A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration

Turner, Katrine Grace; Anderson, Sharolyn; Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio; Costanza, Robert; Courville, Sasha; Dalgaard, Tommy; Dominati, Estelle; Kubiszewski, Ida; Ogilvy, Sue; Porfirio, Luciana L.; Ratna, Nazmun N.; Sandhu, Harpinder; Sutton, Paul; Svenning, Jens‐Christian; Turner, Graham; Varennes, Yann-David; Voinov, Alexey; Wratten, Stephen D.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.07.017

Cited by 286 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 140 publications

(164 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cross-validation tests end up with low R 2 values, even though, in independent validation, the majority of predicted topsoil C values are within 5% of measured data. Another type of "environmental covariate" that has been used relates to specific land use and management practices that are used locally (Turner et al, 2016). The assumption that is made when using this covariate is that knowledge about the type of agricultural practice that is applied to a given soil is useful to determine what the soil characteristics are under current conditions (Hewitt et al, 2015).…”

Section: Using Soil Maps and Pedotransfer Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

Baveye

Gowdy

2016

Front. Environ. Sci.

314

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Using Soil Maps and Pedotransfer Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

Baveye

Gowdy

2016

Front. Environ. Sci.

314

168

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Restoration practitioners have failed at selling the idea of restoration as a 'worthwhile investment for society', despite the evidence in favor of taking action (ELD Initiative 2013;ELD Initiative and UNEP 2015;Nkonya et al 2016). Fortunately, there has been a sizable effort in recent years to link ecological restoration with ecosystem services (Alexander et al 2016;Turner et al 2016), livelihoods (Reed et al 2015) and the sustainable development goals (Nkonya et al 2016). The Economics of Land Degradation Initiative (ELD), tries to bring together the dispersed knowledge available about the overall cost of land degradation and the overall benefits of land restoration in order to quantify the real TEV of land degradation action and inaction; the initiative also aims at closing the gap between economic estimations at the local level and macro-economic estimates, particularly in Africa.…”

Section: Economic Costs Of Dryland Rehabilitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems – review

Yirdaw¹,

Tigabu²,

Monge³

2017

Silva Fenn.

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• The prospect of restoring degraded drylands is technically promising.• The forest landscape restoration concept can be used as the overarching rehabilitation framework.• Development of process-based models that forecast rehabilitation outcomes is needed.• Rehabilitation methodologies developed for moist areas are not necessarily suitable for drylands.• More data is needed on cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation interventions. AbstractLand degradation is widespread and a serious threat affecting the livelihoods of 1.5 billion people worldwide of which one sixth or 250 million people reside in drylands. Globally, it is estimated that 10-20% of drylands are already degraded and about 12 million ha are degraded each year. Driven by unsustainable land use practices, adverse climatic conditions and population increase, land degradation has led to decline in provision of ecosystem services, food insecurity, social and political instability and reduction in the ecosystem's resilience to natural climate variability. Several global initiatives have been launched to combat land degradation, including rehabilitation of degraded drylands. This review aimed at collating the current state-of-knowledge about rehabilitation of degraded drylands. It was found that the prospect of restoring degraded drylands is technically promising using a suite of passive (e.g. area exclosure, assisted natural regeneration, rotational grazing) and active (e.g. mixed-species planting, framework species, maximum diversity, and use of nurse tree) rehabilitation measures. Advances in soil reclamation using biological, chemical and physical measures have been made. Despite technical advances, the scale of rehabilitation intervention is small and lacks holistic approach. Development of processbased models that forecast outcomes of the various rehabilitation activities will be useful tools for researchers and practitioners. The concept of forest landscape restoration approach, which operates at landscape-level, could also be adopted as the overarching framework for rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems. The review identified a data gap in cost-benefit analysis of rehabilitation interventions. However, the cost of rehabilitation and sustainable management of drylands is opined to be lower than the losses that accrue from inaction, depending on the degree of degradation. Thus, local communities' participation, incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge, clear division of tasks and benefits, strengthening local institutions are crucial not only for cost-sharing, but also for the long-term success of rehabilitation activities.

show abstract

“…Local stakeholders can become engaged in different stages of the modeling process, such as providing knowledge and developing and testing scenarios. Participatory modeling can build stakeholder capacity, creating consensus and trust, and increasing the likelihood of local engagement in planning and implementation of FLR (Turner et al 2016). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Distinguishing between components one and two is extremely important; Bagstad et al (2014) found that, with the exception of carbon sequestration, regions that actually provided ecosystem services that were directly connected to beneficiaries amounted to 16-66% of those theoretically capable of supplying ecosystem services. Delivery of the benefits of ecosystem services to people requires the capacities of individuals (human capital), but also their societies (social capital) and their constructed environment (built capital) (Turner et al 2016). In most cases, ecosystem service delivery requires co-production by local users (Pascual et al 2017b).…”

Section: Tools To Evaluate Potential Restoration Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook

Chazdon¹,

Guariguata²

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration

Cited by 286 publications

References 140 publications

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground

Rehabilitation of degraded dryland ecosystems – review

Decision support tools for forest landscape restoration: Current status and future outlook

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About