Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33667265›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Ecological restoration of agricultural land can improve its contribution to economic development.

Adrian C Newton, Paul M Evans, Stephen C L Watson, Lucy E Ridding, Steven Brand, Morag McCracken, Arjan S Gosal, James M Bullock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Adrian C NewtonFaculty of Science and Technology, Centre for Ecology, Environment and Sustainability, Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3591-6089
Paul M EvansFaculty of Science and Technology, Centre for Ecology, Environment and Sustainability, Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom.
Stephen C L WatsonFaculty of Science and Technology, Centre for Ecology, Environment and Sustainability, Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom.
Lucy E RiddingUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Steven BrandPlymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Morag McCrackenUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Arjan S GosalFaculty of Science and Technology, Centre for Ecology, Environment and Sustainability, Bournemouth University, Poole, United Kingdom.
James M BullockUK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Given the negative environmental impacts of intensive agriculture, there is an urgent need to reduce the impact of food production on biodiversity. Ecological restoration of farmland could potentially contribute to this goal. While the positive impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity are well established, less evidence is available regarding impacts on economic development and employment. Potentially, prospects for economic development could be enhanced by ecological restoration though increased provision of ecosystem services, on which some economic activity depends. Here we examined this issue through the development of contrasting land use scenarios for the county of Dorset, southern England. Two scenarios of future agricultural expansion were compared with two scenarios of landscape-scale ecological restoration and the current situation. Impacts on provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) were explored using InVEST models and proxy values for different land cover types. Impacts on economic employment were examined using an economic input-output model, which was adjusted for variation in ES flows using empirically determined ES dependency values for different economic sectors. Using the unadjusted input-output model, the scenarios had only a slight economic impact (≤ 0.3% Gross Value Added, GVA). Conversely, when the input-output model was adjusted to take account of ES flows, GVA increased by up to 5.4% in the restoration scenarios, whereas under the scenario with greatest agricultural expansion, GVA was reduced by -4.5%. Similarly, employment increased by up to 6.7% following restoration, compared to declines of up to -5.6% following maximum agricultural expansion. These results show that the economic contribution of rural land is far greater than that attributable to agricultural production alone. Landscape-scale restoration of agricultural land can potentially increase the contribution of farmland to economic development and employment, by increasing flows of multiple ES to the many economic sectors that depend on them.

Indexed as

Economic DevelopmentModels, EconomicAgricultureConservation of Natural ResourcesEnglandHumans

Identifiers

PMID33667265
PMCPMC7935295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.