Creating a culture of caretaking through restoring ecosystems and landscapes

Chazdon, Robin L.

doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.11.010

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nor are we suggesting that a site that has undergone Ecological Restoration cannot be utilized by, or beneficial for, humans. For instance, restored habitat can provide recreational activities, produce plants or animals for consumption, or enhance the human experience via the abstract value humanity extracts from the preservation and restoration of natural ecosystems (Martin 2017;Hawkes and Gerwing 2019;Chazdon 2020). However, the objectives of Reclamation and Ecological Restoration diverge greatly.…”

Section: Nodes 1 and 2: Reclamation And Rehabilitation Versus Ecologi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking the same language: Aligning project designations to clarify communication in restoration ecology

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we enter the United Nations Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, the need to engage in restoration activities has never been greater. Included within this need is a requirement for clear communication between researchers, practitioners, policymakers, stakeholders, and community members. To facilitate the discussion and assessment of restorative activities, we propose two decision trees to differentiate between key restoration terms (Reclamation, Rehabilitation, Ecological Restoration, Rewilding, Landscape Restoration, Intra-Ecosystem Restoration, Reference Condition Restoration, and Ecological Reclamation) and to clarify how they relate to each other, based upon project scope and desired/intended project outcomes. Continued use of unclear terminology impedes practitioners or researchers from using the literature efficiently, to find precedents that could assist their current efforts. As such, increasing clarity of communications will ensure restoration is discussed within a framework of well-defined and agreed upon terms. It is our hope that this suggested framework will contribute to the ongoing and much needed terminology debate and help enhance cohesion on the use of key terms within the restoration focused literature. Given the increased focus upon restoration projects of any kind, especially during the UN's decade of ecosystem restoration, it is more important than ever that restoration practitioners speak the same language.

show abstract

Section: Nodes 1 and 2: Reclamation And Rehabilitation Versus Ecologi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Speaking the same language: Aligning project designations to clarify communication in restoration ecology

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(2) Experimenting with socially driven business models, tenure structures, and benefit-sharing mechanisms to identify approaches that foster long-term benefits in populated landscapes 27 . ( 3) Building an open-source evidence-base of empirical restoration case studies, with embedded data sharing, that tracks successes and failures in progress towards desired outcomes, helping to crystallise specific guidelines for tailored restoration across variable local and regional contexts 134,156 . ll Current Biology 31, R1326-R1341, October 11, 2021 R1333 Review extirpated herbivores -are truer forms of restoration 89 .…”

Section: Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3) restore multiple functions for multiple benefits; (4) maintain and enhance natural ecosystems within landscapes; (5) tailor to the local context; and (6) manage adaptively for long-term resilience 133,134 . Thus, broad stakeholder engagement occurs in all stages of FLR, and local governance helps to promote equitable distribution of benefits 135 .…”

Section: Essential Role Of the Landscape Approach And Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Upscaling tropical restoration to deliver environmental benefits and socially equitable outcomes

Edwards

Cerullo

Chomba³

et al. 2021

Current Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration offers immense potential to return hundreds of millions of hectares of degraded tropical landscapes to functioning ecosystems. Well-designed restoration can tackle multiple Sustainable Development Goals, driving synergistic benefits for biodiversity, ecosystem services, agricultural and timber production, and local livelihoods at large spatial scales. To deliver on this potential, restoration efforts must recognise and reduce trade-offs among objectives, and minimize competition with food production and conservation of native ecosystems. Restoration initiatives also need to confront core environmental challenges of climate change and inappropriate planting in savanna biomes, be robustly funded over the long term, and address issues of poor governance, inadequate land tenure, and sociocultural disparities in benefits and costs. Tackling these issues using the landscape approach is vital to realising the potential for restoration to break the cycle of land degradation and poverty, and deliver on its core environmental and social promises. ll

show abstract

“…For example, there is concern that funding through carbon credits has encouraged creation of fast-growing, single-species tree plantations that sequester carbon rapidly in the short term, but have low resilience as a carbon store, miss opportunities to support biodiversity, and sometimes lead to water shortages (Scheidel and Work, 2018;Lewis et al, 2019;Heilmayr et al, 2020;Mori, 2020). Such interventions are being mislabelled as NbS; true NbS would be designed to deliver multiple benefits for local communities and to support or enhance ecosystem health, in line with the latest evidence and guidelines, including taking a long-term, holistic approach to evaluating outcomes (Chazdon, 2020;IUCN, 2020;Fischer et al, 2021;Welden et al, 2021;Seddon, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base

Key

Smith

Turner

et al. 2022

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised for their potential to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. Both these outcomes rely on the capacity of NbS to support and enhance the health of an ecosystem: its biodiversity, the condition of its abiotic and biotic elements, and its capacity to continue to function despite environmental change. However, while understanding of ecosystem health outcomes of NbS for climate change mitigation has developed in recent years, the outcomes of those implemented for adaptation remain poorly understood. To address this, we systematically reviewed the outcomes of 109 nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation using 33 indicators of ecosystem health across eight broad categories (e.g., diversity, biomass, ecosystem composition). We showed that 88% of interventions with reported positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported benefits for ecosystem health. We also showed that interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits for both climate change mitigation and adaptation also supported ecosystem health, leading to a “triple win.” However, there were also trade-offs, mainly for forest management and creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species. Our review highlights two key limitations in our understanding of the outcomes of NbS for ecosystem health. First, a limited selection of metrics are used and these rarely include key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Second, taxonomic coverage is limited: 50% of interventions only had evidence for effects on plants, and 57% of outcomes did not distinguish between native and non-native species. We make suggestions of how to improve assessments of the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS, as well as policy recommendations to enable the upscaling of NbS that support flourishing and resilient ecosystems, and are effective in addressing both climate and biodiversity goals.

show abstract

Creating a culture of caretaking through restoring ecosystems and landscapes

Cited by 9 publications

References 10 publications

Speaking the same language: Aligning project designations to clarify communication in restoration ecology

Speaking the same language: Aligning project designations to clarify communication in restoration ecology

Upscaling tropical restoration to deliver environmental benefits and socially equitable outcomes

Biodiversity outcomes of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation: Characterising the evidence base

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About