Monitoring the social benefits of ecological restoration

Abstract

Ecological restoration has traditionally been evaluated by monitoring the recovery of ecological conditions, such as species abundance and diversity, physical form, and water quality; monitoring the social benefits of restoration is uncommon. Current monitoring frameworks do not track who benefits from restoration or by how much. We investigate how ecological restoration could be monitored to provide indications of improvement in terms of social conditions. We provide suggestions for measuring several categories of social indicators, including access, beneficiaries, and quality of benefit, using information compiled from natural and social science literature. We demonstrate how to evaluate ecological and social indicators over time at a site or landscape scale using multicriteria analysis. We use flood protection and recreation as example benefits to monitor.

Planning mine restoration through ecosystem services to enhance community engagement and deliver social benefits

“…As a temporary land use, mining has the responsibility of returning rehabilitated land able to provide social benefits in order to ensure a positive postmining legacy. The ecosystem services concept provides a way for explicit analysis of social‐ecological systems, an essential dimension of sustainable land management (Metcalf et al ; Fernández‐Manjarrés et al ; Martin & Lyons ).…”

“…For Step 2, information from Step 1 is used as an input to rehabilitation planning. Engagement with community and regulators is necessary to define the rehabilitation goals, based on the desired social benefits to be delivered, as well as appropriate targets against which performance will be monitored (Martin & Lyons ). Defining an intended postmining land use is part of any approach to mine rehabilitation (ICMM , ).…”

“…social‐ecological systems) in environmental planning and management has been increasingly recognized in different applications, including ecological restoration, as a way to assess the social benefits that biodiversity affords to communities (i.e. ecosystem services) (Rosa & Sánchez ; Fernández‐Manjarrés et al ; Martin & Lyons ; Swart et al ). In the mining industry, engaging with stakeholders when planning for postmining land use has become standard recommended practice as a key action to mitigate impacts on local communities (ICMM , ) and to ensure the success of restoration itself (Metcalf et al ; Swart et al ).…”

“…Where communities are highly dependent on ecosystems and vulnerable to the effects of mining it will also be important to ensure people's well‐being (Swart et al ). While much of the literature on mining has focused on ecological restoration considering only biophysical indicators and targets (Ruiz‐Jaen & Aide ; Lamb et al ), social benefits and corresponding indicators have received relatively little attention (Aronson et al ; Vogt et al ; Kollmann et al ; Martin & Lyons ).…”

“…This approach promotes an integrated perspective of social and ecological issues, demonstrating the social consequences (positive or negative) of environmental changes. It is credited with providing a common language that can improve communication and stakeholder engagement, enable comparisons of different land use scenarios, and justify ecological restoration to people (Paudyal et al ; Mascarenhas et al ; Martin & Lyons ).…”