UN DECADE ON ECOSYSTEM RESTORAT ION
OP IN ION ART ICLE
Ten people-centered rules for socially sustainable
ecosystem restoration
Marlène Elias1,2 , Matt Kandel3 , Stephanie Mansourian4 , RuthMeinzen-Dick5 ,
Mary Crossland6 , Deepa Joshi7 , Juliet Kariuki8, Lynn C. Lee9 , Pamela McElwee10 ,
Amrita Sen11,12 , Emily Sigman13 , Ruchika Singh14, Emily M. Adamczyk15 , Thomas Addoah16,
Genevieve Agaba3 , Rahinatu S. Alare17 , Will Anderson18, Indika Arulingam7,
SG̱iidsḴung Vanessa Bellis19, Regina Birner8, Sanjiv De Silva7, Mark Dubois20 , Marie Duraisami14,
Mike Featherstone21, Bryce Gallant7,22, Arunima Hakhu7,22, Robyn Irvine9 , Esther Kiura6,
Christine Magaju6 , Cynthia McDougall23 , Gwiisihlgaa Daniel McNeill19, Harini Nagendra24 ,
TranHuuNghi25, Daniel K. Okamoto26, AnaMaria PaezValencia6, Tim Pagella27 , Ondine Pontier28 ,
Miranda Post9, GaryW. Saunders29 , Kate Schreckenberg30 , Karishma Shelar31, Fergus Sinclair6,27 ,
Rajendra S. Gautam32, Nathan B. Spindel26 , Hita Unnikrishnan12,33 ,
Gulx̱a taa’a gaagii ng.aang NadineWilson9, LeighWinowiecki6
As the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration begins, there remains insufficient emphasis on the human and social dimensions of
restoration. The potential that restoration holds for achieving both ecological and social goals can only be met through a shift
toward people-centered restoration strategies. Toward this end, this paper synthesizes critical insights from a special issue on
“Restoration for whom, by whom” to propose actionable ways to center humans and social dimensions in ecosystem restoration,
with the aim of generating fair and sustainable initiatives. These rules respond to a relative silence on socio-political issues in di
Sacco et al.’s “Ten golden rules for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits”
on socio-political issues and offer complementary guidance to their piece. Arranged roughly in order from pre-intervention,
design/initiation, implementation, through the monitoring, evaluation and learning phases, the 10 people-centered rules are:
(1) Recognize diversity and interrelations among stakeholders and rightsholders’; (2) Actively engage communities as agents of
change; (3) Address socio-historical contexts; (4) Unpack and strengthen resource tenure for marginalized groups; (5) Advance
equity across its multiple dimensions and scales; (6) Generate multiple benefits; (7) Promote an equitable distribution of costs,
risks, and benefits; (8) Draw on different types of evidence and knowledge; (9) Question dominant discourses; and (10) Practice
inclusive and holisticmonitoring, evaluation, and learning.We contend that restoration initiatives are only tenable when the issues
raised in these rules are respectfully addressed.
Key words: equity, rightsholders, social inclusion, stakeholders, tenure, UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration
Author contributions: all authors conceived the paper and drafted “rules” as inputs; ME,
Implications for Practice MK, SM, RMD analyzed and grouped inputs and wrote the manuscript; all authors
reviewed and edited the manuscript.
• The potential that restoration holds for enhancing liveli-
1
hoods and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Multifunctional Landscapes, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Via di
San Domenico, 1, 00153 Rome, Italy
can only be met through a shift toward people-centered 2Address correspondence to M. Elias, email marlene.elias@cgiar.org
restoration strategies. 3School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of Southampton,
Building 44, University Road, Southampton SO17 1BJ, U.K.
• A people-centered approach to restoration must recog- 4Mansourian.org, University of Geneva, 24 Rue du Général-Dufour, 1211 Genève 4,
nize: rightsholders and diverse stakeholders and their Switzerland
5
interrelations; political-economic histories; tenure; com- Environment and Production Technology Division, International Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI), 1201 I Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, U.S.A.
munities as agents of change; equity; multiple restoration 6World Agroforestry (ICRAF), United Nations Avenue, Gigiri, PO Box 30677, Nairobi
benefits; distributional issues; diverse evidence and 00100, Kenya7International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 127 Sunil Mawatha, Battaramulla
knowledges; contextualized narratives; and holistic mon- 10120, Sri Lanka
8
itoring, evaluation, and learning. Social and Institutional Change in Agricultural Development, University of
Hohenheim, Institut 490c, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
Restoration Ecology 1 of 8
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
Introduction et al. 2021), and other ecosystems. Unlike another recent call
As the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration begins, a problem for socially just restoration that focuses on actions at different
confronts us: top-down restoration approaches are often prescrip- scales (Osborne et al. 2021), our rules apply across scales and fol-
tive, ecologically focused, and fail to recognize the importance of low the life cycle of restoration interventions to show intervention
humans in nature—starting with the ways they use maps devoid points for explicit consideration of social dimensions (Fig. 1).
of social dimensions to prioritize areas to be restored (Erbaugh
et al. 2020). Calls to “engage stakeholders” are too generalizing 1. Recognize Diversity and Interrelations Among Restoration
and fail to acknowledge the webs of power, political-economic Stakeholders and Rightsholders
motivations, inequalities, and tensions to be addressed to reconcile “Engaging stakeholders” is the first principle of forest landscape
diverse interests, priorities, and worldviews through restoration. restoration (Besseau et al. 2018) and of the SER’s “International
Even the SER “Social Benefits Wheel” insufficiently considers Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restora-
the complex power relations, negotiations, contestations, and value tion” (Gann et al. 2019), and the second “golden rule” from di
judgments that restoration entails (see Gann et al. 2019). Too often, Sacco et al. (2021). Yet, in practice, stakeholder identification
social issues get relegated to the local level rather than considering
the human dimensions required for successful restoration, includ-
9
ing issues of voice and legitimacy, in shaping global agendas and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve,and Haida Heritage Site, Skidegate, British Columbia V0T 1S1, Canada
activities at multiple scales (Elias et al. 2021; Joshi et al. 2021). 10Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
In light of these shortcomings, we propose 10 people- 55 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520, U.S.A.11Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology
centered rules to support socially sustainable ecosystem Kharagpur, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
12
restoration—that which sustains the restored landscapes, Azim Premji University, Bangalore, India13Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, Yale University, 55 Hillhouse Avenue, New
socio-political arrangements (i.e. institutions) and resource man- Haven, CT 06520, U.S.A.
agement processes that underpin them. These rules respond to a 14World Resources Institute India, LGF, AADI, 2 Balbir Saxena Marg, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016, India
relative silence in di Sacco et al.’s (2021) “Ten golden rules for 15Department of Zoology and Biodiversity Research Centre, University of British
reforestation”with respect to socio-political issues, although we Columbia, 4200-6270 University Boulevard, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z4,
welcome their inclusion of community engagement and eco- Canada16Department of Humanities, Political and Social Sciences, ETH Zurich,
nomic benefits in their otherwise biophysically focused recom- Haldeneggsteig 4, 8006 Zürich, Switzerland
17
mendations. To adopt di Sacco et al.’s terminology, we refer to Department of Environmental Science, C.K. Tedam University of Technology and
Applied Sciences, PO Box 24, Navrongo, Ghana
“rules” that are actionable and practical, rather than high-level 18Global Restoration Initiative, World Resources Institute, 10 G Street NE, Suite
principles. These rules complement the multitude of largely 800, Washington, DC 20002, U.S.A.19Haida Fisheries Program, 133 Front Street, Queen Charlotte, British Columbia V0T
eco-centric principles developed for restoration (e.g. Besseau 1S1, Canada
et al. 2018; Gann et al. 2019) as well as the “Principles for 20Resilient Small Scale Fisheries Program, CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-
Ecosystem Restoration to Guide the United Nations Decade Food Systems (FISH), WorldFish, West Gyogone, Bayint Naung Road, InseinTownship, Yangon 11181, Myanmar
2021–2030” (FAO et al. 2021). In particular, our rules unpack 21Pacific Urchin Harvesters Association, 12740 Trites Road, Richmond, British
and expand upon Principle 2, which emphasizes “inclusive Columbia V7E 3R8, Canada22Water, Land and Ecosystems, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, “Jal Tarang”, Near
and participatory governance, social fairness and equity from Smruti Apartment, Behind IRMA Gate, Mangalpura, Anand 388001, Gujarat, India
23
the start and throughout the process and outcomes.” Gender Research Theme, CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems
(FISH), WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960 Bayan Lepas, Pulau
Our rules build on efforts to shift restoration discourse and Pinang, Malaysia
practice from an ecologically centered to a “pluralistic socio- 24School of Development, Azim Premji University, Survey No 66, Burugunte Village,
” “ Bikkanahalli Main Road, Sarjapura, Bangalore, Indiacentric mindset that offers opportunities for win–win (and 25Tropenbos Việt Nam, 149 Tran Phu Street, Phuoc Vinh, Hue, 49000 Thua Thien Hue,
sometimes triple-win) scenarios that can achieve ecological res- Vietnam
26
toration while simultaneously delivering food security, poverty Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, 319 Stadium Dr,Tallahassee, FL 32304, U.S.A.
alleviation, and broader socioeconomic development goals” 27School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG, U.K.
28
(Djenontin et al. 2018; see also Mansourian 2017). The rules Nearshore Science, Hakai Institute, 303-1100 Island Hwy, Campbell River, British
Columbia, Canada
are meant to support a contextual, evolving, and sustainable res- 29Centre for Environmental and Molecular Algal Research, Department of Biology,
toration practice informed by critical reflection of complex University of New Brunswick, PO Box 4400, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 5A3,
Canada
social equity considerations. We suggest that restoration out- 30Geography Department, King’s College London, 40 Bush House (North East Wing),
comes are only tenable when the overarching issues raised in Aldwych, London WC2B 4BG, U.K.
31
these rules are respectfully addressed. Center for Policy Design, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and theEnvironment, Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bangalore 560 064,
Karnataka, India
32Institute of Livelihood Research and Training, 3rd Floor, Surabhi Arcade, Troop
Bazar, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana 500001, India
33
The 10 Rules Urban Institute, The University of Sheffield, 219 Portobello, Sheffield S1 4DP, U.K.
Developed for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, © 2021 The Authors. Restoration Ecology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on
behalf of Society for Ecological Restoration.
among others, our rules follow from a special issue in Ecological This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Restoration (Elias et al. 2021). They apply to reforestation, like di NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,
Sacco et al.’s (2021), but equally to restoration of marine ecosys- provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and nomodifications or adaptations are made.
tems (Lee et al. 2021), lakes (Sen et al. 2021), wetlands (Joshi doi: 10.1111/rec.13574
2 of 8 Restoration Ecology
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
Figure 1. Ten people-centered rules for sustainable ecosystem restoration.
is complex, and their engagement can be fraught with power diverse rights, motivations, aspirations, constraints, opportunities,
inequalities (Robinson et al. 2021). Stakeholders in restoration and embedded networks and power relations is critical for effective
operate at multiple levels: from multinational corporations financ- engagement, in relevant ways, at the right times.
ing carbon offsets to local communities relying on natural resources Representatives in restoration initiatives may not have the
for food and livelihoods (Mansourian 2021). Recognizing their perceived legitimacy of the group they are meant to represent.
Restoration Ecology 3 of 8
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
For example, community leaders may not represent the best embedded in multi-scalar social and political processes (Elias
interests of their entire community (Kandel et al. 2021), and et al. 2021). Market-based approaches that inadequately grapple
diverse groups of local men and women may have different with perceptions of historical inequities and injustices may lead
perspectives on restoration (Crossland et al. 2021; Kariuki & to elite capture (McElwee & Nghi 2021). Competing resource
Birner 2021; Singh et al. 2021). Intersectional identities medi- tenure claims are often rooted in legal pluralism and centuries-
ate access and rights, knowledge, priorities, and the abilities of old, complex processes like state formation, migration and
different actors to engage, decide, and benefit in/from settlement, and capitalist expansion (Meinzen-Dick & Pradhan
restoration. 2002; Peluso & Lund 2011; Sikor et al. 2017).
To understand the intricacies of social relations and equitably Assessing whether restoration sites are imbued with active or
engage diverse rightsholders and stakeholders, restoration teams latent natural resource-related tensions (e.g. between farmers
may require capacity-strengthening and partners who are well con- and pastoralists) can avoid triggering or exacerbating conflict
nected and trusted by key groups (Gornish et al. 2021). Building and jeopardizing project legitimacy (Kandel et al. 2021).
trust with and among rightsholders and stakeholders takes time Collaboratively unpacking socio-historical trajectories with
and calls for deliberate effort and investment (Lee et al. 2021). rights-holders and stakeholders may reveal important nuances
in perceptions and inform engagement strategies (Reed et al.
2020; Mansourian 2021; Sen et al. 2021). Risk assessments
2. Actively Engage Communities as Agents of Change and risk mitigation planning should consider the potential
At the core, restoration initiatives should center on communities impact of historical grievances, and the need to adopt conflict-
as agents of change, and on their values, priorities, aspirations, sensitive restoration approaches (Lange 2004).
and capacities (Sen et al. 2021; Sigman & Elias 2021; Singh
et al. 2021). Communities have the power and capacity to enact
and sustain local change much more effectively than top-down 4. Unpack and Strengthen Resource Tenure for Marginalized
programs. By supporting the collective agency of local actors in Groups
deciding whether, what and how restoration projects should hap- Tenure fundamentally shapes who has authority and incentives to
pen within their community/territory, setting priorities, plans, participate in restoration. Secure tenure provides assurance that
implementing, and monitoring through collective action, initia- investing in the land will reap benefits, instead of losing land
tives can build on local knowledge and motivations. rights as restored lands become more valuable to others (Lawry
Communities may not always have all the capacities that res- et al. 2017; Kandel et al. 2021). Since many restoration initiatives
toration initiatives call for, particularly where meetings, land- involve informal land or resource owners, focusing only on for-
use plans or monitoring processes use unfamiliar language or mal ownership is inadequate and can exacerbate inequalities.
formal “scientific” criteria (Evans et al. 2018). Trusted Landscape-level restoration covers complex mosaics of land
organizational brokers can help build community capacity in uses and tenure, including private household use (e.g. agricultural
organizing, technical planning, or leadership on monitoring pro- lands), shared community resources, or commons, and protected
cesses. Where there are trusted leaders, social solidarity, and rel- areas, with overlapping bundles of rights to particular resources
atively strong local institutions, including well-functioning (e.g. land, trees, carbon) held by different individuals or entities.
resource user groups, approaches such as payments for environ- The degree of formal recognition and tenure security vary across
mental services may create incentives for collective action; but different types of rights. Women or youth within households can
they can also raise challenges where rules are imposed without be excluded from processes—and benefits—that only involve for-
consultation or are poorly understood (Kerr et al. 2014). malized land or resource owners, such as (typically male) house-
Instead of seeing communities as passive “beneficiaries” or hold heads (Sijapati Basnett et al. 2017; Kariuki & Birner 2021).
focusing on what they lack to engage in restoration initiatives Where community rights over commons like village grazing
as externally defined, programs and projects can recognize what lands, forests, or water bodies are recognized, local government
communities have, and adapt their rules and modalities to or user groups may be formally involved in restoration planning.
emphasize those assets and reduce power asymmetries In other areas, local rights over the commons are commonly over-
(Di Gregorio et al. 2008; Lee et al. 2021). For example, meetings looked. The situation is often worse for transhumant pastoralists
can be held in communities on a rotating basis in local languages and forest-dependent communities, including Indigenous peoples,
rather than at administrative quarters in official languages. in areas that the state claims as protected. Restoration efforts that
Appreciative inquiry (Whitney & Trosten-Bloom 2010) and fail to understand complex tenure arrangements and claims can
adaptive collaborative management (Armitage et al. 2009) are further marginalize and exclude groups that lack formal rights,
approaches that can build on local capacities to support self- in some cases leading to their dispossession through “green grabs”
determined change. (Fairhead et al. 2012).
Restoration can strengthen the tenure security of marginal-
ized groups and their decision-making power through formal
3. Address Socio-Historical Contexts recognition of their resource rights (Cronkleton et al. 2017).
Although restoration initiatives generally consider ecological Land titling is not without risks, however: in Vietnam, for exam-
histories (Gann et al. 2019), they often overlook socio-historical ple, using land tenure certificates as motivation for tree planting
trajectories, and how drivers of ecosystem degradation are projects incentivized land grabbing (McElwee & Nghi 2021).
4 of 8 Restoration Ecology
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
Projects should conduct comprehensive tenure assessments to values (Reyes-Garcia et al. 2019; Lee et al. 2021; Sen et al.
identify the range of rightsholders’ and of stakeholders’ resource 2021). These outcomes hold importance for current and future
claims (McLain et al. 2018). generations, who may lose out from present-day transactions
with long term, unfavorable consequences for the environment
they inherit. Monitoring and evaluation frameworks should cap-
5. Advance Equity Across Its Multiple Dimensions and Scales ture these multiple benefits, with attention to how to meaning-
Rarely is equity explicitly addressed in restoration initiatives fully assess social outcomes (Rule 10).
(Wells et al. 2021). Commonly used equity frameworks To be sustainable, forward-looking restoration must account
(e.g. Fraser 2009; McDermott et al. 2013) draw attention to four for local aspirations. Ultimately, the question remains about
interrelated dimensions. The first concerns recognition of the who determines which social values from ecosystems are to be
legitimacy of different stakeholders (Rule 1), and their rights, restored or protected (Elias et al. 2021). Stakeholder convenings
knowledge systems, values, and priorities in restoration initia- to map and decide such priorities cannot be fully representative;
tives. The procedural dimension refers to representation and therefore, care must be taken to avoid these being dominated by
meaningful participation, voice and influence of different actors political elites, who might then capture many of the benefits
in restoration; which helps shape the distribution of the costs, from interventions (McElwee & Nghi 2021).
benefits, and risks of restoration (Rule 7). Contextual equity
refers to factors such as historical relations, patterns of resource
access, and power dynamics that embed the other three dimen-
sions and mediate the equity outcomes of restoration initiatives. 7. Promote an Equitable Distribution of Costs, Risks, and
Although all dimensions are critical, interventions often limit Benefits
their attention to distributional aspects that are more easily Restoration initiatives may generate different environmental
observed and quantified (Friedman et al. 2018). (e.g. carbon sequestration, enhanced biodiversity) and human
Equity issues are common across scales. For instance, project wellbeing (e.g. employment, rights) benefits, alongside costs—
locations and objectives may be determined by state agencies, monetary, opportunity (e.g. of foregone land use or income), or
large private sector actors, or NGOs, leading to an inequitable labor-related (e.g. terracing, planting trees). Risks include social
spatial distribution of restoration resources and disproportionate tensions as initiatives may change power dynamics, and displace
weight given to these stakeholders’ priorities. Sigman and Elias or dispossess local land users as land use and values change.
(2021) question the fairness of such processes, and of shifting Distinct groups, such as local women and men, often identify
the burden of restoration from richer nations that disproportion- and prioritize different costs, risks, and benefits (Pham
ately cause degradation to poorer nations. et al. 2016).
Equity issues at a given scale can arise among different Rarely are benefits and costs equitably distributed, and risks,
groups, such as across gender (Crossland et al. 2021), age, eth- which can be particularly acute for marginalized groups, are
nic, or socio-economic groups (Kariuki & Birner 2021), often overlooked and poorly mitigated (Covelli Metcalf et al.
between governments and Indigenous or local communities 2015). For instance, womenmay provide labor and skills for res-
(Lee et al. 2021), and spatially among actors located closer to toration without receiving an equitable share of benefits, partic-
or farther away from restoration sites (Kandel et al. 2021). ularly when these are linked to formal land ownership
Inter-generational equity issues arise as current land uses affect (Kariuki & Birner 2021). Distribution may differ temporally,
future ones, and the distribution of costs and benefits is shared as processes like planting native species involve long-term
(or not) across generations. The understanding of equity may investments or opportunity costs with delayed returns.
differ or be contested and should be explored among and Rightsholders and stakeholders are better positioned to receive
between rightsholders and stakeholder groups. Indicators and benefits and share costs when they have a voice and influence
tools customized to specific contexts can help identify and mea- over restoration processes and decisions, thereby incentivizing
sure gender and inter-generational (in)equities, including distri- support for restoration (Verdone 2015).
butional issues (Grabowski et al. 2020). Restoration initiatives should comprise strategies and approa-
ches at various levels and work with multiple rightsholders and
stakeholders to define the aims, scope, and kinds of benefits they
6. Generate Multiple Benefits, Including Social Benefits value, the costs and risks they may face, and measures to share
Improvements in quality of life should result alongside those in them equitably. This requires understanding what equity means
ecology from restoration (Erbaugh & Oldekop 2018). Simple to them and how it can be transparently assessed. Cost–benefit
measures of wellbeing are often monetary. For example, pay- analyses ought to consider the broad range of benefits restoration
ments for ecosystem services schemes reduce ecological values can generate as well as their distribution from the onset (see Rule
to services that can be monetized (Kariuki & Birner 2021). Yet, 5), including immaterial and social benefits (Sen et al. 2021),
equally and sometimes more valuable are numerous other cul- opportunity costs (e.g. time and labor), and trade-offs for different
tural and social benefits, which are more difficult to quantify, groups, with fair compensation provided at appropriate timescales
monetize and trade. Restored ecosystems can play a socially (e.g. medium-term subsidies until ecosystem services are restored)
irreplaceable role in providing a sense of belonging, preserving to affected groups (McElwee & Nghi 2021). Impartial grievance
or revitalizing socio-cultural identity and spiritual or cultural redress mechanisms must ensure that initiatives are accountable
Restoration Ecology 5 of 8
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
to affected actors, particularly marginalized groups (Sijapati Bas- different types of evidence and knowledge (Rule 8) and interdis-
nett et al. 2017). ciplinary collaborations can help ensure that popular misconcep-
tions do not drive restoration initiatives and impede alternative
restoration visions and pathways (Kandel et al. 2021).
8. Draw on Different Types of Evidence and Knowledge
Recognizing different types of evidence and knowledge means
asking “who determines what quali es as evidence” and “whose 10. Practice Inclusive and Holistic Monitoring, Evaluation andfi
knowledge counts”? Co-production is often reduced to the inte- Learning (MEL)
gration of rightsholders’ (i.e. rightsholders’) and stakeholders’ Effective MEL includes feedback loops that incorporate
(i.e. stakeholders’) views and knowledge into externally defined timely sharing, feedback, and reflections on data among
projects and research agendas (Latulippe & Klenk 2020). Yet, decision-makers, including rightsholders and stakeholders, to
genuine co-production means engaging these groups right from support equitable, sustainable, and “successful” restoration ini-
the start, and truly learning from diverse knowledge systems tiatives. Definitions of “success” vary, but commonly include
(Lee et al. 2021; Robinson et al. 2021). Evidence can be stronger dimensions of ecological sustainability, social wellbeing, and
when derived from different methodological traditions and epis- economic efficiency (Pagdee et al. 2006), and cultural and spiri-
temologies, including local and traditional knowledge (LTK), tual values (Evans et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2021). Tracking progress
citizen/community science, and qualitative and quantitative toward these outcomes is important as what is measured typically
approaches. LTK provides contextualized, historical, dynamic, commands attention and investment. Nuanced assessments draw-
and perceptual information that often cannot be instrumentally ing on mixed methods are important for internal learning, and to
collected (McElwee et al. 2020). While integrating LTK with build credibility and accountability upward (toward funders and
scientific methods may be useful in field experiments actors commissioning initiatives) and downward (toward local
(di Sacco et al. 2021), tensions may arise as LTK is generally communities).
place-based and rooted in tacit, experiential learning in contrast Restoration initiatives should assess quality not just quantity
to more reductionist Western scientific methods (Goldman et al. (e.g. numbers of hectares restored) across multiple objectives
2018). People who are comfortable with these multiple ways of (Kariuki & Birner 2021; McElwee & Nghi 2021). They should
knowing the world are uniquely positioned to consider these consider intended and unintended ecosystem (e.g. rise in inva-
knowledge systems together (Bartlett et al. 2012). sive species), social (e.g. accentuation of inequality), and eco-
Integration and consensus often serve as guiding principles for nomic (e.g. loss of income-generating opportunities)
co-production, yet a pragmatic approach recognizes probable ten- consequences in the short and longer terms and at different
sions and contestations and seeks constructive dialog among and scales, as ecological and social dynamics will change over time
between rightsholders and stakeholders (Turnhout et al. 2020). and space (Lee et al. 2021; McElwee & Nghi 2021). Monitoring
This requires robust project communication and learning strate- ought to engage and respond to diverse priorities and values of
gies, which can be embedded within monitoring and evaluation rightsholders and stakeholders (Bloomfield et al. 2019).
frameworks that also recognize that restoration is a long-term pro- Participatory monitoring, which enables local people to decide
cess (Reed et al. 2020). Iterative approaches to sustainability (leg- what, how, and when to measure, who does the measuring, and to
acy) planning should include different types of evidence and collect and analyze data that respond to local concerns, can sup-
knowledge, from the planning phase to the development of indi- port social learning and improve decision-making, knowledge
cators for tracking progress (Dale et al. 2019). sharing, stakeholder capacities, and empowerment (Evans et al.
2018). Privileging the voices of marginalized groups in the
assessment process can validate their knowledge, shift power into
9. Question Dominant Discourses their hands, and lead to locally demanded actionable change
The need to move beyond simple narratives of tree planting and (Holland & Ruedin 2012). Participatory monitoring also supports
carbon sequestration has recently received welcome attention. attitudinal and perceptual shifts among community members, and
However, questioning dominant discourses also requires exam- fosters collaboration and improved natural resource governance
ining the politics of popular narratives and framings that shape (Cundill & Fabricius 2010).
restoration practice and policy (Joshi et al. 2021). For instance,
ecosystem degradation is often blamed on “unsustainable”
land-use practices such as overgrazing. Yet, such attributions Conclusion
reveal little about the structures and contextual factors driving The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration provides unique
these processes, including policies and actors operating across opportunities for simultaneously improving environmental out-
multiple scales (Lind et al. 2020), and interconnections among comes and human wellbeing. Yet, there are also serious risks.
drivers and their causal chain, which are best understood from Ignoring the social dimensions of environmental initiatives has
a political economy/ecology perspective. led not only to failure in achieving ecological objectives, but
The power to frame problems is salient in global environmental also to dispossessions, land grabs, conflict, and further margin-
governance (Sikor et al. 2017), wherein international and state alization of vulnerable groups. Our 10 people-centered rules
actors define what should be restored, how, and why, often to can help improve the tenability of restoration, and contribute
the exclusion of local rightsholders and stakeholders. Embracing to greater inclusion, poverty reduction, and other SDGs.
6 of 8 Restoration Ecology
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
Still, more can be done. For example, the rules need to engage di Sacco A, Hardwick KA, Blakesley D, Brancalion PH, Breman E, Cecilio
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peo- Rebola L, et al. (2021) Ten golden rules for forest reforestation to optimize
ples, and to address issues related to rightsholders particularly carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global—
Change Biology 27:1328–1348
Indigenous peoples within their traditional territories—and gov-
Djenontin IN, Foli S, Zulu LC (2018) Revisiting the factors shaping outcomes for
ernance more fully than could be explored here. Our rules are forest and landscape restoration in sub-saharan africa: a way forward for
intended to complement ecological guidance to further unpack, policy, practice and research. Sustainability 10:906
expand, and operationalize established principles, and to shift Elias M, Joshi D, Meinzen-Dick R (2021) Restoration for whom, by whom? A
focus from eco-centric toward people-centered restoration. Res- feminist political ecology of restoration. Ecological Restoration 39:3–15
toration requires an inter- and trans-disciplinary approach that Erbaugh JT, Oldekop JA (2018) Forest landscape restoration for livelihoods
valorizes natural and social dimensions as well as plural knowl- and well-being. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 32:
76–83
edge and value systems, centers on communities, and fosters Erbaugh JT, Pradhan N, Adams J, Oldekop JA, Agrawal A, Brockington D, et al.
collaboration on more equal footing. (2020) Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local
communities. Nature Ecology and Evolution 4:1472–1476
Evans K, Guariguata MR, Brancalion PH (2018) Participatory monitoring to con-
Acknowledgments nect local and global priorities for forest restoration. Conservation Biology
32:525–534
The authors gratefully acknowledge H. Zaremba for her assis- FAO, IUCN CEM & SER (2021) Principles for ecosystem restoration to guide
tance with copyediting and referencing, J. Falik for our info- the United Nations Decade 2021–2030. Rome: FAO.
graphic, and S. Murphy for his support and advice. The Fairhead J, Leach M, Scoones I (2012) Green grabbing: a new appropriation of
authors want to thank the anonymous reviewers who provided nature? The Journal of Peasant Studies 39:237–261
Fraser N (2009) Scales of justice: reimagining political space in a globalizing
valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, as world. Columbia University Press, New York, NY
well as CGIAR Research Programs on Forests, Trees and Agro- Friedman RS, Law EA, Bennett NJ, Ives CD, Thorn JPR,Wilson KA (2018) How
forestry; Policies, Institutions and Markets; Water, Land and just and just how? A systematic review of social equity in conservation
Ecosystems; and the CGIAR Trust Fund Donors. research. Environmental Research Letters 13:1–13
Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, et al. (2019)
International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restora-
tion. Restoration Ecology 27:S1–S46
LITERATURE CITED Goldman MJ, Turner MD, Daly M (2018) A critical political ecology of human
Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt I-J, dimensions of climate change: epistemology, ontology, and ethics. Wiley
et al. (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 9:e526
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:95–102 Gornish ES, McCormick M, Begay M, Nsikani MM (2021) Sharing knowledge
Bartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A (2012) Two-eyed seeing and other lessons to improve ecological restoration outcomes. Restoration Ecology 3:
learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together indigenous and e1701345
mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Grabowski PP, Djenontin I, Zulu L, Kamoto J, Kampanje-Phiri J, Darkwah A,
Studies and Sciences 2:331–340 Egyir I, Fischer G (2020) Gender-and youth-sensitive data collection
Besseau P, Graham S, Christophersen T (2018) Restoring forests and landscapes: tools to support decision making for inclusive sustainable agricultural
the key to a sustainable future. Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape intensification. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 12:1–7
Restoration. International Union of Forest Research Organizations Holland J, Ruedin L (2012) Monitoring and evaluating empowerment
(IUFRO), Vienna, Austria processes. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Stockholm,
Bloomfield G, Meli P, Brancalion PH, Terris E, Guariguata MR, Garen E (2019) Sweden
Strategic insights for capacity development on forest landscape restoration: Joshi D, Gallant B, Hakhu A, De Silva S, McDougall C, Dubois M, et al. (2021)
implications for addressing global commitments. Tropical Conservation Ramsar Convention and the wise use of wetlands: rethinking inclusion.
Science 12 (November):194008291988758 Ecological Restoration 39:36–44
Covelli Metcalf E, Mohr JJ, Yung L, Metcalf P, Craig D (2015) The role of trust Kandel M, Agaba G, Alare RS, Addoah T, Schreckenberg K (2021) Assessing
in restoration success: public engagement and temporal and spatial scale in social equity of farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) interven-
a complex social-ecological system. Restoration Ecology 23:315–324 tions: findings from Ghana. Ecological Restoration 39:64–76
Cronkleton P, Artati Y, Baral H, Paudyal K, Banjane MR, Liu JL, Tu TY, Kariuki J, Birner R (2021) A conceptual framework for exploring equity in eco-
Putzel L, Birhane E, Kassa H (2017) How do property rights reforms pro- logical restoration: the case of a market-based programme in Kenya. Eco-
vide incentives for forest landscape restoration? Comparing evidence from logical Restoration 39:77–89
Nepal, China and Ethiopia. International Forestry Review 19:8–23 Kerr JM, Vardhan M, Jindal R (2014) Incentives, conditionality and collective
Crossland M, Paez Valencia AM, Pagella T, Magaju C, Kiura E, Winowiecki L, action in payment for environmental services. International Journal of the
Sinclair F (2021) Onto the farm, into the home: how intrahousehold gender Commons 8:595–616
dynamics shape land restoration in Eastern Kenya. Ecological Restoration LangeM (2004) Building institutional capacity for conflict sensitive development
39:90–107 and humanitarian practise. International Alert, London, United Kingdom
Cundill G, Fabricius C (2010) Monitoring the governance dimension of natural Latulippe N, Klenk N (2020) Making room and moving over: knowledge co-pro-
resource co-management. Ecology and Society 15:15 duction, Indigenous knowledge sovereignty and the politics of global envi-
Dale VH, Kline KL, Parish ES, Eichler SE (2019) Engaging stakeholders to ronmental change decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental
assess landscape sustainability. Landscape Ecology 34:1199–1218 Sustainability 42:7–14
Di Gregorio M, Hagedorn K, Kirk M, Korf B, McCarthy N, Meinzen-Dick RS, Lawry S, Samii C, Hall R, Leopold A, Hornby D, Mtero F (2017) The impact of
et al. (2008) Property rights, collective action, and poverty: the role of insti- land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productiv-
tutions for poverty reduction. CAPRi Working Paper 81. International ity in developing countries: a systematic review. Journal of Development
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. Effectiveness 9:61–81
Restoration Ecology 7 of 8
Ten people-centered rules for restoration
Lee LC, McNeill GD, Ridings P, Featherstone M, Okamoto DK, Spindel NB, Pham TT, Mai YH, Moeliono M, Brockhaus M (2016) Women’s participation in
et al. (2021) Chiixuu Tll iinasdll: indigenous ethics and values lead to eco- REDD+ national decision-making in Vietnam. International Forestry
logical restoration for people and place in Gwaii Haanas. Ecological Resto- Review 18:334–344
ration 39:45–51 Reed J, Ros-Tonen MAF, Sunderland TC (2020) Operationalizing integrated
Lind J, Sabates-Wheeler R, Caravani M, Kuol LB, Nightingale DM (2020) landscape approaches in the tropics. Center for International Forestry
Newly evolving pastoral and post-pastoral rangelands of Eastern Africa. Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
Pastoralism 10:1–4 Reyes-Garcia V, Fern
andez-Llamazares A, McElwee PD, Wilson SJ, Molnar Z,
Mansourian S (2017) Governance and forest landscape restoration: a framework to Ollerer K (2019) Indigenous peoples and local communities’ contributions
support decision-making. Journal for Nature Conservation 37:21–30 to ecological restoration activities. Restoration Ecology 27(1):3–8
Mansourian S (2021) Disciplines, sectors, motivations and power relations in Robinson JM, Gellie N, MacCarthy D, Mills JG, O’Donnell K, Redvers N (2021)
Forest Landscape Restoration. Ecological Restoration 39:16–26 Traditional ecological knowledge in restoration ecology: a call to listen
McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multi- deeply, to engage with, and respect Indigenous voices. Restoration Ecology
dimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem ser- 29:e13381
vices. Environmental Science and Policy 33:416–427 Sen A, Unnikrishnan H, Nagendra H (2021) Restoration of urban water com-
McElwee P, Nghi TH (2021) Assessing the social benefits of tree planting by mons: navigating social-ecological fault lines and inequities. Ecological
smallholders in Vietnam: lessons for large-scale reforestation programs. Restoration 39:120–129
Ecological Restoration 39:52–63 Sigman E, Elias M (2021) Three approaches to restoration and their implications
McElwee PD, Fern
andez-Llamazares A, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Babai D, for social inclusion. Ecological Restoration 39:27–35
Bates P, Galvin K, et al. (2020) Integrating indigenous and local knowledge Sijapati Basnett B, Elias M, Ihalainen M, Paez Valencia AM (2017) Gender mat-
(ILK) into large-scale ecological assessments: The experience of the IPBES ters in Forest Landscape Restoration: A framework for design and evalua-
global assessment. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1666–1676 tion. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia
McLain R, Lawry S, Guariguata MR, Reed J (2018) Toward a tenure- Sikor T, He J, Lestrelin G (2017) Property rights regimes and natural resources: a
responsive approach to forest landscape restoration: a proposed tenure conceptual analysis revisited. World Development 93:337–349
diagnostic for assessing restoration opportunities. Land Use Policy 104: Singh R, Shelar K, Duraisami M, Anderson W, Gautam RS (2021) Equitable and
103748 inclusive landscape restoration planning: learning from a restoration oppor-
Meinzen-Dick RS, Pradhan R (2002) Legal pluralism and dynamic property tunity assessment in India. Ecological Restoration 39:108–119
rights. CAPRI Working Paper No. 22. International Food Policy Research Turnhout E, Metze T, Wyborn C, Klenk N, Louder E (2020) The politics of
Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. co-production: participation, power, and transformation. Current Opinion
Osborne T, Brock S, Chazdon R, Chomba S, Garen E, Gutierrez V, Lave R, in Environmental Sustainability 42:15–21
Lefevre M, Sundberg J (2021) The political ecology playbook for ecosys- Verdone M (2015) A cost-benefit framework for analyzing forest landscape res-
tem restoration: Principles for effective, equitable, and transformative land- toration decisions. International Union for Conservation of Nature
scapes. Global Environmental Change 70:102320 (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
Pagdee A, Kim Y, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest manage- Wells HBM, Kirobi EH, Chen CL, Winowiecki LA, Vågen T-G, Ahmad MN,
ment successful: a metastudy from community forests throughout the et al. (2021) Equity in ecosystem restoration. Restoration Ecology 29:
world. Society and Natural Resources 19:33–52 e13385
Peluso NL, Lund C (2011) New frontiers of land control: introduction. Journal of Whitney D, Trosten-Bloom A (2010) The power of appreciative inquiry. 2nd ed.
Peasant Studies 38:667–681 Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA
Coordinating Editor: Stephen Murphy Received: 22 June, 2021; First decision: 1 September, 2021; Revised: 2 October,
2021; Accepted: 3 October, 2021
8 of 8 Restoration Ecology