状水生态修复工作,认为湾区水生态系统的非生物修复阶段基本结束;基于生态系统修复理论结合湾区江河湖库生态系统特点,提出适合湾区的水生态修复框架,讨论水生态系统修复面临的问题和未来工作的展望,为大湾区水生态修复提供直接依据。     

Restoring Remote Ecosystems

Indirect effects from climate‐driven changes in ecosystems that are remote from direct human activity pose challenges for ecological restoration. Significant and often indirect impacts on alpine ecosystems, the primary ecosystem under consideration in this article, threaten historical‐reference conditions and the viability of some species. The impetus for restoration is similar to projects involving more direct and proximate impacts, but the issues are more complicated in remote ecosystems. Restoration efforts in remote ecosystems might do more harm than good, and the effort required for effective restoration might be greater than easily justified given the shortfall of resources for restoring more heavily impacted ecosystems. The long duration and integration of impacts on remote landscapes pose a distinct set of challenges to restorationists. Intervening in remote ecosystems makes them less remote by definition (they are now affected by human agency). In this article, we examine scientific, technical, and moral issues and offer an initial model for assessing the appropriateness of restoring remote landscapes.     

Learning from scientific literature: Can indicators for measuring success be standardized in “on the ground” restoration?

The Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Primer identifies key ecosystem attributes for evaluating restoration outcome. Broad attribute categories could be necessary due to the large variety of restoration projects, but could make overall evaluations and assessments challenging and might hamper the development of sound and successful restoration. In this study we carry out a systematic review of scientific papers addressing evaluation of restoration outcome. We include 104 studies published after 2010 from Europe or North America, representing different types of restoration projects in terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. We explore the main ecological and socioeconomic attributes used to evaluate restoration outcome, and related indicators and specific methods applied to measure this, in relation to ecosystem and type of restoration project. We identify a wide range of indicators within each attribute, and show that very different methods are employed to measure them. This complexity reduces the opportunity for meaningful comparison and standardization of evaluation of restoration outcome, within and between ecosystems. Socioeconomic indicators are rarely used to evaluate restoration outcome, and studies including both ecological and socioeconomic indicators are nearly absent. Based on our findings we discuss whether standardization and streamlining of indicators is useful to improve the evaluation of “on the ground” restoration, or if this is not appropriate given the diversity of goals and ecosystems involved. Species‐specific traits are used in many projects and should be considered as an addition to the original SER attributes. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for restoration evaluation that encompasses not only assessment of ecological but also socioeconomic indicators.     

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.     

景感生态学在流域生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用——以大凌河流域北票段为例

生态系统保护与修复已成为我国生态文明建设的一项核心内容,自2016年以来,在全国24个省（自治区、直辖市）已开展了25个山水林田湖草生态保护修复工程试点工程。以大凌河流域北票段为研究区,探讨了景感生态学理论在山水林田湖草生态系统保护与修复实践中的应用。基于景感生态学理论,构建大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复综合治理框架,以保持、改善和提升生态系统服务,实现可持续发展为目标,构建了"一中心、二重点、五要素、六工程"的生态系统保护与修复景感空间体系,并基于此将大凌河流域北票段生态系统保护与修复分为5个重要治理区域,形成"一带四区"的生态安全格局,提出了应用景感生态学理论,构建区域居民的共同行为规范,引导并实现人类对自然生态系统的有利影响,进一步提升生态系统保护与修复效果的对策建议。通过大凌河流域北票段的分析案例,以景感营造的理念开展区域生态系统保护与修复顶层设计,为促进区域可持续发展提供思路和途径。     

Developing a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects

Representatives from agencies involved in natural resource management in the Murray‐Darling Basin gathered for a workshop in November 2010 to develop a vision for improved monitoring and reporting of riparian restoration projects. The resounding message from this workshop was that the effectiveness of riparian restoration depends on having sound, documented and agreed evidence on the ecological responses to restoration efforts. Improving our capacity to manage and restore riparian ecosystems is constrained by (i) a lack of ecological evidence on the effects of restoration efforts, and (ii) short‐termism in commitment to restoration efforts, in funding of monitoring and in expected time spans for ecosystem recovery. Restoration at the effective spatial scope will invariably require a long‐term commitment by researchers, funding agencies, management agencies and landholders. To address the knowledge gaps that constrain riparian restoration in the Basin, participants endorsed four major fields for future research: the importance of landscape context to restoration outcomes; spatio‐temporal scaling of restoration outcomes; functional effects of restoration efforts; and developing informative and effective indicators of restoration. To improve the monitoring and restoration of riparian zones throughout the Basin, participants advocated an integrated approach: a hierarchical adaptive management framework that incorporates long‐term ecological research.     

Stretch Goals and Backcasting: Approaches for Overcoming Barriers to Large-Scale Ecological Restoration

The destruction and transformation of ecosystems by humans threatens biodiversity, ecosystem function, and vital ecosystem services. Ecological repair of ecosystems will be a major challenge over the next century and beyond. Restoration efforts to date have frequently been ad hoc, and site or situation specific. Although such small‐scale efforts are vitally important, without large‐scale visions and coordination, it is unlikely that large functioning ecosystems will ever be constructed by chance through the cumulative effects of small‐scale projects. Although the problems of human‐induced environmental degradation and the need for a solution are widely recognized, these issues have rarely been addressed on a sufficiently large‐scale basis. There are numerous barriers that prevent large‐scale ecological restoration projects from being proposed, initiated, or carried through. Common barriers include the “shifting baseline syndrome,” the scale and complexity of restoration, the long‐term and open‐ended nature of restoration, funding challenges, and preemptive constraint of vision. Two potentially useful approaches that could help overcome these barriers are stretch goals and backcasting. Stretch goals are ambitious long‐term goals used to inspire creativity and innovation to achieve outcomes that currently seem impossible. Backcasting is a technique where a desired end point is visualized, and then a pathway to that end point is worked out retrospectively. A case study from the Scottish Highlands is used to illustrate how stretch goals and backcasting could facilitate large‐scale restoration. The combination of these approaches offers ways to evaluate and shape options for the future of ecosystems, rather than accepting that future ecosystems are victims of past and present political realities.     

An outcome-based model for predicting recovery pathways in restored ecosystems: The Recovery Cascade Model

Restoration is increasingly the focus of ecosystem management. Few conceptual models exist for predicting the consequences of restoration, especially those that predict the stages of recovery following restoration. Existing models focus either on defining endpoints for recovery or on defining ecosystem processes, but often do not identify barriers to recovery or potential negative effects of restoration. We describe a conceptual model that identifies the outcomes of the recovery pathways following flow restoration in rivers: the Recovery Cascade Model. The model identifies six general aspects of recovery following restoration: physical ecosystem change; creation of, or improvement in habitat condition; reconnection of the restored area to adjacent ecosystems; recolonization of the restored area; resumption of ecological processes; re-establishment of biotic interactions and reproduction by colonists in the restored area. These aspects may occur in sequence, such that recovery is blocked by a single barrier. The model accommodates feedback loops and includes strong connections between physical processes and ecosystem processes, but also identifies factors that are important in achieving endpoints such as potential barriers to further recovery. Identification of barriers to recovery enables improved planning to maximise the positive effects of restoration. By focussing on outcomes, the model provides a planning tool for managers that can be adapted for different ecosystems and restoration methods and which can be used to identify the amenities that an ecosystem will deliver at different stages of recovery. Ecosystem recovery is as much about overcoming barriers as it is about restorative actions.     

Forest ecosystems of an Arizona Pinus ponderosa landscape: multifactor classification and implications for ecological restoration

Aim We developed an ecosystem classification within a 110,000‐ha Arizona Pinus ponderosa P. & C. Lawson (ponderosa pine) landscape to support ecological restoration of these forests. Specific objectives included identifying key environmental variables constraining ecosystem distribution and comparing plant species composition, richness and tree growth among ecosystems. Location The Coconino National Forest and the Northern Arizona University Centennial Forest, in northern Arizona, USA. Methods We sampled geomorphology, soils and vegetation on 66 0.05‐ha plots in open stands containing trees of pre‐settlement (c. 1875) origin, and on 26 plots in dense post‐settlement stands. Using cluster analysis and ordination of vegetation and environment matrices, we classified plots into ecosystem types internally similar in environmental and vegetational characteristics. Results We identified 10 ecosystem types, ranging from dry, black cinders/Phacelia ecosystems to moist aspen/Lathyrus ecosystems. Texture, organic carbon and other soil properties reflecting the effects of parent materials structured ecosystem distribution across the landscape, and geomorphology was locally important. Plant species composition was ecosystem‐specific, with C₃Festuca arizonica Vasey (Arizona fescue), for instance, abundant in mesic basalt/Festuca ecosystems. Mean P. ponderosa diameter increments ranged from 2.3–4.3 mm year^?1 across ecosystems in stands of pre‐settlement origin, and the ecosystem classification was robust in dense post‐settlement stands. Main conclusions Several lines of evidence suggest that although species composition may have been altered since settlement, the same basic ecosystems occurred on this landscape in pre‐settlement forests, providing reference information for ecological restoration. Red cinders/Bahia ecosystems were rare historically and > 30% of their area has been burned by crown fires since 1950, indicating that priority could be given to restoring this ecosystem's remaining mapping units. Ecosystem classifications may be useful as data layers in gap analyses to identify restoration and conservation priorities. Ecosystem turnover occurs at broad extents on this landscape, and restoration must accordingly operate across large areas to encompass ecosystem diversity. By incorporating factors driving ecosystem composition, this ecosystem classification represents a framework for estimating spatial variation in ecological properties, such as species diversity, relevant to ecological restoration.