Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs
Bernardo B.N. Strassburg , Hawthorne L. Beyer , Renato Crouzeilles , Alvaro Iribarrem , Felipe Barros , Marinez Ferreira de Siqueira , Andrea Sanchez-Tapia , Andrew Balmford , Jeronimo Boelsums Barreto Sansevero , Pedro Henrique Santin Brancalion , Eben North Broadbent , Robin L. Chazdon , Ary Oliveira Filho , Toby Gardner , Ascelin Gordon , Agnieszka Ewa Latawiec , Rafael Loyola , Jean Paul Metzger , Morena Mills , Hugh P. Possingham , Ricardo Rodrigues , Carlos Alberto de Mattos Scaramuzza , Fabio Rubio Scarano , Leandro Tambosi , Maria Uriarte
AbstractInternational commitments for ecosystem restoration add up to one-quarter of the world’s arable land. Fulfilling them would ease global challenges such as climate change and biodiversity decline but could displace food production and impose financial costs on farmers. Here, we present a restoration prioritization approach capable of revealing these synergies and trade-offs, incorporating ecological and economic efficiencies of scale and modelling specific policy options. Using an actual large-scale restoration target of the Atlantic Forest hotspot, we show that our approach can deliver an eightfold increase in cost-effectiveness for biodiversity conservation compared with a baseline of non-systematic restoration. A compromise solution avoids 26% of the biome’s current extinction debt of 2,864 plant and animal species (an increase of 257% compared with the baseline). Moreover, this solution sequesters 1 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent (a 105% increase) while reducing costs by US$28 billion (a 57% decrease). Seizing similar opportunities elsewhere would offer substantial contributions to some of the greatest challenges for humankind.
* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.