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

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.

Reducing risks by transforming landscapes: Cross-scale effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services.

Globally, anthropogenic environmental change is exacerbating the already vulnerable conditions of many people and ecosystems. In order to obtain food, water, raw materials and shelter, rural people modify forests and other ecosystems, affecting the supply of ecosystem services that contribute to livelihoods and well-being. Despite widespread awareness of the nature and extent of multiple impacts of land-use changes, there remains limited understanding of how these impacts affect trade-offs among ecosystem services and their beneficiaries across spatial scales. We assessed how rural communities in two forested landscapes in Indonesia have changed land uses over the last 20 years to adapt their livelihoods that were at risk from multiple hazards. We estimated the impact of these adaptation strategies on the supply of ecosystem services by comparing different benefits provided to people from these land uses (products, water, carbon, and biodiversity), using forest inventories, remote sensing, and interviews. Local people converted forests to rubber plantations, reforested less productive croplands, protected forests on hillsides, and planted trees in gardens. Our results show that land-use decisions were propagated at the landscape scale due to reinforcing loops, whereby local actors perceived that such decisions contributed positively to livelihoods by reducing risks and generating co-benefits. When land-use changes become sufficiently widespread, they affect the supply of multiple ecosystem services, with impacts beyond the local scale. Thus, adaptation implemented at the local-scale may not address development and climate adaptation challenges at regional or national scale (e.g. as part of UN Sustainable Development Goals or actions taken under the UNFCCC Paris Agreement). A better understanding of the context and impacts of local ecosystem-based adaptation is fundamental to the scaling up of land management policies and practices designed to reduce risks and improve well-being for people at different scales.