Reviewing the use of resilience concepts in forest sciences

Purpose of the review Resilience is a key concept to deal with an uncertain future in forestry. In recent years, it has received increasing attention from both research and practice. However, a common understanding of what resilience means in a forestry context, and how to operationalise it is lacking. Here, we conducted a systematic review of the recent forest science literature on resilience in the forestry context, synthesising how resilience is defined and assessed. Recent findings Based on a detailed review of 255 studies, we analysed how the concepts of engineering resilience, ecological resilience, and social-ecological resilience are used in forest sciences. A clear majority of the studies applied the concept of engineering resilience, quantifying resilience as the recovery time after a disturbance. The two most used indicators for engineering resilience were basal area increment and vegetation cover, whereas ecological resilience studies frequently focus on vegetation cover and tree density. In contrast, important social-ecological resilience indicators used in the literature are socio-economic diversity and stock of natural resources. In the context of global change, we expected an increase in studies adopting the more holistic social-ecological resilience concept, but this was not the observed trend. Summary Our analysis points to the nestedness of these three resilience concepts, suggesting that they are complementary rather than contradictory. It also means that the variety of resilience approaches does not need to be an obstacle for operationalisation of the concept. We provide guidance for choosing the most suitable resilience concept and indicators based on the management, disturbance and application context

Spatial conservation planning with ecological and economic feedback effects

Most spatial conservation prioritisations being implemented across the globe are based on static approaches to conservation planning. These use snapshots of systems to support decision-making. However, ignoring the dynamic nature of systems can result in misleading spatial prioritisations and missed opportunities to encourage participation in conservation programmes. Using a modelling approach, we show that integrating economic and ecological feedbacks into conservation planning improved social and ecological outcomes. We developed an approach that enabled accounting for feedbacks of farmland set-asides using a popular conservation planning tool. We empirically assessed the impact of ignoring feedbacks on plans to restore the Brazilian Atlantic Forest by comparing outcomes of our approach and a widely used static approach. The proposed approach attained better conservation outcomes than a static approach, at about 7% lower cost, while also allowing more farmers to benefit economically from the set-aside scheme through capitalising on the differences between their opportunity costs and the amount paid by the scheme. Accounting for feedbacks led to substantially different areas being prioritised for farmland set-asides, and to more farmers being included in the set-aside scheme. These results show important benefits from understanding, and then working with, feedbacks that inevitably accompany large-scale conservation interventions. Our approach is the first to integrate both environmental and economic feedbacks into spatial conservation planning, and model information rent capture. In doing so, it demonstrates how existing economic incentives can be used to encourage farmers to join a conservation set-aside, while still resulting in a lower overall intervention cost

The suggestion that landscapes should contain 40% of forest cover lacks evidence and is problematic

A recent review suggests that forest cover needs to be restored or maintained on at least 40% of land area. In the absence of empirical evidence to support this threshold, we discuss how this suggestion is unhelpful and potentially dangerous. We advocate for regionally defined thresholds to inform conservation and restoration

Spatial conservation planning with ecological and economic feedback effects

Most spatial conservation prioritisations being implemented across the globe are based on static approaches to conservation planning. These use snapshots of systems to support decision-making. However, ignoring the dynamic nature of systems can result in misleading spatial prioritisations and missed opportunities to encourage participation in conservation programmes. Using a modelling approach, we show that integrating economic and ecological feedbacks into conservation planning improved social and ecological outcomes. We developed an approach that enabled accounting for feedbacks of farmland set-asides using a popular conservation planning tool. We empirically assessed the impact of ignoring feedbacks on plans to restore the Brazilian Atlantic Forest by comparing outcomes of our approach and a widely used static approach. The proposed approach attained better conservation outcomes than a static approach, at about 7% lower cost, while also allowing more farmers to benefit economically from the set-aside scheme through capitalising on the differences between their opportunity costs and the amount paid by the scheme. Accounting for feedbacks led to substantially different areas being prioritised for farmland set-asides, and to more farmers being included in the set-aside scheme. These results show important benefits from understanding, and then working with, feedbacks that inevitably accompany large-scale conservation interventions. Our approach is the first to integrate both environmental and economic feedbacks into spatial conservation planning, and model information rent capture. In doing so, it demonstrates how existing economic incentives can be used to encourage farmers to join a conservation set-aside, while still resulting in a lower overall intervention cost