The Role of Community, Economics and Policy in Restoration Science

Restoration is a costly process, and the complexity of most ecosystems and their responses to multiple environmental factors means that the outcomes of particular restoration measures cannot be accurately predicted. Understanding socio-economic and ecological outcomes are important to societies; for government evaluating these outcomes is fundamental to good management, and to accountability. From a management perspective evaluation of ecological and socio-economic outcomes provide essential feedback, including evidence of ongoing issues which is a crucial driver for further change in management or restoration needs.

Community acceptance and involvement is important for restoration, both because of the physical interaction and enhanced environmental benefit that can be achieved at a larger scale. Often local conflicts are embedded in the socio-economic profile of the local population. Conflicts commonly occur between individually preferred action and socially desired outcomes from either the community or decision makers. Analysis of land-use conflict reveals people’s attitudes, beliefs, culture, tradition and social needs as well as reflecting lifestyle, well-being and priorities can pose constraints for restoration activities limiting policy implementation, cooperation and information exchange.

Acquiring funds can be problematic as restoration is costly to implement and successful outcomes are unpredictable due to the complexity of systems and highly experimental nature of restoration science. Yet a pragmatic rationale for ecological restoration is ensuring continued ‘natural capital’ of resource stocks and ecosystem services. Therefore restoration is in fact complementary not only to biodiversity conservation but also to sustainable, equitable socio-economic development through employment generation, improving livelihoods and quality of life in the economy.

Policy refers to the formulation of objectives and their guidelines by a governing body; however their adverse effects are not usually studied. Furthermore, biodiversity-relevant policies are not necessarily aimed at biodiversity protection thus seemingly discounting the future in favour of the present. Ecological scientists must attempt to understand the difficulties inherent in integrating science with public policy making. One direct implication for policy prescriptions are ‘wicked problems’ based on the complexity of systems, where outcomes are not easily agreed upon nor is consistently solved to the same end state in every circumstance.

The challenge to account socio-economic issues in ecological theory development relates to the diversity of groups involved in restoration projects derived largely from several relatively independent management sectors. Coupled with differences in legal requirements and available resources, a variety of approaches and ideologies between sectors has limited restoration goals. The varied and largely disconnected sectors have meant that sharing and integrating knowledge is sometimes inconsistent, conflicting and the overlapping applications have not always been optimal.