Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39133856›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Optimizing restoration: A holistic spatial approach to deliver Nature's Contributions to People with minimal tradeoffs and maximal equity.

Trisha Gopalakrishna, Piero Visconti, Guy Lomax, Esther Boere, Yadvinder Malhi, Parth Sarathi Roy, Pawan K Joshi, Giacomo Fedele, Ping Yowargana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Trisha GopalakrishnaDepartment of Geography, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1448-4224
Piero ViscontiBiodiversity and Natural Resources Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analyses, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria.
Guy LomaxGlobal Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9561-1506
Esther BoereBiodiversity and Natural Resources Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analyses, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-3863-8731
Yadvinder MalhiEnvironmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom.
Parth Sarathi RoyDistinguished Fellow, Food and Land Use Alliance- India, New Delhi 110016, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6803-6785
Pawan K JoshiSchool of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India.ORCID 0000-0002-6307-0167
Giacomo FedeleBetty and Gordon Moore Centre for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202.ORCID 0000-0001-9238-1020
Ping YowarganaBiodiversity and Natural Resources Program, International Institute of Applied Systems Analyses, Laxenburg A-2361, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-4854-0044

Funding

Frank Jackson Foundation (The Frank Jackson Foundation) 000000Leverhulme Trust 000000Oxford India Sustainable Development Centre 000000UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) EP/S022074/1UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) NE/S000011/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecosystem restoration is inherently a complex activity with inevitable tradeoffs in environmental and societal outcomes. These tradeoffs can potentially be large when policies and practices are focused on single outcomes versus joint achievement of multiple outcomes. Few studies have assessed the tradeoffs in Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) and the distributional equity of NCP from forest restoration strategies. Here, we optimized a defined forest restoration area across India with systematic conservation planning to assess the tradeoffs between three NCP: i) climate change mitigation NCP, ii) biodiversity value NCP (habitat created for forest-dependent mammals), and iii) societal NCP (human direct use of restored forests for livelihoods, housing construction material, and energy). We show that restoration plans aimed at a single-NCP tend not to deliver other NCP outcomes efficiently. In contrast, integrated spatial forest restoration plans aimed at achievement of multiple outcomes deliver on average 83.3% (43.2 to 100%) of climate change mitigation NCP, 89.9% (63.8 to 100%) of biodiversity value NCP, and 93.9% (64.5 to 100%) of societal NCP delivered by single-objective plans. Integrated plans deliver NCP more evenly across the restoration area when compared to other plans that identify certain regions such as the Western Ghats and north-eastern India. Last, 38 to 41% of the people impacted by integrated spatial plans belong to socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, greater than their overall representation in India's population. Moving ahead, effective policy design and evaluation integrating ecosystem protection and restoration strategies can benefit from the blueprint we provide in this study for India.

Indexed as

BiodiversityClimate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesForestsEcosystemEnvironmental Restoration and RemediationHumansIndiabiodiversityclimate change mitigationreforestationsocietal needsspatial prioritization

Identifiers

PMID39133856
PMCPMC11348303

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.