Using return‐on‐investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii

Abstract

Restoring natural capital is essential for biodiversity and ecosystem services that support human well-being. Although ecological pathways for restoration are a major area of study, little is known about the economic pathways to which these efforts must be linked. This linkage, however, is important for maximizing return-on-investment (ROI) from restoration projects. We developed a general ROI framework to guide investments in restoration. We applied this framework to reforestation of montane pastureland in Hawaii, focusing on two specific conservation targets: native forest birds and understory plants. We found that restoring partial tree cover on pastureland is most attractive for birds, while understory plants require investment in full forest restoration. Nonlinearities in restoration pathways present in Hawaii, and likely elsewhere, generate these substantially different ROI profiles across potential projects. This information can guide the design of policies supporting cost-effective practices to help ensure that limited resources achieve the greatest impact.

Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services

“…Billions of dollars are currently being spent across the globe on ecological restoration projects (33), many of which may not be successful. There is a need to identify where restoration projects will incur net benefits for conservation and human well-being, so that efforts can be effectively targeted (33). The present investigation indicates how such CBAs can be provided in a spatially explicit manner.…”

Reducing threats to species: threat reversibility and links to industry

“…Because of funding limitations and political constraints, it is not possible to mitigate all threats to species that require government-mandated recovery actions, let alone species that are threatened, yet not legally protected (Wilcove & Master 2005). Even with improved prioritization schemes to obtain the highest conservation return-on-investment (Goldstein et al 2008;Briggs 2009;Joseph et al 2009), the recovery planning process is a necessary but highly inefficient safety net. Recovery plans can be effective at reducing threats for individual species in particular locations, but they are not designed to reduce widespread threats from industries.…”

The Economics of Restoration

“…Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) (Tear et al, 2005;Wilson et al, 2009). There are several examples of restoration activities within a single site, or for a handful of sites, being prioritised on the basis of cost-effectiveness analyses (Dymond et al, 2008;Macmillan et al, 1998;Petty and Thorne, 2005;Hyman and Leibowitz, 2000;Goldstein et al, 2009). where the aim is to protect or enhance specific assets in a cost-effective manner.…”