Best practice for the use of scenarios for restoration planning

Scenarios are important tools to facilitate the communication among scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers, and, thus to support policy and management decisions. The use of scenarios has an enormous potential to reduce ecosystem restoration costs and to optimize benefits, but this potential remains poorly explored. Here, we recommend and illustrate six best practices to guide the use of scenarios for planning native ecosystem restoration. We argue, first, for a participatory process to consider aspirations of multiple stakeholders along the whole scenario building process, from planning to implementation and review phases. Second, targeted restoration outcomes should be defined by key-actors (those who have direct interests in restoration) and directly involved stakeholders, within a clear socio-environmental context and under a well-defined problem statement, considering a broad range of nature and human benefits that can be derived from ecosystem restoration. Third, methodological choices, such as scenario types, spatial and temporal scales, drivers, restoration-related variables, and indicators, should be defined according to the multiple desired outcomes. Fourth, we encourage the consideration of the interactions among variables, within a spatially explicit, and temporally dynamic multi-criteria approach. Fifth, analysis and dissemination of scenario results should highlight the trade-offs and synergies among different restoration outcomes, identifying the scenarios that maximize benefits and minimize costs and resistance (i.e. the cost-effective and most feasible scenario) for multiple targets. Finally, promoting capacity building, through a wider consultation process including interaction with a broader group of stakeholders, is critical for the successful implementation and review of restoration interventions. Scenarios that support ecosystem restoration should follow an adaptive and iterative process, aiming to continuously improve restoration interventions and outcomes.

[1]  P. Vesk,et al.  Integrating ecological uncertainty and farm-scale economics when planning restoration , 2007 .

[2]  P. Hulme EDITORIAL: Bridging the knowing–doing gap: know‐who, know‐what, know‐why, know‐how and know‐when , 2014 .

[3]  Jessica E. Leahy,et al.  Communication and sustainability science teams as complex systems , 2015 .

[4]  Grazia Zulian,et al.  Exploring restoration options for habitats, species and ecosystem services in the European Union , 2014 .

[5]  Rainer M. Krug,et al.  Managing biological invasions: charting courses to desirable futures in the Cape Floristic Region , 2011 .

[6]  D C Le Maitre,et al.  System dynamic modelling to assess economic viability and risk trade-offs for ecological restoration in South Africa. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[7]  M. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review , 2008 .

[8]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  A Framework to Optimize Biodiversity Restoration Efforts Based on Habitat Amount and Landscape Connectivity , 2014 .

[9]  Bernardo B. N. Strassburg,et al.  Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes , 2015 .

[10]  Christina C. Hicks,et al.  Future Scenarios as a Research Tool: Investigating Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation Options and Outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia , 2013, Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal.

[11]  Dirk J. Roux,et al.  Nurturing communities of practice for transdisciplinary research , 2015 .

[12]  Thomas Elmqvist,et al.  Benefits of Investing in Ecosystem Restoration , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[13]  J. Holden,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on Ecosystem Services, Governance and Stakeholder Participation Anticipating and Managing Future Trade-offs and Complementarities between Ecosystem Services , 2013 .

[14]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Enhanced Adaptive Management: Integrating Decision Analysis, Scenario Analysis and Environmental Modeling for the Everglades , 2013, Scientific Reports.

[15]  Catherine A. Lindell,et al.  Stakeholders and tropical reforestation: challenges, trade‐offs, and strategies in dynamic environments , 2016 .

[16]  David B. Lindenmayer,et al.  A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success , 2016, Nature Communications.

[17]  Joey R. Bernhardt,et al.  Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services to inform coastal and marine spatial planning , 2012 .

[18]  Susan A. Moore,et al.  Building systems-based scenario narratives for novel biodiversity futures in an agricultural landscape , 2016 .

[19]  George L. W. Perry,et al.  Contrasting outcomes of spatially implicit and spatially explicit models of vegetation dynamics in a forest-shrubland mosaic , 2007 .

[20]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Landscape Ecology and Restoration Processes , 2016 .

[21]  G. Tress,et al.  Clarifying Integrative Research Concepts in Landscape Ecology , 2005, Landscape Ecology.

[22]  Thomas Kitzberger,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of dryland forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of ecosystem services , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  James R.A. Butler,et al.  An analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholders linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia , 2013 .

[24]  P. Brancalion,et al.  A Policy‐Driven Knowledge Agenda for Global Forest and Landscape Restoration , 2017 .

[25]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Incorporating habitat availability into systematic planning for restoration: a species‐specific approach for Atlantic Forest mammals , 2015 .

[26]  Stephanie Mansourian,et al.  Forest Landscape Restoration: increasing the positive impacts of forest restoration or simply the area under tree cover? , 2017 .

[27]  Stephen R. Carpenter,et al.  Biodiversity and ecosystem services require IPBES to take novel approach to scenarios , 2016, Sustainability Science.

[28]  Karen J. Esler,et al.  Socio-Environmental Systems (SES) Research: what have we learned and how can we use this information in future research programs , 2016 .

[29]  Karen J. Esler,et al.  Fostering collaboration for knowledge and action in disaster management in South Africa , 2016 .

[30]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Plausible futures of a social-ecological system: Yahara watershed, Wisconsin, USA , 2015 .

[31]  Karen D. Holl,et al.  Paying for Restoration , 2000 .

[32]  C. J. van Oosten,et al.  Forest Landscape Restoration: Who Decides? A Governance Approach to Forest Landscape Restoration , 2013 .

[33]  Rainer M. Krug,et al.  Spatially‐explicit sensitivity analysis for conservation management: exploring the influence of decisions in invasive alien plant management , 2010 .

[34]  David M. Richardson,et al.  A biome-scale assessment of the impact of invasive alien plants on ecosystem services in South Africa. , 2008, Journal of environmental management.

[35]  Dean Holzworth,et al.  Landscapes Toolkit: an integrated modelling framework to assist stakeholders in exploring options for sustainable landscape development , 2011, Landscape Ecology.

[36]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  The reflective futures practitioner: Balancing salience, credibility and legitimacy in generating foresight knowledge with stakeholders , 2015 .

[37]  Marissa F. McBride,et al.  Optimal restoration: Accounting for space, time and uncertainty , 2011 .

[38]  Daniel Stokols,et al.  A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies , 2012, Translational behavioral medicine.

[39]  David W. Cash,et al.  Knowledge systems for sustainable development , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Christophe Le Page,et al.  A Step-by-step Approach to Building Land Management Scenarios Based on Multiple Viewpoints on Multi-agent System Simulations , 2003, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[41]  Karen J. Esler,et al.  Stakeholder perceptions of an ecosystem services approach to clearing invasive alien plants on private land. , 2013 .

[42]  Atte Moilanen,et al.  Use of Inverse Spatial Conservation Prioritization to Avoid Biological Diversity Loss Outside Protected Areas , 2013, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[43]  Roy Haines-Young,et al.  Relevance for decision making of spatially explicit, participatory scenarios for ecosystem services in an area of a high current demand , 2015 .

[44]  Robin L. Chazdon,et al.  Beyond hectares: four principles to guide reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape restoration , 2017 .

[45]  Craig R Allen,et al.  Adaptive management for a turbulent future. , 2011, Journal of environmental management.

[46]  Dagmar Hagen,et al.  Using Short-Term Monitoring Data to Achieve Goals in a Large-Scale Restoration , 2013 .

[47]  Jean Paul Metzger,et al.  Landscape Ecology Perspective in Restoration Projects for Biodiversity Conservation: a Review , 2013 .

[48]  Karen D. Holl,et al.  When and where to actively restore ecosystems , 2011 .

[49]  Henrik Lindhjem,et al.  Complacency or resilience? Perceptions of environmental and social change in Lofoten and Vesterålen in northern Norway , 2017 .

[50]  J. Newig,et al.  Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? , 2009 .

[51]  W. Tuinstra,et al.  Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise , 2017 .