Search

Large‐scale ecological restoration is crucial for effective biodiversity conservation and combating climate change. However, perspectives on the goals and values of restoration are highly diverse, as are the different approaches to restoration e.g. ranging from the restoration of cultural ecosystems to rewilding. We assess how the future of nature is envisioned in participatory scenarios, focusing on which elements of rewilding and nature contributions to people have been considered in scenario narratives across Europe. We used the Nature Futures Framework archetypes as a template to synthesize pluralistic perspectives of nature. We found that different values of nature are often represented as counteracting elements and fail to integrate the plural views of nature. Nature as Culture was the main archetype found in the scenarios, usually associated with positive impacts on the non‐material benefits to people. Intrinsic values of nature (i.e., Nature forNature) were associated with positive impacts on regulating benefits and negative impacts on material benefits, being the only archetype of future associated with positive impacts on all three components of rewilding. Nature for Society was associated with moderate positive impacts on material and regulatory nature contributions to people. Business as usual futures were associated with negative impacts on regulating and non‐material benefits to people and on all three components of rewilding. Our results highlight two major gaps in the scenarios that should be addressed in participatory restoration planning and models. Firstly, there is a paucity of spatially explicit approaches, with most studies failing to transform the results of participatory scenario planning into model projections. Secondly, we found scenarios that explored co‐benefits between multiple nature perspectives were overall missing from the literature. Novel scenario narratives and approaches that explore synergies among different nature values are needed to design future large‐scale restoration where biodiversity recovery and human well‐being are intrinsically linked and fostered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National and local governments need to step up efforts to effectively implement the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity to halt and reverse worsening biodiversity trends. Drawing on recent advances in interdisciplinary biodiversity science, we propose a framework for improved implementation by national and subnational governments. First, the identification of actions and the promotion of ownership across stakeholders need to recognize the multiple values of biodiversity and account for remote responsibility. Second, cross‐sectorial implementation and mainstreaming should adopt scalable and multifunctional ecosystem restoration approaches and target positive futures for nature and people. Third, assessment of progress and adaptive management can be informed by novel biodiversity monitoring and modeling approaches handling the multidimensionality of biodiversity change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rewilding has emerged as an audacious conservation approach aiming at restoring wild species interactions and their regulation of ecosystem processes by focusing on the key role of species that have been extensively extirpated by humans. Rewilding has gained increasing attention from scientists, conservationists and the mass-media. Yet, it has raised highly divergent perspectives as to which ecological processes and species assemblages should be restored. Here we argue that a pragmatic and immediate approach to rewilding unequivocally focused on preserving and restoring the structural and functional complexity of ecosystems must become a primary component of biodiversity conservation. We propose a process-oriented formulation of the rewilding hypothesis as a general guide to assess the conservation benefits of reverting defaunation. Finally, we identify the need for a framework where the benefits, risks, and costs of rewilding can be evaluated in relation to restoration baselines and the intensity of interventions required to achieve conservation goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]