Incorporating resilience and cost in ecological restoration strategies at landscape scale

dc.contributor.authorStefanes, Maurício
dc.contributor.authorOchoa-Quintero, Jose Manuel
dc.contributor.authorDe Oliveira Roque, Fabio
dc.contributor.authorMoreira Sugai, Larissa Sayuri [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorTambosi, Leandro Reverberi
dc.contributor.authorLourival, Reinaldo
dc.contributor.authorLaurance, Susan
dc.contributor.institutionFCBA/UFGD
dc.contributor.institutionCampo Grande - MS
dc.contributor.institutionCorporación para Investigaciones Biológicas
dc.contributor.institutionJames Cook University
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)
dc.contributor.institutionColumbia University
dc.contributor.institutionNature and Culture International
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-11T17:08:47Z
dc.date.available2018-12-11T17:08:47Z
dc.date.issued2016-12-01
dc.description.abstractThe restoration of deforested or degraded areas can contribute to biodiversity conservation and global resilience given the current and projected impacts of climate change. In recent years, a robust array of ecological restoration frameworks have been generated to address restoration challenges at large scales in different ecosystems around the world. Unfortunately, the costs associated with restoration at such scales greatly challenges the implementation of such frameworks. We used landscape ecology principles with multicriteria optimization of landscape resilience and agricultural productivity as a way to mitigate the trade-offs between production and restoration. We used the Cerrado biome in Mato Grosso do Sul State, Brazil, as a case study to apply our framework. We compared three scenarios: minimal legal compliance (MLC); selection by ecological resilience (SER); and selection by restoration cost (SRC). Our results show that increasing the restoration target from MLC (25%) to SER (30%) means moving from 968,316 to 1592 million hectares, which can represent a huge opportunity cost for agricultural lands. However, because costs and resilience are not homogeneously distributed throughout landscapes, we can select areas of intermediate ecological resilience and low cost, for the same restoration area target. This process can reduce potential conflicts and make restoration a more viable process. Our results also reveal some areas that can be particularly important for reconciling agriculture and landscape restoration. Those areas combined high and intermediate resilience and an above average profitability. This could mean that increasing restoration in this area could be very expensive, assuming that our proxy roughly represents the restoration implementation cost. However, there is another important message here, that some areas can be productive at the same time that they maintain levels of resilience above the legal compliance, which facilitates win-win scenarios in human-dominated landscapes.en
dc.description.affiliationFaculdade de Ciências Biológicas e Ambientais FCBA/UFGD
dc.description.affiliationEcologia e Conservação Campo Grande - MS
dc.description.affiliationCorporación para Investigaciones Biológicas
dc.description.affiliationCentre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science College of Science and Engineering James Cook University
dc.description.affiliationInstituto de Biociências UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista Rio Claro Departamento de Ecologia
dc.description.affiliationDepartamento de Ecologia Universidade de São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationCentro de Engenharia Modelagem e Ciências Sociais Aplicadas Universidade Federal do ABC
dc.description.affiliationEcology Evolution and Environmental Biology Columbia University
dc.description.affiliationNature and Culture International
dc.description.affiliationUnespInstituto de Biociências UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista Rio Claro Departamento de Ecologia
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08922-210454
dc.identifier.citationEcology and Society, v. 21, n. 4, 2016.
dc.identifier.doi10.5751/ES-08922-210454
dc.identifier.file2-s2.0-85008199365.pdf
dc.identifier.issn1708-3087
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85008199365
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/174024
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEcology and Society
dc.relation.ispartofsjr1,728
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso aberto
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDecision-making tool
dc.subjectEcological resilience
dc.subjectFragmentation
dc.subjectOpportunity cost
dc.subjectPrioritization restoration
dc.subjectRestoration costs
dc.subjectTrade-off analysis
dc.titleIncorporating resilience and cost in ecological restoration strategies at landscape scaleen
dc.typeArtigo
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Instituto de Biociências, Rio Claropt
unesp.departmentEcologia - IBpt

Arquivos

Pacote Original

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
2-s2.0-85008199365.pdf
Tamanho:
8.93 MB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição: