IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837719322550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing restoration priorities for high-risk ecosystems: An application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Etter, Andrés
  • Andrade, Angela
  • Nelson, Cara R.
  • Cortés, Juliana
  • Saavedra, Kelly

Abstract

Land clearing and ecosystem degradation are primary causes of loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services worldwide, putting at risk sustainable options for Earth and humankind. According to recent global estimates, degraded lands already account for at least 1 and up to 6 billion ha. Given high rates of habitat degradation and loss of biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes with high levels of ecosystem transformation, conventional approaches to conservation such as setting aside lands in protected areas, are not enough; in combination with ecosystem protection, ecological restoration is essential to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and delivery of ecosystem services. Despite recognition of the role of ecological restoration, the planning of restoration at the landscape scale remains a major challenge. Specifically, more studies are needed on developing restoration plans that maximize conservation and provisioning of ecosystem services, while minimizing competition with high-productivity land uses. We use Colombia, one of the world’s mega-diversity countries in which ca. 25 % of ecosystems are listed as critically endangered (CR), as a test case for exploring the potential advantages of including the Red List of Ecosystems, a newly developed tool for assessing conservation value, in restoration planning. We identified restoration priorities focused on both high-risk ecosystems and low-productivity lands, to maximize conservation value and minimize land-use conflicts. This approach allowed us to identify over 6 M ha of priority areas for restoration, targeting the restoration of 31 (75 %) of the country’s endangered ecosystems. Eight of the Regional Administrative Environmental Planning Areas (CARs) had greater than 20 % of their area identified as restoration priorities. We roughly estimated that the cost of restoring the prioritized areas with restoration through natural regeneration, using payment for ecosystem services (PES), would equal less than 50 % of the annual budget of the CARs. Our results are in sharp contrast (only 12 % agreement) with the priorities identified under the current National Restoration Strategy of Colombia, and highlight the potential contribution of the Red List of Ecosystems in refining and improving restoration planning strategies at both national and sub-national levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Etter, Andrés & Andrade, Angela & Nelson, Cara R. & Cortés, Juliana & Saavedra, Kelly, 2020. "Assessing restoration priorities for high-risk ecosystems: An application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719322550
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104874
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719322550
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104874?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J Tanentzap & Anthony Lamb & Susan Walker & Andrew Farmer, 2015. "Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Pennington, Derric N. & Dalzell, Brent & Nelson, Erik & Mulla, David & Taff, Steve & Hawthorne, Peter & Polasky, Stephen, 2017. "Cost-effective Land Use Planning: Optimizing Land Use and Land Management Patterns to Maximize Social Benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 75-90.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Francisco Torres-Romero & Julio César Acosta-Prado, 2022. "Knowledge Management Practices and Ecological Restoration of the Tropical Dry Forest in Colombia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Amartya Pani & Pulak Mishra, 2022. "Policies and community participation for integrated natural resource management: a review of transdisciplinary perspective," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 24(1), pages 211-233, June.
    3. Guan, Yanjun & Wang, Juan & Zhou, Wei & Bai, Zhongke & Cao, Yingui, 2023. "Delimiting supervision zones to inform the revision of land reclamation management modes in coal mining areas: A perspective from the succession characteristics of rehabilitated vegetation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Adrian C. Newton, 2021. "Strengthening the Scientific Basis of Ecosystem Collapse Risk Assessments," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    5. Tayyaba Rani & Feng Wang & Fawad Rauf & Qurat ul Ain & Hamid Ali, 2023. "Linking personal remittance and fossil fuels energy consumption to environmental degradation: evidence from all SAARC countries," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8447-8468, August.
    6. Juan Antonio Senent-De Frutos & Johana Herrera Arango, 2022. "Contributions of Intercultural Socioenvironmental Justice to the 2030 Agenda in the Colombian Caribbean," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Chettri, Nakul & Aryal, Kamal & Thapa, Sanjan & Uddin, Kabir & Kandel, Pratikshya & Karki, Seema, 2021. "Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: A case study from the Eastern Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Xianghua Zhang & Lingbo Dong & Yingli Huang & Yanli Xu & Huiyan Qin & Zhenhua Qiao, 2021. "Equilibrium Relationship between Ecosystem Service Supply and Consumption Driven by Economic Development and Ecological Restoration," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-20, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Yuxiang Ma & Min Zhou & Chaonan Ma & Mengcheng Wang & Jiating Tu, 2021. "Hybrid Economic-Environment-Ecology Land Planning Model under Uncertainty—A Case Study in Mekong Delta," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-22, October.
    4. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Hongmi Koo & Janina Kleemann & Christine Fürst, 2018. "Land Use Scenario Modeling Based on Local Knowledge for the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Northern Ghana," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Gábor Bakó & Zsolt Molnár & Lilla Bakk & Ferenc Horváth & Luca Fehér & Örs Ábrám & Edina Morvai & Csaba Biro & Gergely Pápay & Attila Fűrész & Károly Penksza & Diána Pácsonyi & Krisztina Demény & Erik, 2021. "Toward a High Spatial Resolution Aerial Monitoring Network for Nature Conservation—How Can Remote Sensing Help Protect Natural Areas?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    7. Juutinen, Artti & Tolvanen, Anne & Saarimaa, Miia & Ojanen, Paavo & Sarkkola, Sakari & Ahtikoski, Anssi & Haikarainen, Soili & Karhu, Jouni & Haara, Arto & Nieminen, Mika & Penttilä, Timo & Nousiainen, 2020. "Cost-effective land-use options of drained peatlands– integrated biophysical-economic modeling approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. Czarnecki, Adam & Milczarek-Andrzejewska, Dominika & Widła-Domaradzki, Łukasz & Jórasz-Żak, Anna, 2023. "Conflict dynamics over farmland use in the multifunctional countryside," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    10. Bell-James, Justine & Lovelock, Catherine E, 2019. "Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: An Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change mitigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Katarzyna Brodzinska & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Adam Pawlewicz, 2020. "The Chosen Socio-Economic Problems of Protecting Valuable Agricultural Land in Natura 2000 Areas in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 228-245.
    12. Yan, Jinming & Zhang, Dongsheng & Xia, Fangzhou, 2021. "Evaluation of village land use planning risks in green concepts: The case of Qiwangfen Village in Beijing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    13. Yong, Wilson Thau Lym & Thien, Vun Yee & Rupert, Rennielyn & Rodrigues, Kenneth Francis, 2022. "Seaweed: A potential climate change solution," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    14. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    15. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    16. Saraiva Farinha, Maycon Jorge Ulisses & Mario Bernardo, Luciana Virginia & Filho, Adelsom Soares & Berezuk, André Geraldo & da Silva, Luciana Ferreira & Ruviaro, Clandio Favarini, 2019. "Opportunity cost of a private reserve of natural heritage, Cerrado biome – Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-57.
    17. Armand Kasztelan & Anna Nowak, 2020. "Construction and Empirical Verification of the Agri-Environmental Index (AEI) as a Tool for Assessing the Green Performance of Agriculture," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Francesca L. Falco & Eran Feitelson & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Spatial Scale Mismatches in the EU Agri-Biodiversity Conservation Policy. The Case for a Shift to Landscape-Scale Design," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    19. Chen, Yuquan & Fan, Shenggen & Liu, Chang & Yu, Xiaohua, 2022. "Is there a tradeoff between nature reserves and grain production in China?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    20. Wenyuan Jiang & Zhenxiang Zeng & Zhengyun Zhang & Yichen Zhao, 2022. "Regulation and Optimization of Urban Water and Land Resources Utilization for Low Carbon Development: A Case Study of Tianjin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719322550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.