By Hedvig Nenzén, Judith Felten-Lundberg, Patrik Oskarsson, Minh-Xuan Truong, and Carolyn Faithfull
Photo caption. The Vindel River in North Sweden, was straightened for log driving. Restoration involves placing logs and large boulders to improve fish habitat. Photo Judith Lundberg-Felten.
This Plain Language Summary is published in advance of the paper discussed. Please check back soon for a link to the full paper.
Widespread environmental degradation creates a strong need to restore damaged ecosystems. It is however not clear how to best guide restoration activities in order to improve both environmental and social outcomes. In this article we explore research frameworks that to guide nature restoration towards environmental and social goals. Our goal is to understand the overall results of existing research on nature restoration across environmental and social dimensions.
To answer this goal, we searched for all published academic articles about restoration frameworks which combine social and ecological dimensions. We counted ecological and social words found in 8,142 articles published 2010-2024 and compared to the Society for Ecological Restoration’s (SER) Social and Ecological Benefits Wheels. We then shortlisted 17 articles for in-depth analysis. We also studied how linked social and ecological terms were, and searched for new, emerging dimensions.
We found that the number of ecological and social terms has increased equally fast, showing that the two areas have stayed equally common over the years. Certain ecological terms have become more popular such as landscape restoration, ecosystem function, spatial planning and functional diversity. Some social terms have also become more popular such as nature-based solutions, agroforestry, agroecology, carbon sink, cultural heritage and restoration governance. Other terms have become less common, such as endangered species, invasive species, and novel ecosystems.
Our in-depth analysis shows how nature restoration frameworks can improve SER’s existing principles. We identify and discuss additional dimensions such as landscape-scale restoration, governance, climate change, restoration for social benefits and cost-effectiveness.
In summary, we find that although ecological dimensions remain foundational in restoration, articles mentioning interdisciplinary and social aspects are increasing, thereby increasing support for nature restoration as a combined socioecological process. We provide recommendations for new dimensions to consider in nature restoration and integrate these with the recently passed EU Nature Restoration Regulation.
