Search

In landscape-scale ecological restoration, there is an urgent need to develop participatory systematic planning strategies and prioritization schemes that are operational under current technical and legal constraints. Different stakeholder groups may differ in their choice of criteria to define critical areas for restoration. Analyzing the correspondence between stakeholder characteristics and their expressed preferences is key to understand their values and facilitate consensus among the different groups. We analyzed the participatory identification of critical areas for restoration in a Mediterranean semiarid landscape of southeastern Spain by means of two Spatial Multicriteria Analyses. The first one included 33 ecological and socioeconomic prioritization criteria. The second included 24 ecosystem services. Prioritization criteria and services and their weights were based on the preferences of 46 stakeholders. We distinguished three stakeholder groups, according to their approach to ecological restoration. Stakeholders showed similarities regarding the most important criteria and services assessed. Yet, we found contrasted opinions between the group labeled as Biodiversity, who showed preference for Regulating Services and Ecosystem Functions, and the two groups labeled as Environment, and Agriculture & other occupations who assigned the highest importance to Provisioning and Cultural Services, along with highly Anthropized Environments. Maps integrating criteria and services weighted by the different groups of stakeholders were largely coincident, because of their overall agreement and the high number of criteria and services included in the analysis. Our approach allowed the identification of consensual critical areas for restoration, which were mainly covered by shrublands and rainfed crops, and mostly characterized by low to medium supply of ecosystem services. Our study emphasizes the need to recognize and integrate different social perspectives when identif

1. Landscape-scale prioritization models are powerful decision-making tools in ecological restoration. Yet, they often fail to integrate multi-stakeholder perspectives and socio-ecological criteria. 2. We designed a new methodology to identify high-priority areas for landscape-scale restoration. This participatory cost-effectiveness analysis model is based on execution and maintenance costs and the potential increase in the supply of multiple ecosystem services. 3. We tested the model in a 181,000 ha heavily anthropized semi-arid landscape in southeastern Spain. Restoring the whole area would cost 221 million EUR and enhance the supply of ecosystem services by 39%. The cost-effectiveness of restoring pine forest and abandoned and irrigated crops were higher than restoring other Landscape Units. Restoring the least degraded sites was more cost-effective than the most degraded areas or randomly selecting sites, even when potential recovery was incomplete. 4. Synthesis and applications. The cost-effectiveness of restoration actions depends on the type of ecosystem and degradation state. Visualizing the outcomes of alternative restoration scenarios needs participatory prioritization maps based on financial costs and the potential supply of ecosystem services. We propose a participatory prioritization protocol that is flexible and adaptable and can help government agencies, environmental managers, investors, consultancies and NGOs' plan restoration actions at the landscape scale and optimize the effectiveness of restoration programs.

La restauración ecológica tiene un enorme potencial para proteger la biodiversidad, aumentar el suministro de servicios ecosistémicos y mejorar el bienestar humano. Para desarrollar plenamente este potencial, es necesario diseñar procedimientos operativos que permitan identificar acciones y zonas prioritarias para la restauración. Estos procedimientos, además, deben armonizar los múltiples criterios de priorización y las múltiples expectativas sobre sus resultados. En este estudio hemos diseñado y aplicado un sistema de identificación de zonas de alta prioridad para la restauración de un paisaje semiárido muy antropizado en el sureste de la península ibérica. Nuestra aproximación conjuga dos aspectos: (1) los criterios de prioridad identificados y ponderados por una plataforma de partes interesadas, y (2) la efectividad de la restauración, medida como incremento potencial en el suministro de servicios. Las partes interesadas identificaron y ponderaron 33 criterios de priorización y 24 servicios ecosistémicos. En ambos casos los procesos naturales ocuparon los primeros lugares de la ponderación. El 0.041% de la superficie total del territorio obtuvieron una alta prioridad de criterios y una alta efectividad en la restauración. Nuestro estudio muestra que ambas aproximaciones pueden contribuir, de forma complementaria, a mejorar la calidad de las decisiones y facilitar el consenso entre las partes. Nuestra metodología es flexible y puede ser replicada en otros paisajes, incluso fuera del ámbito del estudio., Ecological restoration has enormous potential to protect biodiversity, increase the supply of ecosystem services, and improve human wellbeing. To fully develop this potential, it is necessary to design operational procedures that allow the identification of priority actions and areas for restoration. These procedures must also harmonize the multiple prioritization criteria and the multiple expectations about their results. In this study we have designed and applied a system for identifying high priority areas for the restoration of a highly anthropized semi-arid landscape in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula. Our approach combines two aspects: (1) the priority criteria identified and weighted by a stakeholder platform, and (2) the effectiveness of the restoration, measured as a potential increase in the supply of services. Stakeholders identified and weighted 33 prioritization criteria and 24 ecosystem services. In both cases, natural processes occupied the first places of the weighting. 0.041% of the total area of the territory obtained a high priority of criteria and a high effectiveness in restoration. Our study shows that both approaches can contribute, in a complementary way, to improve the quality of decisions and facilitate consensus between the parties. Our methodology is flexible and can be replicated in other landscapes, even outside the scope of the study.

The effective integration of ecological restoration (ER) into land management requires the definition of priority areas and actions. At large spatial scales, priorities are commonly defined by experts in terms of ecological factors, particularly species distribution or a small set of ecosystem services. However, management decisions must deal with different habitats, and respond to society multiple demands and aspirations. New tools for identifying and analyzing priority criteria and determining best management alternatives, integrating ecological and socio-economic perspectives are needed. We developed a participatory approach to identify priority areas for restoration in a 224,472 Ha area in Crevillent Forest Demarcation, southeast semi-arid Spain. The challenge was to develop a rigorous yet accessible methodology that could be extrapolated to other regions. An 88-stakeholder platform was asked to identify and weight priority criteria for ER. Stakeholders identified five groups of criteria corresponding to natural and semi-natural environments, highly-humanized environments, criteria related to ecosystem functions, criteria related to landscape-scale processes, and socio-economic and cultural criteria. The integrated weight of the studied criteria showed that highly-humanized environments (landfills and waste dumps, river margins, unused quarries, rainfed crops, and irrigated crops) and criteria related to ecosystem function (key areas to reduce wildfire risk and vulnerability, key areas to reduce erosion, key areas to reduce water pollution) received the highest priority, together with areas with high cultural and ethnologic value. In contrast, the priority for natural and semi-natural environments and landscape-scale features was lower. We discuss these results and the feasibility of using this protocol to support decision making concerning ecological restoration actions in this Mediterranean landscape.