FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3087128825> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3087128825 endingPage "28" @default.
• W3087128825 startingPage "20" @default.
• W3087128825 abstract "The UN declared 2021–2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, and this opens new opportunities for restoration ecologists.We argue that ecosystem restoration will be most effective if approached from a social-ecological perspective.We synthesize key insights from the field of social-ecological systems research that are particularly relevant for ecosystem restoration. The United Nations (UN) recently declared 2021 to 2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Against this background, we review recent social-ecological systems research and summarize key themes that could help to improve ecosystem restoration in dynamic social contexts. The themes relate to resilience and adaptability, ecosystem stewardship and navigation of change, relational values, the coevolution of human and ecological systems, long-range social-ecological connections, and leverage points for transformation. We recommend two cross-cutting new research foci; namely: (i) post hoc cross-sectional assessments of social-ecological restoration projects; and (ii) transdisciplinary social-ecological ‘living labs’ that accompany new restoration projects as they unfold. With global agendas increasingly taking a social-ecological perspective, the recasting of ecosystem restoration as a social-ecological endeavor offers exciting new opportunities for both research and practice. The United Nations (UN) recently declared 2021 to 2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Against this background, we review recent social-ecological systems research and summarize key themes that could help to improve ecosystem restoration in dynamic social contexts. The themes relate to resilience and adaptability, ecosystem stewardship and navigation of change, relational values, the coevolution of human and ecological systems, long-range social-ecological connections, and leverage points for transformation. We recommend two cross-cutting new research foci; namely: (i) post hoc cross-sectional assessments of social-ecological restoration projects; and (ii) transdisciplinary social-ecological ‘living labs’ that accompany new restoration projects as they unfold. With global agendas increasingly taking a social-ecological perspective, the recasting of ecosystem restoration as a social-ecological endeavor offers exciting new opportunities for both research and practice. In response to human-induced ecosystem degradation, biodiversity loss, and climate change, the science and practice of restoration are rapidly expanding [1.Suding K.N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011; 42: 465-487Crossref Scopus (173) Google Scholar,2.Wortley L. et al.Evaluating ecological restoration success: a review of the literature.Restor. Ecol. 2013; 21: 537-543Crossref Scopus (478) Google Scholar]. With the United Nations (UN) having declared 2021–2030 the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration [3.United Nations Environment Agency Resolution 73/284: United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030).https://undocs.org/A/RES/73/284Date: 2019Google Scholar], it is timely to reflect on the future of restoration as a science and practice. In this opinion article, we consider ecosystem restoration as ‘the process of assisting the recovery of a degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystem to reflect values regarded as inherent in the ecosystem and to provide goods and services that people value’ [4.Martin D.M. Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first century.Restor. Ecol. 2017; 25: 668-673Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar]. Such a focus implies an interest in species composition as well as in ecosystem functioning and services [5.Mansourian A. Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees. Springer, 2005Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar,6.Bullock J.M. et al.Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011; 26: 541-549Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (592) Google Scholar]: asking, for example, how different combinations of species help to facilitate certain types of ecosystem functions or which management actions are needed to enhance especially valued ecosystem services (see the Society for Ecological Restoration Standards [7.Gann G.D. et al.International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.Restor. Ecol. 2019; 27: S1-S46Crossref Scopus (318) Google Scholar]). Like many other ecologists, we support a pluralist approach to restoration that encompasses both species composition and ecosystem functions and services [1.Suding K.N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011; 42: 465-487Crossref Scopus (173) Google Scholar,8.Temperton V.M. et al.Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration.Restor. Ecol. 2019; 27: 705-719Google Scholar], while cautioning that a narrow focus on single or a few ecosystem services to the detriment of biodiversity is not desirable (e.g., tree plantation monocultures for carbon storage [9.Aronson J.C. et al.Restoration science does not need redefinition.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018; 2: 916Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar]). Global social-ecological change has brought many new challenges for restoration. Shifting environmental and social baselines call for restoration goals to not only include ecological criteria for success but also consider the effects on human benefits, landscape multifunctionality [10.Mastrangelo M.E. et al.Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services.Landsc. Ecol. 2014; 29: 345-358Crossref Scopus (97) Google Scholar, 11.Manning P. et al.Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018; 2: 427-436Crossref PubMed Scopus (234) Google Scholar, 12.Crossman N.D. Bryan B.A. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality.Ecol. Econ. 2009; 68: 654-668Crossref Scopus (131) Google Scholar], and resilience (see Glossary) [1.Suding K.N. Toward an era of restoration in ecology: successes, failures, and opportunities ahead.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011; 42: 465-487Crossref Scopus (173) Google Scholar]. Ultimately, all types of ecosystem restoration are normative undertakings [13.Prior J. Smith L. The normativity of ecological restoration reference models: an analysis of Carrifran Wildwood, Scotland, and Walden Woods, United States.Ethics Policy Environ. 2019; 22: 214-233Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar] in that they seek to improve the world, be it in terms of biodiversity or ecosystem functioning [14.Naeem S. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in restored ecosystems: extracting principles for a synthetic perspective.in: Falk D.A. Foundations of Restoration Ecology. Island Press, 2006: 210-237Google Scholar], or to improve human well-being [15.Aronson J.C. et al.Restoring ecosystem health to improve human health and well-being: physicians and restoration ecologists unite in a common cause.E&S. 2016; 21: 39Crossref Scopus (25) Google Scholar]. However, what roles do various social benefits of restoration play? Which particular reference state should be used for which location when there are uncertain trajectories; for example, of climate change and nitrogen deposition [13.Prior J. Smith L. The normativity of ecological restoration reference models: an analysis of Carrifran Wildwood, Scotland, and Walden Woods, United States.Ethics Policy Environ. 2019; 22: 214-233Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar]? When are unprecedented combinations of species, including introduced species, acceptable in a restoration context? Who gets to decide which species, functions, or services should be prioritized? Should restoration be guided by rational self-interest, social responsibility, or an ethic of care? Pressing questions such as these cannot be answered from within the ecological sciences alone. Instead, they require inter- and transdisciplinary approaches that facilitate collaboration between ecologists, social scientists, and diverse groups of actors. Here, we suggest that a social-ecological systems perspective on restoration can provide entry points for to improve restoration in terms of process and outcomes and can help to better connect ecologists, social scientists, and practitioners. We give an overview of key insights from social-ecological systems thinking and show how these insights can inform ecosystem restoration. Social-ecological systems thinking applies complex adaptive systems theory to interlinked social and environmental phenomena [16.Berkes F. Folke C. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press, 1998Google Scholar] and is recognized to be useful in the pursuit of sustainability in general [17.Fischer J. et al.Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015; 14: 144-149Crossref Scopus (215) Google Scholar] as well as for biodiversity conservation in particular [18.Ban N.C. et al.A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations.Front. Ecol. Environ. 2013; 11: 194-202Crossref Scopus (331) Google Scholar]. We highlight six social-ecological themes of particular relevance for restoration. Restoration can directly benefit from the adoption of key principles for social-ecological resilience relating to diversity and redundancy, connectivity, slow variables and feedbacks, systems thinking, learning, participation, and polycentric governance [19.Biggs R. et al.Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012; 37: 421-448Crossref Scopus (607) Google Scholar,20.Biggs R. Principles for Building Resilience – Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2015Crossref Scopus (118) Google Scholar]. Some of the principles have direct parallels in the science of restoration ecology, while other principles are uniquely social-ecological but still have immediate relevance for restoration. Restoration ecology routinely works with the notion of alternative stable states and regime shifts or transitions between such states [21.Temperton V.M. Hobbs R.J. The search for ecological assembly rule and its relevance to restoration ecology.in: Temperton V.M. Assembly Rules and Restoration Ecology – Bridging the Gap between Theory and Practice. Island Press, 2004: 34-54Google Scholar, 22.Suding K.N. et al.Alternative states and positive feedbacks in restoration ecology.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2004; 19: 46-53Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1121) Google Scholar, 23.Suding K.N. Hobbs R.J. Threshold models in restoration and conservation: a developing framework.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009; 24: 271-279Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (459) Google Scholar]. Combinations of abiotic and biotic drivers cause transitions between ecosystem states and a given ecosystem state is reinforced and stabilized through internal feedback mechanisms [24.McIntyre S. Lavorel S. A conceptual model of land use effects on the structure and function of herbaceous vegetation.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007; 119: 11-21Crossref Scopus (104) Google Scholar]. Social-ecological systems thinking also recognizes alternative stable states and transitions between these [25.Scheffer M. et al.Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems.Nature. 2001; 413: 591-596Crossref PubMed Scopus (4701) Google Scholar, 26.Rocha J. et al.Marine regime shifts: drivers and impacts on ecosystems services.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2014; 37020130273Crossref Scopus (114) Google Scholar, 27.Walker B. Meyers J.A. Thresholds in ecological and social-ecological systems: a developing database.Ecol. Soc. 2004; 9: 3Crossref Google Scholar]. Social-ecological systems researchers have synthesized seven key principles that typically enhance the resilience and adaptability of systems [19.Biggs R. et al.Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2012; 37: 421-448Crossref Scopus (607) Google Scholar,20.Biggs R. Principles for Building Resilience – Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2015Crossref Scopus (118) Google Scholar]. Their relevance for social-ecological restoration was recently reviewed in depth by Krievins et al. [28.Krievins K. et al.Building resilience in ecological restoration processes: a social-ecological perspective.Ecol. Restor. 2018; 36: 195-207Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar] and Aslan et al. [29.Aslan C.E. et al.Operationalizing resilience for conservation objectives: the 4S’s.Restor. Ecol. 2018; 26: 1032-1038Crossref Scopus (7) Google Scholar]. Given these in-depth reviews, we provide only a short overview here, highlighting parallels between a more disciplinary ecological focus and a more interdisciplinary social-ecological perspective. First, diversity and redundancy are important in a context of the functional responses of species to disturbance [30.Walker B. et al.Plant attribute diversity, resilience, and ecosystem function: the nature and significance of dominant and minor species.Ecosystems. 1999; 2: 95-113Crossref Scopus (723) Google Scholar]. They also matter in a social context; for example, restoration will be more successful in terms of both process and outcomes if it accounts for diverse social preferences. Second, connectivity needs careful management, because it may entail ecological benefits (e.g., dispersal of native species) as well as risks (e.g., dispersal of invasive species) [31.Noss R.F. Corridors in real landscapes: a reply to Simberloff and Cox.Conserv. Biol. 1987; 1: 159-164Crossref Scopus (238) Google Scholar, 32.Simberloff D.A. et al.Movement corridors: conservation bargains or poor investments?.Conserv. Biol. 1992; 6: 493-504Crossref Scopus (470) Google Scholar, 33.Soulé M.E. et al.The role of connectivity in Australian conservation.Pac. Conserv. Biol. 2004; 10: 266-279Crossref Google Scholar]. Similarly, in a social context, without any connectivity, the restoration activities of multiple actors might be uncoordinated; by contrast, in overly bureaucratic situations actors might be so tightly connected that any one actor may be unable to work without the approval of all others, such that too much connectivity can cause rigidity. Third, slow variables and feedbacks need to be managed in ecological and social-ecological contexts alike. In an ecological context, for example, gradual accumulation of phosphorus in a lake can lead to its ecological state flipping into an undesired turbid state [25.Scheffer M. et al.Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems.Nature. 2001; 413: 591-596Crossref PubMed Scopus (4701) Google Scholar]. Similarly, social-ecological restoration needs to watch for underlying dynamics playing out in a given location. For example, gradual human population growth could put restoration efforts at risk or gradual climate change could alter fire regimes. In addition to these first three principles, for which there are direct parallels between ecosystems and social-ecological systems, social-ecological researchers have proposed four additional resilience principles, which can also help to improve restoration activities [28.Krievins K. et al.Building resilience in ecological restoration processes: a social-ecological perspective.Ecol. Restor. 2018; 36: 195-207Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. Systems thinking runs as a theme throughout this opinion article and thus its utility does not require specific explanation here. Ongoing learning is deemed important, and any restoration practitioner knows of the importance of learning from both successes and failures; similarly, community participation is a critical hallmark of good ecological restoration [7.Gann G.D. et al.International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition.Restor. Ecol. 2019; 27: S1-S46Crossref Scopus (318) Google Scholar,34.Egan D. Human Dimensions of Ecological Restoration. Island Press/Center for Resource Economics, 2011Crossref Google Scholar,35.Higgs E. The two-culture problem: ecological restoration and the integration of knowledge.Restor. Ecol. 2005; 13: 159-164Crossref Scopus (118) Google Scholar]. Finally, polycentric governance denotes the dispersion of decision-making across multiple actors and governance levels [36.Ostrom E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change.Glob. Environ. Change. 2010; 20: 550-557Crossref Scopus (1109) Google Scholar]. It suggests that coordination among actors is important to reach a specific goal, but that it is also beneficial for different actors to retain some autonomy in their ecosystem management decisions. Restoration and social-ecological systems thinking both recognize the interdependence between people and the rest of the biosphere, and have similar moral concerns, but restoration can learn from social-ecological systems thinking about how to navigate complexity and unpredictable change. Social-ecological systems thinking has emphasized that human actions shape the environment and that the environment, in turn, provides the biophysical basis for human well-being [17.Fischer J. et al.Advancing sustainability through mainstreaming a social–ecological systems perspective.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015; 14: 144-149Crossref Scopus (215) Google Scholar]. Not least because of the fundamental dependence of human survival on functioning ecosystems (and their associated services), social-ecological systems thinkers have highlighted the important moral responsibility of taking care of the environment, advocating a stewardship ethic [37.Enqvist J.P. et al.Stewardship as a boundary object for sustainability research: linking care, knowledge and agency.Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018; 179: 17-37Crossref Scopus (62) Google Scholar, 38.Gordon L.J. et al.Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship.Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12: 100201Crossref Scopus (67) Google Scholar, 39.Chapin F.S. et al.Ecosystem stewardship: sustainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010; 25: 241-249Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (572) Google Scholar]. Notably, this view has been criticized because some scholars see it as having religious roots [40.Berry R.J. Environmental Stewardship: Critical Perspectives. Past and Present, T & T Clark International, 2006Google Scholar]. Here, we take a broader perspective, and define stewardship as an ethic of caring about all living beings while recognizing their interconnectedness. To facilitate stewardship, social-ecological systems scholars have advocated the reconnection of humans and the environment [41.Folke C. et al.Reconnecting to the biosphere.Ambio. 2011; 40: 719-738Crossref PubMed Scopus (375) Google Scholar,42.Ives C.D. et al.Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017; 26–27: 106-113Crossref Scopus (136) Google Scholar]. Social-ecological research suggests that increasing experiential, emotional, and even spiritual disconnection of people from the biosphere is one of the most significant latent threats to global sustainability [43.Ives C.D. et al.Reconnecting with nature for sustainability.Sustain. Sci. 2018; 13: 1389-1397Crossref PubMed Scopus (116) Google Scholar]. Restoration could help to reinstate meaningful and tangible connections between people and ecosystems [44.Riechers M. et al.The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification.Landsc. Ecol. 2020; (Published online April 20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w)Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar]. Arguably, the goal should not be to fix any particular kind of human–nature relation, but rather to facilitate dynamic ways of ‘interbeing’ with one another and the natural world [45.Hanh T.N. The Heart Of Buddha’s Teaching. Random House, 2008Google Scholar], analogous to the fluid change of ecosystems [46.Manning A.D. et al.Landscape fluidity – a unifying perspective for understanding and adapting to global change.J. Biogeogr. 2009; 36: 193-199Crossref Scopus (67) Google Scholar], to facilitate a kind of social-ecological fluidity. While the ideas of stewardship and reconnecting people to the environment will intuitively make sense to many restoration ecologists, it is important to think carefully about how these ideas could be enacted best in an era of rapid global change. Social-ecological systems thinking has always been concerned with dynamic complexity; in systems terms, with the ‘emergence’ of system behavior resulting from complex and partly unpredictable interactions among multiple interlinked system components. Such dynamic complexity, in turn, does not lend itself to (traditional) ‘command-and-control’ natural resource management [47.Holling C.S. Meffe G.K. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management.Conserv. Biol. 1996; 10: 328-337Crossref Scopus (1312) Google Scholar,48.Cabin R.J. Intelligent Tinkering: Bridging the Gap Between Science and Practice. Island Press, 2011Crossref Google Scholar]. Instead, land managers have to embrace uncertainty and navigate complexity, constantly expecting new challenges and remaining responsive to them. Underpinned by a desire to care for life, a paradigm of navigating complexity instead of tightly controlling it is especially useful for restoration: deciding on appropriate restoration targets and motivations thus cannot be a once-off decision. Rather, ongoing deliberation on both restoration theory and practice is the natural and appropriate response to dynamic and unpredictable global change [9.Aronson J.C. et al.Restoration science does not need redefinition.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018; 2: 916Crossref PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar,49.Higgs E.S. et al.Keep ecological restoration open and flexible.Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018; 2: 580Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar, 50.Veldman J.W. et al.Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”.Science. 2019; 366eaay7976Crossref PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar, 51.Bastin J.-F. et al.The global tree restoration potential.Science. 2019; 365: 76-79Crossref PubMed Scopus (580) Google Scholar]. The idea of relational values is a relatively new social-ecological framing to conceptualize how people relate to and obtain value from their relationship with nature. Restoration can be more effective if it engages with the relational values of diverse actors. Ecologists have sometimes been divided about what ought to be conserved and why [52.Noss R. et al.Humanity’s domination of nature is part of the problem: a response to Kareiva and Marvier.Bioscience. 2013; 63: 241-242Crossref Scopus (22) Google Scholar, 53.Kareiva P. Marvier M. What is conservation science?.Bioscience. 2012; 62: 962-969Crossref Scopus (387) Google Scholar, 54.Sandbrook C. et al.The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided.Nat. Sustain. 2019; 2: 316-323Crossref Scopus (75) Google Scholar]. Such controversy is relevant to restoration; for example, in the context of novel ecosystems [55.Hobbs R.J. et al.Novel ecosystems: implications for conservation and restoration.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2009; 24: 599-605Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1125) Google Scholar,56.Hobbs R.J. et al.Novel ecosystems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological world order.Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2006; 15: 1-7Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar] or of questions about which species, habitats, functions, or services ought to be prioritized [6.Bullock J.M. et al.Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011; 26: 541-549Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (592) Google Scholar,13.Prior J. Smith L. The normativity of ecological restoration reference models: an analysis of Carrifran Wildwood, Scotland, and Walden Woods, United States.Ethics Policy Environ. 2019; 22: 214-233Crossref Scopus (2) Google Scholar,57.Veldman J.W. et al.Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services.Bioscience. 2015; 65: 1011-1018Crossref Scopus (192) Google Scholar]. Recent social-ecological advances open new avenues to navigate such controversy and to incorporate a plurality of values held by different people [58.Kenter J.O. Editorial: shared, plural and cultural values.Ecosyst. Serv. 2016; 21: 175-183Crossref Scopus (78) Google Scholar]. While there are many classifications of values [59.Chan K.M.A. et al.Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016; 113: 1462-1465Crossref PubMed Scopus (697) Google Scholar], the notion of relational values has recently attracted much attention, including by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (https://ipbes.net/) [60.Díaz S. et al.The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015; 14: 1-16Crossref Scopus (1105) Google Scholar]. Relational values encompass the ‘preferences, principles, and virtues associated with relationships, both interpersonal and as articulated by policies and social norms’ [59.Chan K.M.A. et al.Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016; 113: 1462-1465Crossref PubMed Scopus (697) Google Scholar]. Relational values acknowledge a plurality of sources of human well-being and emphasize the sum of collective values stemming from interactions within a social-ecological system [61.Muraca B. The map of moral significance: a new axiological matrix for environmental ethics.Environ. Values. 2011; 20: 375-396Crossref Scopus (65) Google Scholar]. Instead of focusing on the impact humans have on nature or the services they receive from it, relational values incorporate the multifaceted links between individuals and their societies, as well as reciprocal individual and collective connections to nature. Such connections include people’s experiences, habits, and actions with respect to nature, but also the relationships of people in nature that are associated with a meaningful, ethically responsible, and satisfying life (including restoration or other stewardship activities) [62.Himes A. Muraca B. Relational values: the key to pluralistic valuation of ecosystem services.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018; 35: 1-7Crossref Scopus (112) Google Scholar]. Hence, relational values enable a focus on human–nature connections as well as on human–human connections that are fostered by nature [44.Riechers M. et al.The erosion of relational values resulting from landscape simplification.Landsc. Ecol. 2020; (Published online April 20, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01012-w)Crossref Scopus (20) Google Scholar,59.Chan K.M.A. et al.Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2016; 113: 1462-1465Crossref PubMed Scopus (697) Google Scholar]. A relational values lens could help to address challenges in restoration related to competing demands on restoration sites, because it facilitates working with diverse values held by multiple actors. A relational values lens could also help to explain how people’s preferences influence the implementation and success of projects [63.Klain S.C. et al.Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm.PLoS One. 2017; 12e0183962Crossref PubMed Scopus (127) Google Scholar, 64.Cundill G. et al.Beyond benefit sharing: place attachment and the importance of access to protected areas for surrounding communities.Ecosyst. Serv. 2017; 28: 140-148Crossref Scopus (46) Google Scholar, 65.Jax K. et al.Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being.Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2018; 35: 22-29Crossref Scopus (57) Google Scholar]. On the one hand, sense of place and local identity can motivate restoration activities [66.Kibler K.M. et al.Integrating sense of place into ecosystem restoration: a novel approach to achieve synergistic social-ecological impact.E&S. 2018; 23: 25Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar]; on the other hand, strong attachment to the status quo management of particular landscapes (for economic or other reasons) can hinder ecological restoration [67.Chapman M. et al.When value conflicts are barriers: can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?.Land Use Policy. 2019; 82: 464-475Crossref Scopus (39) Google Scholar]. Full accounting for the diverse expressions of relational values for certain places can generate legitimization and support for restoration projects and might help to navigate conflict. Many valued ecosystems have coevolved with social systems. Restoration activities should account for social-ecological coevolution in the past and create opportunities for ongoing social-ecological coevolution in the future. The achievement of these goals requires the honoring of biocultural diversity as well as indigenous and local knowledge. Social-ecological coevolution is common around the world. For example, highly biodiverse cultural landscapes in Europe have evolved through native species naturally adapted to open environments thriving in low-intensity farmland [68.Bakker J.P. Berendse F. Constraints in the restoration of ecological diversity in grassland and heathland communities.Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999; 14" @default.
• W3087128825 created "2020-09-25" @default.
• W3087128825 creator A5002020446 @default.
• W3087128825 creator A5007380212 @default.
• W3087128825 creator A5010852252 @default.
• W3087128825 creator A5019920221 @default.
• W3087128825 creator A5024359289 @default.
• W3087128825 date "2021-01-01" @default.
• W3087128825 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W3087128825 title "Making the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration a Social-Ecological Endeavour" @default.
• W3087128825 cites W121311783 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W1418620393 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W1965047364 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W1968378512 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W1989235118 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W1996895575 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2006031600 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2008819116 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2017106952 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2027774628 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2031315594 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2034994370 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2036030738 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2065028408 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2075582099 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2085168606 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2088157644 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2090163965 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2097686432 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2099526933 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2103948957 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2104024295 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2109793357 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2110512393 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2123195397 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2124696785 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2130387153 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2138214837 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2140052191 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2143979076 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2145587543 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2145725211 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2157213380 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2158700333 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2158981958 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2160537686 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2162347291 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2164193642 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2164277501 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2166462447 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2169376470 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2184854844 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2203975777 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2249448825 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2254581607 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2272853385 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2298828466 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2300558775 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2337434469 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2473015971 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2557677077 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2558084980 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2590402173 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2597027726 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2615590813 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2659447563 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2733168673 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2744973120 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2752047512 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2785912066 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2786652139 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2788837950 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2791167881 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2792976004 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2795437288 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2883108000 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2885568039 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2886388298 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2888713093 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2890445796 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2895567201 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2897969130 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2900111506 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2901591660 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2906936775 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2907673184 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2938149378 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2955316307 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2971398159 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W2980684978 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3005098289 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3009333282 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3010650708 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3017486634 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3028441614 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3041744097 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W3047460476 @default.
• W3087128825 cites W955950578 @default.

• next