No abstract

Restoration scientists and practitioners have recently begun to include economic and social aspects in the design and investment decisions for restoration projects. With few exceptions, ecological restoration studies that include economics focus solely on evaluating costs of restoration projects. However, economic principles, tools, and instruments can be applied to a range of other factors that affect project success. We considered the relevance of applying economics to address 4 key challenges of ecological restoration: assessing social and economic benefits, estimating overall costs, project prioritization and selection, and long-term financing of restoration programs. We found it is uncommon to consider all types of benefits (such as nonmarket values) and costs (such as transaction costs) in restoration programs. Total benefit of a restoration project can be estimated using market prices and various nonmarket valuation techniques. Total cost of a project can be estimated using methods based on property or land-sale prices, such as hedonic pricing method and organizational surveys. Securing continuous (or long-term) funding is also vital to accomplishing restoration goals and can be achieved by establishing synergy with existing programs, public-private partnerships, and financing through taxation.

Multibillion dollar investments in land restoration make it critical that conservation goals are achieved cost-effectively. Approaches developed for systematic conservation planning offer opportunities to evaluate landscape-scale, temporally dynamic biodiversity outcomes from restoration and improve on traditional approaches that focus on the most species-rich plantings. We investigated whether it is possible to apply a complementarity-based approach to evaluate the extent to which an existing network of restoration plantings meets representation targets. Using a case study of woodland birds of conservation concern in southeastern Australia, we compared complementarity-based selections of plantings based on temporally dynamic species occurrences with selections based on static species occurrences and selections based on ranking plantings by species richness. The dynamic complementarity approach, which incorporated species occurrences over 5 years, resulted in higher species occurrences and proportion of targets met compared with the static complementarity approach, in which species occurrences were taken at a single point in time. For equivalent cost, the dynamic complementarity approach also always resulted in higher average minimum percent occurrence of species maintained through time and a higher proportion of the bird community meeting representation targets compared with the species-richness approach. Plantings selected under the complementarity approaches represented the full range of planting attributes, whereas those selected under the species-richness approach were larger in size. Our results suggest that future restoration policy should not attempt to achieve all conservation goals within individual plantings, but should instead capitalize on restoration opportunities as they arise to achieve collective value of multiple plantings across the landscape. Networks of restoration plantings with complementary attributes of age, size, vegetation structure, and landscape context lead to considerably better outcomes than conventional restoration objectives of site-scale species richness and are crucial for allocating restoration investment wisely to reach desired conservation goals.

The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.

A range of funding schemes and policy instruments exist to effect enhancement of the landscapes and habitats of the UK. While a number of assessments of these mechanisms have been conducted, little research has been undertaken to compare both quantitatively and qualitatively their relative effectiveness across a range of criteria. It is argued that few tools are available for such a multi-faceted evaluation of effectiveness. A form of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is justified and utilized as a framework in which to evaluate the effectiveness of nine mechanisms in relation to the protection of existing areas of chalk grassland and the creation of new areas in the South Downs of England. These include established schemes, such as the Countryside Stewardship and Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes, along with other less common mechanisms, for example, land purchase and tender schemes. The steps involved in applying an MCDA to evaluate such mechanisms are identified and the process is described. Quantitative results from the comparison of the effectiveness of different mechanisms are presented, although the broader aim of the paper is that of demonstrating the performance of MCDA as a tool for measuring the effectiveness of mechanisms aimed at landscape and habitat enhancement.