Restoration Ecology and the Path to Sustainability

James Aronson,Jelte van Andel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118223130.ch22

2012-04-13

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Restoration Ecology Revisited Sustainability Science Epilogue Acknowledgements Introduction Restoration Ecology Revisited Sustainability Science Epilogue Acknowledgements

ecology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition

George D. Gann,Tein McDonald,Bethanie Walder,James Aronson,Cara R. Nelson,Justin Jonson,James G. Hallett,Cristina Eisenberg,Manuel R. Guariguata,Junguo Liu,Fangyuan Hua,Cristian Echeverría,Emily Gonzales,Nancy Shaw,Kris Decleer,Kingsley W. Dixon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035

2019-09-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:<section class="article-section article-section__supporting"><h3><a class="accordion__control"><h2 class="section__title"> Supporting Information </h2></a></h3><table class="support-info__table table article-section__table"><thead><th>Filename</th><th>Description</th></thead><tbody><tr><td><a href="/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Frec.13035&file=rec13035-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdf">rec13035-sup-0001-Supinfo.pdf</a>PDF document, 153.6 KB </td><td><b>Supporting information</b></td></tr></tbody></table><p class="disclaimer_text">Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.</p></section>

ecology
Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities at the Restoration‐Policy Interface in the U.S.A.

Ella M. Samuel,Rachel M. Mitchell,Daniel E. Winker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13823

2022-11-03

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:As we advance into the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, understanding the relationship between science, management, and policy is increasingly important given the paucity of research evaluating the ability of existing policy to address contemporary environmental challenges. Despite their inherent interdependence, restoration ecology as a scientific discipline, ecological restoration as a practice, and the policies driving restoration efforts do not always represent a unified force. Accenting the policies and practices within the United States, we present our perspective on challenges associated with this disunion, including those linked to social dimensions of restoration and limitations associated with existing policy. We provide a review of existing federal policy in the United States and synthesize suggestions that have emerged in the literature to fortify connections between restoration science and policy. We also describe social challenges to meeting restoration goals, including barriers surrounding power dynamics, trust, and communication, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We propose potential solutions that exist in transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing, and evidence‐based, balanced decision‐making that equally considers varying perspectives. With the understanding that current conservation practices are not enough to mitigate environmental degradation, we focus on streamlining problem‐solving strategies to support restoration and face the widespread ecological issues of today. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Responsibility and the Ethics of Ecological Restoration

Mihnea Tanasescu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ygc7w

2018-09-18

Abstract:This paper argues that the concept of responsibility can andshould ground an ethics of ecological restoration. It starts with WilliamJordan’s concept of restoration, namely the creation of mutually beneficialhuman-nature relationships. It builds a concept of responsibility using theworks of Hans Jonas and Martin Drenthen, understood as a correlate ofour technological capacity, as well as a relationship to the possibility ofmeaningfulness today and in the indefinite future. It is argued that we areresponsible in a deep sense for engaging in projects of restoration in orderto ensure the survival of embodied meaningfulness in the world.
Using the past to manage the future: the role of palaeoecological and long‐term data in ecological restoration

Saúl Manzano,Adele C. M. Julier,Cherie J. Dirk,Andriantsilavo H. I. Razafimanantsoa,Igshaan Samuels,Hana Petersen,Peter Gell,M.Timm Hoffman,Lindsey Gillson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13285

2020-11-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:<p>Global change in its various expressions has impacted the structure and function of ecosystems worldwide, compromising the provision of fundamental ecosystems services and creating a predicament for the societies that benefit from them. Restoration ecology plays a key role in securing ecological integrity and societal wellbeing, and hence represents a global priority. However, human perception seldom goes back to the beginning of significant ecosystem degradation, making ecosystem assessment and restoration practices difficult. Long‐term data, historical records and palaeoecological information can increase our understanding of ecological responses to natural or anthropogenic impacts, and can directly contribute to the understanding and design of effective restoration practices. Here, examples from different ecosystems (drylands, grasslands, shrublands, savannas, forests, coastal environments and wetlands) brought together from around the world illustrate (i) how to develop appropriate restoration references under the current uncertain global change scenario (ii) how long‐term perspectives on drivers of change can help to identify critical ecological elements, thus contributing to defining restoration goals (iii) how to incorporate information from the past as guidance for present interventions and landscape management. The building of community and the specificity of palaeoecological and historical records of ecological change over time will be key in facilitating the translation of long‐term information into the living process of ecological restoration practice.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

ecology
Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology

Susan S. Bell,Mark S. Fonseca,Little B. Motten

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.1997.00545.x

1997-12-01

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Landscape ecology focuses on questions typically addressed over broad spatial scales. A landscape approach embraces spatial heterogeneity, consisting of a number of ecosystems and/or landscape structures of different types, as a central theme. Such studies may aid restoration efforts in a variety of ways, including (1) provision of better guidance for selecting reference sites and establishing project goals and (2) suggestions for appropriate spatial configurations of restored elements to facilitate recruitment of flora/fauna. Likewise, restoration efforts may assist landscape–level studies, given that restored habitats, possessing various patch arrangements or being established among landscapes of varying diversity and conditions of human alteration, can provide extraordinary opportunities for experimentation over a large spatial scale. Restoration studies can facilitate the rate of information gathering for expected changes in natural landscapes for which introduction of landscape elements may be relatively slow. Moreover, data collected from restoration studies can assist in validation of dynamic models of current interest in landscape ecology. We suggest that restoration and landscape ecology have an unexplored mutualistic relationship that could enhance research and application of both disciplines.

ecology
The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

Jakki J. Mohr,Elizabeth Covelli Metcalf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12564

2017-09-07

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Much of the practice of restoration is conducted by businesses—contractors, consultants, designers, engineers. Restoration businesses interact with a variety of stakeholders to complete projects on time and on budget, and to achieve ecological and business objectives. Our research explores the business perspective in restoration; it is based on data collected from businesses (contractors, consultants, design engineers), agencies, and nongovernmental organizations involved in a Superfund cleanup project in Montana, one of the largest river restoration efforts ever. Our findings highlight several areas restoration businesses must navigate. First, restoration businesses must juggle potentially competing goals, maintaining ecological integrity while achieving profitability objectives. Second, these businesses must manage the risk that arises from variability in the natural environment as well as individuals' risk tolerances. Third, they must navigate the disconnect between “science” and “practice,” including how to best monitor restoration projects. Fourth, they must make decisions about new techniques and innovations. Fifth, on‐the‐ground implementation must acknowledge that personnels' motives and expertise might conflict with original plans. We discuss these findings in relation to relevant scholarly research, offering implications for theory and practice. For example, the business of ecological restoration requires learning over time to be profitable while achieving the desired ecological and social outcomes; restoration businesses leverage monitoring in pursuit of adaptive management and engage “frontline personnel” as important voices in the restoration process. Understanding the business of restoration adds an important perspective in the complex dynamics of social‐ecological systems.

ecology
The relationship between ecological restoration and the ecosystem services concept

Sasha Alexander,James Aronson,Oliver Whaley,David Lamb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-08288-210134

2016-01-01

Ecology and Society

Abstract:Alexander, S., J. Aronson, O. Whaley, and D. Lamb. 2016. The relationship between ecological restoration and the ecosystem services concept. Ecology and Society 21(1):34.http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08288-210134

environmental studies,ecology
Reclaiming the definition of sustainability

Paul Johnston,Mark Everard,David Santillo,Karl-Henrik Robèrt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.01.375

Abstract:Background and scope: Since its inception two decades ago, the concept of sustainable development has suffered from a proliferation of definitions, such that it has increasingly come to mean many things to many different people. This has limited its credibility, called into question its practical application and the significance of associated achievements and, overall, limited the progress in environmental and social developments which it was designed to underpin. Goal: This viewpoint article is intended to re-open the concept of sustainable development for discussion 20 years on from the Brundtland Report, in the context of the current state of the world, our growing understanding of ecosystems and their response to stressors and the parallel increase in recognition of inherent limitations to that understanding. Approach: Following a brief review of the diverse manner in which the concept has developed over time, we present the case for application of a series of simple conditions for sustainability, originally developed by The Natural Step in the early 90s, which nevertheless still provide a sound basis on which progress towards sustainable development could be monitored. The paper also highlights the unavoidable links between sustainability and ethics, including those in the sensitive fields of population and quality of life. Discussion: Overall we argue the need for the concept of sustainable development to be reclaimed from the plethora of economically-focused or somewhat vague and un-measurable definitions which have found increasing favour in recent years and which all too often accompany relatively minor progress against 'business as usual'. Recommendations and perspectives: The vision encapsulated in the Brundtland Report was ground-breaking. If, however, true sustainability in human interactions with the biosphere is to be realised, a far stronger and more empirical interpretation of the original intent is urgently required. To be effective, such an interpretation must encompass and guide developments in political instruments and public policy as well as corporate decision-making, and must focus increasingly on addressing the root causes of major threats to sustainability rather than just their consequences.
Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1996.tb00112.x@10.1111/(ISSN)1526-100X.2525thAnniversaryVI

2019-10-03

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Heightening human impacts on the Earth result in widespread losses of production and conservation values and make large‐scale ecosystem restoration increasingly urgent. Tackling this problem requires the development of general guiding principles for restoration so that we can move away from the ad hoc, site‐ and situation‐specific approach that now prevails. A continuum of restoration efforts can be recognized, ranging from restoration of localized highly degraded sites to restoration of entire landscapes for production and/or conservation reasons. We emphasize the importance of developing restoration methodologies that are applicable at the landscape scale. Key processes in restoration include identifying and dealing with the processes leading to degradation in the first place, determining realistic goals and measures of success, developing methods for implementing the goals and incorporating them into land‐management and planning strategies, and monitoring the restoration and assessing its success. Few of these procedures are currently incorporated in many restoration projects. The concept that many ecosystems are likely to exist in alternative stable states, depending on their history, is relevant to the setting of restoration goals. A range of measures, such as those being developed to measure ecosystem health, could be used to develop “scorecards” for restoration efforts. Generalizable guidelines for restoration on individual sites could be based on the concepts of designed disturbance, controlled colonization, and controlled species performance. Fewer explicit guidelines are available at the landscape scale, beyond nonquantitative generalities about size and connectivity. Development of these guidelines is an important priority so that urgent large‐scale restoration can be planned and implemented effectively.

ecology
Sustainable restoration: addressing critical challenges through university‐led projects

Mitchell Christensen,Rachel Seeley,J Ungos,Zoe Lyman,Spencer J. Ingley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14337

2024-11-10

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:The urgency to restore ecosystems amid climate change and biodiversity loss has led to widespread engagement in habitat restoration projects. However, many projects fall short of their goals, highlighting the need for innovation. We use a case study at our university to explore how the integration of habitat restoration into university curricula might address some of the major challenges to long‐term restoration success. We demonstrate how integration with university activities could help address three key challenges in restoration: insufficient planning and monitoring, limited community engagement, and lack of long‐term funding. Our approach demonstrates how involving students and faculty in restoration projects can enhance adaptive management by including these efforts in science curricula, foster community participation through volunteer engagement, and reduce costs through volunteer efforts and collaboration with campus entities. These findings suggest that universities can play a vital role in advancing ecological restoration, benefiting both society and the environment.

ecology
Political science and ecological restoration

Susan Baker,Katarina Eckerberg,Anna Zachrisson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.835201

2013-10-11

Environmental Politics

Abstract:Ecological restoration has taken on a new significance in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss. Despite its growing policy salience, however, the social and political sciences have paid limited attention to the study of ecological restoration policy and practice. By drawing upon the political science study of multilevel governance, institutions, power relations, and place-based politics, a flavour is given of what a political science engagement might contribute to the rich tapestry of analysis that has already been produced by other disciplines on ecological restoration. As the use of restoration grows, it is increasingly likely that it will give rise to social dispute and be brought into conflict with a variety of environmental, cultural, economic, and community interests. Restoration policy and projects encounter professional and institutional norms as well as place-specific interests and values. There is urgent need to investigate how and in what ways some interests become winners and others losers in these activities, and how this in turn can influence ecological restoration outcomes. A political science lens could help build new criteria for evaluating the success of ecological restoration, ones that combine both process- and product-driven considerations.

political science,environmental studies
Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

Brian R. Silliman,Marc J.S. Hensel,Jean P. Gibert,Pedro Daleo,Carter S. Smith,Daniel J. Wieczynski,Christine Angelini,Avery B. Paxton,Alyssa M. Adler,Y. Stacy Zhang,Andrew H. Altieri,Todd M. Palmer,Holly P. Jones,Rachel K. Gittman,John N. Griffin,Mary I. O’Connor,Johan van de Koppel,John R. Poulsen,Max Rietkerk,Qiang He,Mark D. Bertness,Tjisse van der Heide,Stephanie R. Valdez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.03.043

IF: 9.2

2024-05-07

Current Biology

Abstract:Silliman and colleagues outline how restoration practitioners can leverage insight from ecological theories to increase the scale, success, and resilience of habitat restorations.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition

Frietsch, Marina,Pacheco-Romero, Manuel,Temperton, Vicky M.,Kaplin, Beth A.,Fischer, Joern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02021-8

IF: 6.94

2024-04-24

AMBIO

Abstract:Expanding in both scope and scale, ecosystem restoration needs to embrace complex social–ecological dynamics. To help scientists and practitioners navigate ever new demands on restoration, we propose the "social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition" as a conceptual model to approach dynamically shifting social and ecological restoration goals. The model focuses on three dynamic aspects of restoration, namely degrading processes, restoration goals and remedial actions. As these three change through time, new reinforcing and balancing feedback mechanisms characterize the restoration process. We illustrate our model through case studies in which restoration has become increasingly ambitious through time, namely forest landscape restoration in Rwanda and grassland restoration in Germany. The ladder of restoration ambition offers a new way of applying social–ecological systems thinking to ecosystem restoration. Additionally, it raises awareness of social–ecological trade-offs, power imbalances and conflicting goals in restoration projects, thereby laying an important foundation for finding more practicable and fairer solutions.

environmental sciences,engineering, environmental
Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

Vicky M. Temperton,Nina Buchmann,Elise Buisson,Giselda Durigan,Łukasz Kazmierczak,Michael P. Perring,Michele Sá Dechoum,Joseph W. Veldman,Gerhard E. Overbeck,Lukasz Kazmierczak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12989

2019-05-27

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:<p>We currently face both an extinction and a biome crisis embedded in a changing climate. Many biodiverse ecosystems are being lost at far higher rates than they are being protected or ecologically restored. At the same time, natural climate solutions offer opportunities to restore biodiversity while mitigating climate change. The Bonn Challenge is a UN programme to restore biodiversity and mitigate climate change through restoration of the world's degraded landscapes. It provides an unprecedented chance for ecological restoration to become a linchpin tool for addressing many environmental issues. Unfortunately, the <i>Forest and Landscape Restoration</i> programme that underpins the Bonn Challenge, as its name suggests, remains focused on trees and forests, despite rising evidence that many non‐forest ecosystems also offer strong restoration potential for biodiversity and climate mitigation. We see a need for restoration to <i>step back</i> to be more inclusive of different ecosystem types and to <i>step up</i> to provide integrated scientific knowledge to inform large‐scale restoration. Stepping back and up will require assessments of <i>where</i> to restore <i>what</i> species, with recognition that in many landscapes multiple habitat types should be restored. In the process, tradeoffs in the delivery of different ecosystem services (e.g. carbon, biodiversity, water, albedo, livestock forage) should be clearly addressed. We recommend that biodiversity safeguards be included in policy <i>and</i> implemented in practice, to avoid undermining the biophysical relationships that provide ecosystem resilience to climate change. For ecological restoration to contribute to international policy goals will require integrated large‐scale science that works across biome boundaries.</p><p>This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.</p>

ecology
Let us not forget the human dimensions of ecosystem restoration

Stephanie Mansourian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0030605324000991

IF: 2.957

2024-11-06

Oryx

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS0030605324000991/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S0030605324000991a.jpg

biodiversity conservation,ecology
Trophic rewilding as a restoration approach under emerging novel biosphere conditions

Jens-Christian Svenning,Robert Buitenwerf,Elizabeth Le Roux

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.02.044

IF: 9.2

2024-05-07

Current Biology

Abstract:Jens-Christian Svenning and colleagues review the prospects of trophic rewilding as a strategy to facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity and functional ecosystems under increasingly novel biosphere conditions.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
An Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States Fisheries Special Issue on Watershed Restoration Vol. 22, No. 5

J. Kauffman,R. Beschta,Danna Lytjen,N. Otting

Abstract:There is an unprecedented need to preserve and restore aquatic and riparian biological diversity before extinction eliminates the opportunity. Ecological restoration is the reestablishment of processes, functions, and related biological, chemical, and physical linkages between the aquatic and associated riparian ecosystems; it is the repairing of damage caused by human activities. The first and most critical step in ecological restoration is passive restoration, the cessation of those anthro-pogenic activities that are causing degradation or preventing recovery. Given the capacity of riparian ecosystems to naturally recover, often this is all that is needed to achieve successful restoration. Prior to implementation of active restoration approaches (e.g., instream structures , channel and streambank reconfiguration, and planting programs), a period of time sufficient for natural recovery is recommended. Unfortunately, structural additions and active manipulations are frequently undertaken without halting degrading land use activities or allowing sufficient time for natural recovery to occur. These scenarios represent a misinterpretation of ecosystem needs, can exacerbate the degree of degradation, and can cause further difficulties in restoration. Restoration should be undertaken at the watershed or landscape scale. Riparian and stream ecosystems have largely been degraded by ecosys-temwide, off-channel activities and, therefore, cannot be restored by focusing solely on manipulations within the channel. While ecological restoration comes at a high cost, it also is an investment in the natural capital of riparian and aquatic systems and the environmental wealth of the nation. raditionally, the use and management of rivers, riparian zones, and wetlands have focused on activities that led to increases in the social well-being or material wealth of a society. These included such endeavors as transportation , hydroelectric power generation, flood control , and the use of water for agricultural, industrial, and municipal uses (National Research Council 1992). A fence-line contrast of a five-year-old exclosure (without livestock grazing) and an area grazed season-long on a tributary of the Deschutes River, Oregon. The cessation of those activities that are causing degradation or preventing recovery is the most important step in ecological restoration. Given the natural resilience capacity of riparian ecosystems, passive restoration such as halting excessive livestock grazing is all that is needed to restore degraded riparian ecosystems. As a result of these practices, as well as activities such as channelization, road construction, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, and water diversion, numerous riparian zones in the western United States have been extensively altered since Euro-American settlement (National Research Council …

Environmental Science
Organizational capacity and ecological restoration

Susan Galatowitsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13757

2022-06-30

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Organizations entrusted with responsibilities and resources to repair ecosystems have for many decades pursued their defining purpose against long odds created by a host of inherent challenges, notably the long time‐frames required for ecological recovery and landscape‐level stressors. Global change compounds these challenges, increasing shocks to the operating environments of these organizations. Interest in assessing organizational capacity to respond to system shocks (i.e., resilience) productively has been strong in many fields, though not in the restoration arena. The objectives of this paper are to build awareness of the importance of organizations for achieving the aims of restoration and to spur organizational research to strengthen the restoration sector. I summarize research on organizations relevant to the restoration sector and with this foundation, propose a framework for assessing the capacity of restoration organizations. The proposed framework is an adaptation of models used in other sectors, based on five critical capacities: situation awareness, governance and leadership, internal resources, external relations, change readiness. We can assess the extent to which an organization possesses each capacity by eliciting feedback about functions linked to each capacity. Devising assessment tools from this framework requires attention to key realities of the restoration sector including prevalence of short‐term funding, effect of externalities on restoration outcomes, dependence on partnerships of multiple organizations for complex and large restorations. Exploration into assessment approaches for restoration organizations highlights a major knowledge gap that, if addressed, could enhance the reliability of restoration as a global and local strategy for improving ecosystems services. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

ecology
Bionovelty and ecological restoration

John P. Volpe,Eric S. Higgs,Jonathan M. Jeschke,Katie Barnhill,Conrad Brunk,Joan Dudney,Laura L. Govers,Richard J. Hobbs,Karen Keenleyside,Stephen D. Murphy,Philip J. Seddon,Jayce Sudweeks,Orkan Telhan,Sonia Voicescu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.14152

2024-04-17

Restoration Ecology

Abstract:Anthropogenic activity has irreparably altered the ecological fabric of Earth. The emergence of ecological novelty from diverse drivers of change is an increasingly challenging dimension of ecosystem restoration. At the same time, the restorationist's tool kit continues to grow, including a variety of powerful and increasingly prevalent technologies. Thus, ecosystem restoration finds itself at the center of intersecting challenges. How should we respond to increasingly common emergence of environmental system states with little or no historical precedent, whilst considering the appropriate deployment of potentially consequential and largely untested interventions that may give rise to organisms, system states, and/or processes that are likewise without historical precedent? We use the term bionovelty to encapsulate these intersecting themes and examine the implications of bionovelty for ecological restoration.

ecology
Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?

Clémentine Mutillod,Élise Buisson,Gregory Mahy,Renaud Jaunatre,James M. Bullock,Laurent Tatin,Thierry Dutoit

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13046

IF: 14.35

2024-02-14

Biological Reviews

Abstract:As we enter the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and address the urgent need to protect and restore ecosystems and their ecological functions at large scales, rewilding has been brought into the limelight. Interest in this discipline is thus increasing, with a large number of conceptual scientific papers published in recent years. Increasing enthusiasm has led to discussions and debates in the scientific community about the differences between ecological restoration and rewilding. The main goal of this review is to compare and clarify the position of each field. Our results show that despite some differences (e.g. top‐down versus bottom‐up and functional versus taxonomic approaches) and notably with distinct goals – recovery of a defined historically determined target ecosystem versus recovery of natural processes with often no target endpoint – ecological restoration and rewilding have a common scope: the recovery of ecosystems following anthropogenic degradation. The goals of ecological restoration and rewilding have expanded with the progress of each field. However, it is unclear whether there is a paradigm shift with ecological restoration moving towards rewilding or vice versa. We underline the complementarity in time and in space of ecological restoration and rewilding. To conclude, we argue that reconciliation of these two fields of nature conservation to ensure complementarity could create a synergy to achieve their common scope.

biology

Restoration Ecology and the Path to Sustainability

International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition

Perspectives on Challenges and Opportunities at the Restoration‐Policy Interface in the U.S.A.

Responsibility and the Ethics of Ecological Restoration

Using the past to manage the future: the role of palaeoecological and long‐term data in ecological restoration

Linking Restoration and Landscape Ecology

The business perspective in ecological restoration: issues and challenges

The relationship between ecological restoration and the ecosystem services concept

Reclaiming the definition of sustainability

Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology

Sustainable restoration: addressing critical challenges through university‐led projects

Political science and ecological restoration

Harnessing ecological theory to enhance ecosystem restoration

The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition

Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn Challenge: How a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration

Let us not forget the human dimensions of ecosystem restoration

Trophic rewilding as a restoration approach under emerging novel biosphere conditions

An Ecological Perspective of Riparian and Stream Restoration in the Western United States Fisheries Special Issue on Watershed Restoration Vol. 22, No. 5

Organizational capacity and ecological restoration

Bionovelty and ecological restoration

Ecological restoration and rewilding: two approaches with complementary goals?