Restoration dilemmas between future ecosystem and current species values: The concept and a practical approach in Estonian mires

Managing floodplains using nature‐based solutions to support multiple ecosystem functions and services

“…In Germany, for example multifunctionality is to some extent included in legal regulationsthe Federal Water Resources Act requires water managers to preserve, protect and even enhance natural habitats in order to manage water resources sustainably (Schindler et al, 2016).The solution to these ecologically unsatisfactory conditions, coupled with increased flood risk, is possible through the restoration of a watercourse or an entire floodplain (Keesstra et al, 2018). In order to find the optimal combination of spatially distinct largescale and small-scale measures to increase habitat availability for all relevant species, detailed spatial planning is an important component of floodplain restoration (Remm et al, 2019). Weigelhofer et al (2020) consider a combination of multiple-species (aiming at restoring natural hydrological dynamics) and single-species approaches (focusing on the conservation status of individual species) as a sound basis for decision-making processes in floodplain restoration in accordance with the EU Water Framework Directive and the Birds and Habitat Directives, as well as local legislation.…”

Integrating Conflicting Goals of the EC Water Framework Directive and the EC Habitats Directives Into Floodplain Restoration Schemes

“…Our case study demonstrates that a detailed spatial resolution of the effects of management measures offers the opportunity to protect isolated water bodies and restore lotic conditions at the same time in the case of trade-offs between stagnophilic and rheophilic species. Therefore, detailed spatial planning is an important next step in floodplain restoration to find the optimal combination of spatially distinct large-and small-scale measures to increase the habitat availability for all relevant species as well as the overall biodiversity (e.g., Maire et al, 2015;Heuner et al, 2016;Remm et al, 2019).…”

“…In this context, Species Distribution Models (SDMs) are gaining in importance for the evaluation of potential restoration measures related to both the WFD (e.g., Bennetsen et al, 2016;Zucchetta et al, 2016) and the HBDs (e.g., Funk et al, 2013). Using SDM predictions for a variety of species differing in their habitat requirements can help to predict winners and losers of different restoration and conservation scenarios and, thus, help to find solid compromise solutions (e.g., Funk et al, 2013;Heuner et al, 2016;Remm et al, 2019). However, as our case study shows, predictive models do not necessarily provide a clear result in relation to preference ranking of the scenarios, as the gain of habitats for certain species may be associated with habitat losses for others.…”

The policy consequences of defining rewilding

“…The risks associated with novel ecosystems may be more difficult to justify, and harder to predict, than risks arising from restoring a system to a historical precedent; it may thus be more difficult to find support from land owners and other affected stakeholders. On the other hand, it is not immediately obvious that the risks from activities that are closer to restoration, or from taking no action, are necessarily lower (Remm et al 2019), and novel ecosystems can in fact be highly valued by stakeholders (Kaae et al 2019). In any case, to implement rewilding ethically, objectives of a rewilding project will have to be identified in a transparent and inclusive process, with particular regard to marginalised groups.…”