ecological restoration essay

Four reasons why restoring nature is the most important endeavour of our time

Ecologist and PhD Researcher, Department of Landscape, University of Sheffield

Disclosure statement

Jake M. Robinson (@_jake_robinson) receives funding for his PhD from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). He is affiliated with inVIVO Planetary Health (@inVIVO_Planet), the Healthy Urban Microbiome Initiative (Twitter: @HUMIglobal) and Greener Practice (@GreenerPractice).

University of Sheffield provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

Ecosystem degradation is a global phenomenon. It is expected that by 2050, 95% of Earth’s land will be degraded. A whopping 24 billion tons of soil have already been eroded by unsustainable agricultural practices. This land degradation is the leading cause of losses of ecosystem functions such as nutrient cycling and climate regulation. These functions sustain life on Earth.

It is recognised that this constitutes a crisis. At a UN summit this September, more than 70 world leaders – bar those from the US, China or Brazil – signed the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature , promising to clamp down on pollution, eliminate the dumping of plastic waste and strengthen environmental agreements worldwide. This is a good step, but as UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed noted at the event, to “rescue the planet’s fragile tapestry of life, we need vastly more ambition and action”.

Next year will mark the start of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration , aimed at addressing the enormous task of restoring degraded habitats across the planet. Against a backdrop of ecological crisis, this declaration is a chance to revive our life support system – the natural world. The UN has highlighted several important actions to empower a global restoration movement, such as investment in restoration and research, celebrating leadership, shifting behaviours and building up the next generation.

There is no doubt this is an ambitious plan. But it must be translated into action. Such pledges can actually work against action by creating the illusion that something is being done. There is often a gap between rhetoric and reality. Indeed, the world’s nations have failed to fully achieve any of the 20 global biodiversity targets set by the UN a decade ago. Humanity is at a crossroads. What we decide to do now will affect many future generations to come.

New research is constantly demonstrating the urgency of the situation. One recent study focusing on the consequences of indiscriminate deforestation , for example, suggests we have a less than 10% probability of surviving the next 20-40 years without facing a catastrophic collapse if we remain on our current trajectory.

Here, I summarise four key reasons why ecological restoration is the most important endeavour of our time. If we are to reverse the ecological crisis that we are currently facing, and protect biodiversity for itself and for future generations, we must turn pledges into immediate action and restore our ecosystems on a global level.

1. Healthy soils sustain life on Earth

Our food systems depend on healthy soils. The revival of plants, crops and forests depends on the revival of degraded soils. This depends on the restoration of the complex relationships between the soil, the plants and a plethora of microbes, including fungi, bacteria and viruses .

Healthy soils thrive with these microscopic lifeforms: they are essential for plant growth and protection against diseases. Soil degradation not only threatens the intrinsic value of the ecosystems, but also our ability to produce healthy and sustainable foods. And protecting and reviving our soils and their microbial friends is key not only for humans, but for the diverse yet declining plant and animal species that depend on them.

2. Our relationship with nature is failing

Ecosystem degradation is contributing to our failing relationship with nature: people’s accepted view of ecological conditions are continually lowered, a phenomenon known as shifting baseline syndrome .

Restoring our emotional connection to nature (known as “nature connectedness”) is therefore important. People who feel more connected to nature are more likely to engage with actions such as wildlife conservation, recycling, and supporting environmental organisations. These are essential to reverse the ecological and climate crises we face. Importantly, nature connectedness can increase over time through frequent nature engagement.

Simple actions such as acknowledging the good things you see in nature each day, whether it be a robin’s dawn chorus, or the vibrant colours of wildflowers, can do this. Check out these pathways to achieving a closer connection with nature .

3. Indigenous cultures and knowledge is being lost

Indigenous culture is intimately connected to the land. The erosion of ecosystems can therefore result in the erosion of culture – including knowledge and language . This knowledge is often hyper-localised and has evolved over thousands of years. It is vital to the health of many ecosystems and the livelihoods of communities across the globe.

Ecological restoration can help to sustain the rich diversity of human cultures on our planet by supporting relationships between humans and the environment that are mutually advantageous. Protecting the rights and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and supporting indigenous research leadership has an important role to play in this process. This includes dismantling the view that traditional ecological knowledge is simply a data source that can be extracted.

Ecological restoration should ideally be viewed as reciprocal: a mutually beneficial relationship. Reciprocity is the basis for relationships in many indigenous cultures, and will be fundamental to long-term, successful restoration.

4. Human health is dependent on ecosystem health

The restoration of ecosystems is intrinsically linked to the restoration of human health. The COVID-19 pandemic, which has so far caused over a million deaths worldwide, is a poignant reminder of how ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence and spread of novel pathogens . To combat these emerging global conditions and protect the lives of future generations, we need to protect and restore our habitats and biodiversity.

In addition, biodiversity loss could be making us sick . Restoring environmental microbiomes (the diverse networks of microbes in a given environment) through revegetation may have an important impact on our immune systems. My research explores the relationship between the environment, the microbiome and human health. Through landscape design and restoration , we may be able to help restore microbial relationships, and as a result, our health and wellbeing.

As Robin Wall Kimmerer, professor of environmental and forest biology, eloquently articulated in her book Braiding Sweetgrass : “As we work to heal the earth, the earth heals us.”

Let’s make the next decade the ecologically transformative movement that our planet so desperately needs.

• Biodiversity
• United Nations
• Deforestation
• Future of food
• Interdisciplinarity
• Climate crisis

Faculty of Law - Academic Appointment Opportunities

Operations Manager

Senior Education Technologist

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

2020 Clarivate Journal Citation Reports Impact Factor: 1.432

" Ecological Restoration was instrumental in awakening restoration in North America, and prospers as an invaluable publication for those whose approach to restoring ecosystems includes ecology, culture and all that goes into making a project successful." —Eric Higgs, author of "Nature By Design"

" Ecological Restoration brings together the two essential components of restoration: science and community. This journal speaks to people and the process of making restoration happen as well as the monitoring and research that underpin it." — Leslie Sauer, author of "The Once and Future Forest"

Special Issues

Urban Ecological Restoration, Ecological Restoration , vol. 26 #3 Climate Change and Restoration, Ecological Restoration , vol. 27 #3 Education and Outreach in Ecological Restoration, Ecological Restoration , vol. 28 #2 Restoration in Mexico, Ecological Restoration , vol. 28 #3 Protection and Restoration—Are We Having an Effect?, Ecological Restoration , vol. 29 #1 – 2 The Design of Ecological Corridors, Ecological Restoration , vol. 30 #4 Status and Challenges of Grassland Restoration in the United States, Ecological Restoration , vol. 31 #2 Restoration for Whom? Ecological Restoration , vol. 39 #1–2

2015 Communications Honor Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects

Join Our Community of Manuscript Reviewers

We are a peer-reviewed journal and every submission receives a careful evaluation from knowledgeable scientists or practitioners of restoration. As our field grows and the number of submissions rises, we have an urgent need for more manuscript reviewers. We particularly need specialists in grassland ecology, coastal ecology, and soil processes, but welcome new partners from any area of restoration.

If you would like to be considered as a reviewer for Ecological Restoration , please complete our survey .

Call for Papers

Ecological Restoratio n would like to foster closer links with the design community, including landscape architects. The editor, Steven Handel, is looking for landscape architects to write about their projects for the journal. Click here to read the notice as published in Landscape Architecture Magazine , December 2011. For more information, or to propose an article, contact the editorial staff at [email protected] .

Environment and Land Management Journals Package Subscription

Society discounts, available on project muse and jstor, related books.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Rewilding and restoring nature in a changing world

Contributed equally to this work with: Benis N. Egoh, Charity Nyelele

* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Earth System Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California, United States of America

¶ ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

Affiliation Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, United States of America

Affiliation UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

Affiliation School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Current address: Sussex Sustainability Research Programme, Brighton, United Kingdom

Affiliation School of Life Sciences, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

• Benis N. Egoh, 
• Charity Nyelele, 
• Karen D. Holl, 
• James M. Bullock, 
• Steve Carver, 
• Christopher J. Sandom

Published: July 14, 2021

• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254249
• Reader Comments

Citation: Egoh BN, Nyelele C, Holl KD, Bullock JM, Carver S, Sandom CJ (2021) Rewilding and restoring nature in a changing world. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254249. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254249

Editor: RunGuo Zang, Chinese Academy of Forestry, CHINA

This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding: NA

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Increased anthropogenic pressure, invasive alien species and climate change, among other factors, continue to negatively impact and degrade the planet’s ecosystems and natural environment. As nature declines at alarming rates, the loss of biodiversity is not only a huge concern, but it also undermines the many ecological, social, human health and wellbeing benefits nature provides us. Numerous reports, including those from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, https://www.ipbes.net/ ), have documented this unprecedented decline in nature across space and time. For example, the 2019 IPBES global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services shows that 75% of the global land surface has been significantly altered, 66% of the ocean area is experiencing increasing cumulative impacts, and over 85% of wetland area has been lost (Brondizio et al. [ 1 ]). All the recent IPBES reports from global to regional scales and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 (Reid et al. [ 2 ]), point to one thing: the urgency for us to act to save nature and humankind. Ecological restoration has emerged as a powerful approach to combat degradation in land and water, mitigate climate change, and restore lost biodiversity and key ecosystem functions and services. In June this year (2021), the United Nations (UN) is launching the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration ( https://www.decadeonrestoration.org/ ), an ambitious program to trigger a global movement for restoring the world’s ecosystems. In line with that, PLOS ONE commissioned this Collection on Rewilding and Restoration. This is consistent with the year’s Earth Day theme, "Restore Our Earth”, which calls on everyone to be a part of the change and to focus on natural processes, emerging green technologies and innovative thinking that can restore the world’s ecosystems.

When PLOS ONE launched this Rewilding and Restoration collection, we were asked to identify exciting advances and emerging trends observed recently in the areas of rewilding and restoration. We highlight: 1) increasing recognition of the value of restoration in ecosystems worldwide, particularly in a time of rapid global environmental change; 2) understanding and incorporating benefits and beneficiaries in supporting and financing restoration initiatives; 3) exploring the theoretical underpinning for the importance of ‘megabiota’–the largest plants and animals–for driving biosphere scale processes such as ecosystem total biomass, resource flows and fertility; and 4) showcasing success stories on how rewilding nature in the developing world is reversing the impact of invasive species ( https://everyone.plos.org/2020/08/28/taking-a-walk-on-the-wild-side/ ). The broad range of publications in this Collection cover all these areas and much more, making it one of the most exciting collections on rewilding and restoring nature in recent times. The two main themes that emerge from the collection are related to restoration success stories (>40%) and best practices in restoration around the globe (>30%). The selected studies in this Collection, which cover six continents and at least 13 countries, were carried out in diverse settings and contexts, such as marine, fresh water and terrestrial habitats including forests and grasslands, rivers and coastal areas, woodlands, wetlands, and mountains (e.g., Sansupa et al. [ 3 ], Broughton et al. [ 4 ], Schulz et al. [ 5 ], Ndangalasi et al. [ 6 ]). Features of interest included in this Collection span from bacteria through large vertebrates (e.g., wild dogs, elephants) to ecosystems and their functions. These articles also showcase a range of methodological approaches from a series of small-scale field experiments (Wasson et al. [ 7 ]), wildlife tracking and remote sensing (Mata et al. [ 8 ]), and large-scale models to predict restoration outcomes (D’Acunto et al. [ 9 ]).

This rich collection from PLOS ONE addresses a range of related and interesting issues: 1) Different restoration approaches, from passive rewilding to active target driven restoration, are needed to achieve different restoration goals in different circumstances. 2) Nature is complex and context dependent and so diverse approaches to restoration will help ensure different taxonomic groups and ecosystem functions and services are supported. 3) Developing and recording best practice for different restoration approaches will greatly aid the achievement of restoration aims. 4) Measuring restoration success needs comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and quantifiable metrics to account for potentially complex trade-offs. 5) Arguments for restoration based on ecocentric and nature’s contribution to people both have merit and appeal to different audiences, but it should not be assumed goals derived from these different ways of thinking will be aligned. This is a diverse collection of restoration and rewilding research, and that diversity neatly reflects the diverse approaches and goals needed for restoration to be successful.

The articles in this issue discuss case studies that span a continuum of restoration interventions from removing anthropogenic disturbance and allowing the ecosystem to regenerate naturally (i.e., passive restoration or rewilding) to intensive interventions with ongoing management. For example, Broughton et al. [ 4 ] found that secondary woodlands in England that were adjacent to ancient woodlands recovered naturally over a period of a few decades. Díaz-García et al. [ 10 ] compared recovery of amphibians, ants, and dung beetles in naturally regenerating and actively planted tropical forests in Mexico; they found that passive and active restoration approaches were similarly effective in restoring species richness of all guilds, but that forest specialists were enhanced through active planting. In contrast, other studies show that intensive anthropogenic interventions such as transplanting corals (Ferse et al. [ 11 ]), or controlling invasive species and reintroducing fauna (Roberts et al. [ 12 ]) are necessary to facilitate recovery. The diversity of responses reported highlights the need to tailor restoration strategies to the local ecosystem type, the species of interest, and the level of prior disturbance.

Similarly, studies in this collection demonstrate complex interactions between wild and domestic herbivory, controls on grazing intensity and spatial ecological variables, making generalizations difficult and stressing the need for context-specific studies and understanding to guide management of disturbance regimes. One study in African savanna (Young et al. [ 13 ]) explores the impact of grazing on biodiversity and shows that plots protected from herbivory by large wild herbivores for the past 25 years have developed a rich diversity of woody vegetation species which could disappear upon rewilding depending on level of predation and associated behavioral patterns. However, they also show that individuals of the dominant tree species in this system, Acacia drepanolobium , greatly reduce their defense in the absence of browsers; hence the sudden arrival of these herbivores resulted in far greater elephant damage than for conspecifics in adjacent plots that had been continually exposed to herbivory. Similarly, Peacock et al. [ 14 ] suggests that cattle negatively impact regeneration of gallery forests in Bolivia and alter both the structure and composition of the shrub and ground layers with potential consequences for the diversity and abundance of wildlife. Previous studies including Hanke et al. [ 15 ] have shown increases in species diversity and ecological functioning with grazing. These results suggest that the impact of grazing on ecosystems, species and ecosystem functioning depends on the system, the grazing species, and their numbers, and overall carrying capacity.

Several best practices are highlighted in the Collection. Larson et al. [ 16 ] created a model to determine an “optimal maximum distance” that would maximize availability of native prairie seed in the midwestern United States (US) from commercial sources while minimizing the risk of novel invasive weeds via contamination. Pedrini et al. [ 17 ] test seed pretreatment methods to enhance vegetation establishment from direct seeding and illustrate how a range of life stage transitions including germination, emergence and survival of native grass species used in restoration programs can be improved by seed coating with salicylic acid. Roon et al. [ 18 ] used a before-after-control-impact experiment across three stream networks in the northwestern to provide guidance on riparian thinning to provide optimal stream habitat. These best practices are key in our ability to replicate in different places and achieving restoration success.

Determining the success of ongoing restoration efforts is crucial to assessing management actions but requires comprehensive, multi-dimensional, and quantifiable metrics and approaches consistent with restoration goals. Despite the plethora of restoration projects around the world, it is only now that we are beginning to understand whether the restoration goals have been met and what trade-offs exist (Mugwedi et al. [ 19 ]). The importance of measuring restoration outcomes against clearly specified goals and objectives cannot be overemphasized, as shown in a recent restoration study in China that aimed to improve carbon storage through tree planting but has severely depleted water resources (Zhao et al. [ 20 ]). Similarly, Valach et al. [ 21 ] show that productive wetlands restored for carbon sequestration quickly become net carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sinks although the trade-offs need to be further assessed. In their study exploring restoration success in South Africa, del Río et al. [ 22 ] improve our understanding on how techniques such as remote sensing can be used to measure restoration success.

As shown in this Collection and in other studies, trade-offs in restoration efforts are not uncommon and ultimately, restoration is successful when we can achieve restoration goals while minimizing trade-offs. The successful stories from the restoration interventions across different habitats and species showcased in the Collection (e.g., Sansupa et al. [ 3 ], Roon et al. [ 18 ], Valach et al. [ 21 ], Bouley et al. [ 23 ]) are a valuable addition to the science needed to advocate for restoration as a pathway to the recovery of previously degraded, damaged, or destroyed ecosystems. Reporting successful restoration outcomes can help increase buy-in for further restoration projects and increase funding availability for such projects. However, such buy-in can only occur if stakeholders are interested in the set restoration goals. For example, the need for climate mitigation has been used to justify several restoration programs around the world (Alexander et al. [ 24 ], Griscom et al. [ 25 ]). In this Collection, Matzek et al. [ 26 ] ask whether including ecosystem services as a restoration goal will engage a different set of values and attitudes than biodiversity protection alone. They found that support for habitat restoration is generally based on ecocentric values and attitudes, but that positive associations between pro-environmental behavior and egoistic values emerge when emphasis is placed on ecosystem service outcomes. They emphasize the notion that the ecosystem services concept garners non-traditional backers and broadens the appeal of ecological restoration as it is seen as a means of improving human well-being. Nevertheless, several studies (Bullock et al. [ 27 ], Egoh et al. [ 28 ], Newton et al. [ 29 ]) have shown that there can be trade-offs between biodiversity and services during restoration and among different services, so restoration aims need to be clear rather than assuming win-win outcomes. Indeed, previous studies including Berry et al. [ 30 ] have suggested that a broad spectrum of perspectives on biodiversity conservation exist and should be used as arguments for conservation actions, from intrinsic to utilitarian values. In their analysis, the main differences between types of arguments appeared to result from the espousal of ecocentric or anthropocentric viewpoints, rather than from differences between the various stakeholder groups. This suggests that to promote restoration goals, a broad range of restoration goals are needed, including those that are more anthropocentric such as economic development.

While the positive impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity are well established, less evidence is available regarding its impacts on economic development and employment. Although restoration efforts centered around economic development in Africa, such as the Working for Water Project and eThekwini forest restoration project in South Africa have generated strong support from government, not many such initiatives exist in other parts of the world (Mugwedi et al. [ 19 ]). In this collection, Newton et al. [ 29 ] examine the impacts of restoration on economic development and employment. They conclude that landscape-scale restoration or rewilding of agricultural land can potentially increase the contribution of farmland to economic development and employment, by increasing flows of multiple ecosystem services to the many economic sectors that depend on them. Indeed, restoration has contributed to the economy in many parts of the world leading to the framing of the term “restoration economy” or “green economy” which is now commonly used in the restoration literature (Bek et al. [ 31 ], Formosa et al. [ 32 ]). A recent report by Dasgupta [ 33 ] states that “our economies are embedded within Nature, not external to it”. While we are all looking forward to the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration launching this year, the uptake of restoration projects will depend on financing. Generating funds to support and sustain restoration projects is one of the biggest challenges facing restoration activities worldwide (FAO and Global Mechanism of the UNCCD [ 34 ]). The inclusion of a broad range of goals that span from biodiversity to anthropocentric goals such as those related to benefits of nature’s contribution to people to those that are purely development such as job creation may be the way forward.

• 1. Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat; 2019.
• 2. Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR, Chopra K, et al. Ecosystems and human well-being-Synthesis: A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 33. Dasgupta P. The economics of biodiversity: the Dasgupta review. London: HM Treasury; 2021.
• 34. FAO and Global Mechanism of the UNCCD. Sustainable Financing for Forest and Landscape Restoration-Opportunities, Challenges and the Way Forward. Liagre L, Lara Almuedo P, Besacier C, Conigliaro M, editors. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization; 2015.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 14 October 2020

Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration

• Bernardo B. N. Strassburg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8598-3020 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Alvaro Iribarrem 1 , 2 ,
• Hawthorne L. Beyer 5 ,
• Carlos Leandro Cordeiro 1 , 2 ,
• Renato Crouzeilles 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Catarina C. Jakovac 1 , 2 , 6 ,
• André Braga Junqueira 1 , 2 , 7 ,
• Eduardo Lacerda 1 , 2 , 8 ,
• Agnieszka E. Latawiec 1 , 2 , 9 , 10 ,
• Andrew Balmford 11 ,
• Thomas M. Brooks 12 , 13 , 14 ,
• Stuart H. M. Butchart   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1140-4049 11 , 15 ,
• Robin L. Chazdon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7349-5687 2 , 16 , 17 , 18 ,
• Karl-Heinz Erb   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8335-4159 19 ,
• Pedro Brancalion 20 ,
• Graeme Buchanan 21 ,
• David Cooper   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4538-205X 22 ,
• Sandra Díaz   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0012-4612 23 ,
• Paul F. Donald 11 , 15 , 21 ,
• Valerie Kapos   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5739-8262 24 ,
• David Leclère   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8658-1509 25 ,
• Lera Miles   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0377-5904 24 ,
• Michael Obersteiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6981-2769 25 , 26 ,
• Christoph Plutzar 19 , 27 ,
• Carlos Alberto de M. Scaramuzza 2 ,
• Fabio R. Scarano   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3355-9882 3 &
• Piero Visconti 25  

Nature volume  586 ,  pages 724–729 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

57k Accesses

440 Citations

1806 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Biodiversity
• Climate-change mitigation
• Conservation biology
• Restoration ecology

Matters Arising to this article was published on 07 September 2022

An Author Correction to this article was published on 30 August 2022

Matters Arising to this article was published on 13 July 2022

This article has been updated

Extensive ecosystem restoration is increasingly seen as being central to conserving biodiversity 1 and stabilizing the climate of the Earth 2 . Although ambitious national and global targets have been set, global priority areas that account for spatial variation in benefits and costs have yet to be identified. Here we develop and apply a multicriteria optimization approach that identifies priority areas for restoration across all terrestrial biomes, and estimates their benefits and costs. We find that restoring 15% of converted lands in priority areas could avoid 60% of expected extinctions while sequestering 299 gigatonnes of CO 2 —30% of the total CO 2 increase in the atmosphere, or 14% of total emissions, since the Industrial Revolution. The inclusion of several biomes is key to achieving multiple benefits. Cost effectiveness can increase up to 13-fold when spatial allocation is optimized using our multicriteria approach, which highlights the importance of spatial planning. Our results confirm the vast potential contributions of restoration to addressing global challenges, while underscoring the necessity of pursuing these goals synergistically.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Landscape management strategies for multifunctionality and social equity

Margot Neyret, Sophie Peter, … Peter Manning

Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water

Martin Jung, Andy Arnell, … Piero Visconti

Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Emily Nicholson, Angela Andrade, … David Obura

Data availability

All input datasets are available from the references cited. All output datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

R codes developed for and used in this analysis are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Change history

30 august 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05178-y

IPBES. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).

IPCC. An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes In Terrestrial Ecosystems (SRCCL) (World Meteorological Organization, 2019).

Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. M. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573 , 582–585 (2019).

ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. Bold nature retention targets are essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 2 , 1194–1195 (2018).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

IPBES. The IPBES Assessment Report on Land Degradation and Restoration (IPBES Secretariat, 2018).

Bastin, J. F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365 , 76–79 (2019).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chazdon, R. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends. Science 365 , 24–25 (2019).

Temperton, V. M. et al. Step back from the forest and step up to the Bonn challenge: how a broad ecological perspective can promote successful landscape restoration. Restor. Ecol . 27 , 705–719 (2019).

Google Scholar  

Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 3 , 62–70 (2019).

Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv . 5 , eaav3223 (2019).

ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mappin, B. et al. Restoration priorities to achieve the global protected area target. Conserv. Lett . 12 , e12646 (2019).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 313 , 58–61 (2006).

Joppa, L. N., Visconti, P., Jenkins, C. N. & Pimm, S. L. Achieving the convention on biological diversity’s goals for plant conservation. Science 341 , 1100–1103 (2013).

Montesino Pouzols, F. et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516 , 383–386 (2014).

Ando, A., Camm, J., Polasky, S. & Solow, A. Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation. Science 279 , 2126–2128 (1998).

Naidoo, R. et al. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105 , 9495–9500 (2008).

ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Beyer, H. L., Dujardin, Y., Watts, M. E. & Possingham, H. P. Solving conservation planning problems with integer linear programming. Ecol. Modell . 328 , 14–22 (2016).

Cabeza, M. & Moilanen, A. Design of reserve networks and the persistence of biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol . 16 , 242–248 (2001).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

European Space Agency. Climate Change Initiative (ESA CCI).   https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org/?q=node/158 (accessed May 2018).

Veldman, J. W. et al. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65 , 1011–1018 (2015).

Thomas, C. D. et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427 , 145–148 (2004).

Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Impacts of incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation on global species extinctions. Nat. Clim. Chang . 2 , 350–355 (2012).

ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Moment of truth for the Cerrado hotspot. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 1 , 0099 (2017).

IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2019-3  http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 10 December 2019).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol. Evol . 34 , 977–986 (2019).

Erb, K.-H. et al. Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass. Nature 553 , 73–76 (2018).

Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G. J. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 9575–9580 (2017).

IPCC. in Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) 3–24 (World Meteorological Organization, 2018).

Poorter, L. et al. Biomass resilience of Neotropical secondary forests. Nature 530 , 211–214 (2016).

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., da Fonseca, G. A. & Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403 , 853–858 (2000).

Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Increasing Agricultural Output While Avoiding Deforestation—A Case Study for Mato Grosso, Brazil (International Institute for Sustainability, 2012).

Latawiec, A. E., Strassburg, B. B. N., Brancalion, P. H. S., Rodrigues, R. R. & Gardner, T. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes. Front. Ecol. Environ . 13 , 211–218 (2015).

Anderson, C. B. et al. Determining nature’s contributions to achieve the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci . 14 , 543–547 (2019).

Martín-López, B. et al. Nature’s contributions to people in mountains: a review. PLoS ONE 14 , e0217847 (2019).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Latawiec, A. E., Strassburg, B. B. N., Valentim, J. F., Ramos, F. & Alves-Pinto, H. N. Intensification of cattle ranching production systems: socioeconomic and environmental synergies and risks in Brazil. Animal 8 , 1255–1263 (2014).

Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520 , 45–50 (2015).

Balmford, A. et al. The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nat. Sustain . 1 , 477–485 (2018).

Garnett, T. et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341 , 33–34 (2013).

Erb, K.-H. et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation. Nat. Commun . 7 , 11382 (2016).

Reyes-García, V. et al. The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol . 27 , 3–8 (2019).

Possingham, H. P., Bode, M. & Klein, C. J. Optimal conservation outcomes require both restoration and protection. PLoS Biol . 13 , e1002052 (2015).

Beresford, A. et al. Minding the protection gap: estimates of species’ range sizes and holes in the protected area network. Anim. Conserv . 14 , 114–116 (2011).

Rondinini, C. et al. Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 366 , 2633–2641 (2011).

Di Marco, M. et al. Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets. Conserv. Biol . 30 , 189–195 (2016).

Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547 , 441–444 (2017).

Venter, O. et al. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol . 12 , e1001891 (2014).

Joppa, L. N. et al. Filling in biodiversity threat gaps. Science 352 , 416–418 (2016).

Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M. & Campbell, B. M. An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conserv. Biol . 20 , 408–419 (2006).

Ban, N. C. et al. A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front. Ecol. Environ . 11 , 194–202 (2013).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 6229–6234 (2013).

Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67 , 534–545 (2017).

Robinson, T. P. et al. Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9 , e96084 (2014).

Gibbs, H. K., Brown, S., Niles, J. O. & Foley, J. A. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ. Res. Lett . 2 , 045023 (2007).

ADS   Google Scholar  

Baccini, A. et al. Estimated carbon dioxide emissions from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps. Nat. Clim. Chang . 2 , 182–185 (2012).

Saatchi, S. S. et al. Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three continents. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108 , 9899–9904 (2011).

Erb, K.-H. et al. A comprehensive global 5 min resolution land-use data set for the year 2000 consistent with national census data. J. Land Use Sci . 2 , 191–224 (2007).

IPCC. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, 2006).

Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on earth: a new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51 , 933–938 (2001).

Harrell, F. E. Jr et al. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.1-1.  https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Hmisc/Hmisc.pdf (2018).

Goldewijk, K. K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G. & De Vos, M. The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr . 20 , 73–86 (2011).

Fonseca, W. et al. Carbon accumulation in the biomass and soil of different aged secondary forests in the humid tropics of Costa Rica. For. Ecol. Manage . 262 , 1400–1408 (2011).

Guo, L. B. & Gifford, R. M. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta analysis. Glob. Change Biol . 8 , 345–360 (2002).

Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G. & Lehman, C. Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nat. Commun . 10 , 718 (2019).

Mitchard, E. T. et al. Uncertainty in the spatial distribution of tropical forest biomass: a comparison of pan-tropical maps. Carbon Balance Manag . 8 , 10 (2013).

Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12 , e0169748 (2017).

BirdLife International & NatureServe. Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World. Version 2018.1  http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis (BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World, 2018).

Beresford, A. et al. Poor overlap between the distribution of protected areas and globally threatened birds in Africa. Anim. Conserv . 14 , 99–107 (2011).

Staude, I. R. et al. Range size predicts the risk of local extinction from habitat loss. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr . 29 , 16–25 (2020).

Carrasco, L. R., Webb, E. L., Symes, W. S., Koh, L. P. & Sodhi, N. S. Global economic trade-offs between wild nature and tropical agriculture. PLoS Biol . 15 , e2001657 (2017).

Naidoo, R & Iwamura, T. Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: implications for conservation priorities. Biol. Conserv . 140 , 40–49 (2007).

Polasky, S. et al. Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol. Conserv . 141 , 1505–1524 (2008).

Sulser, T. B. et al. in Beyond a Middle Income Africa: Transforming African Economies for Sustained Growth with Rising Employment and Incomes (ReSAKSS Annual Trends and Outlook Report 2014 (eds. Badiane, O. et al.) Ch. 2 (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2014).

Robinson, S. et al. The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT): Model Description for Version 3 (IFPRI Discussion Paper 1483) (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), (2015).

IIASA & FAO. Global Agro-ecological Zones (GAEZ v.3.0) (IIASA & FAO, 2012).

Hoppe, R. A. Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report (EIB-132) (US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 2014).

Baležentis, T. et al. Decomposing dynamics in the farm profitability: an application of index decomposition analysis to Lithuanian FADN sample. Sustainability 11 , 2861 (2019).

Statistic Canada. Table 32-10-0136-01, Farm Operating Revenues and Expenses, Annual.   https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/59ca6332-391b-4fdf-bb3a-31e5e45f6bb7 (2008).

De Groot, R. S. et al. Benefits of investing in ecosystem restoration. Conserv. Biol . 27 , 1286–1293 (2013).

International Labour Organization. ILOSTAT database.   https://ilostat.ilo.org/data (accessed March 2020).

United Nations Statistics Division. UN Comtrade Database.   https://comtrade.un.org/ (accessed March 2020).

Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. What makes ecosystem restoration expensive? A systematic cost assessment of projects in Brazil. Biol. Conserv . 240 , 108274 (2019).

Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature 490 , 254–257 (2012).

Mueller, N. D. et al. Declining spatial efficiency of global cropland nitrogen allocation. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 31 , 245–257 (2017).

Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478 , 337–342 (2011).

Hornik, K. et al. SYMPHONY in R, an R interface to the SYMPHONY solver for mixed-integer linear programs.  http://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/rsymphony/ (2019).

Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42 , 331–345 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

B.B.N.S. acknowledges that this work was supported by the Serrapilheira Institute (grant number Serra-1709-19329). We acknowledge inputs from the Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity and experts from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. We are very grateful for the support provided by F. Gomes, J. Krieger, I. Leite, R. Capellão, G. Duarte, L. Martinez, L. Oliveira and D. Rocha in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifical Catholic University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Alvaro Iribarrem, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato Crouzeilles, Catarina C. Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Eduardo Lacerda & Agnieszka E. Latawiec

International Institute for Sustainability, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Alvaro Iribarrem, Carlos Leandro Cordeiro, Renato Crouzeilles, Catarina C. Jakovac, André Braga Junqueira, Eduardo Lacerda, Agnieszka E. Latawiec, Robin L. Chazdon & Carlos Alberto de M. Scaramuzza

Programa de Pós Graduacão em Ecologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, Renato Crouzeilles & Fabio R. Scarano

Botanical Garden Research Institute of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Bernardo B. N. Strassburg

School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

Hawthorne L. Beyer

Forest Ecology and Management Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Catarina C. Jakovac

Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

André Braga Junqueira

Department of Geography, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Brazil

Eduardo Lacerda

Department of Production Engineering, Logistics and Applied Computer Science, Faculty of Production and Power Engineering, University of Agriculture in Kraków, Kraków, Poland

Agnieszka E. Latawiec

School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Andrew Balmford, Stuart H. M. Butchart & Paul F. Donald

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland

Thomas M. Brooks

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines, Los Baños, The Philippines

Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia

BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK

Stuart H. M. Butchart & Paul F. Donald

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Robin L. Chazdon

World Resources Institute, Global Restoration Initiative, Washington, DC, USA

Tropical Forests and People Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

Institute of Social Ecology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Karl-Heinz Erb & Christoph Plutzar

Department of Forest Sciences, ‘Luiz de Queiroz’ College of Agriculture, University of São Paulo, Piracicaba, Brazil

Pedro Brancalion

RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Edinburgh, UK

Graeme Buchanan & Paul F. Donald

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), Montreal, Quebec, Canada

David Cooper

Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, CONICET and Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Córdoba, Argentina

Sandra Díaz

UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK

Valerie Kapos & Lera Miles

Ecosystem Services Management (ESM) Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

David Leclère, Michael Obersteiner & Piero Visconti

Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment, Oxford, UK

Michael Obersteiner

Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation Ecology and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Christoph Plutzar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

B.B.N.S. conceived the study, coordinated the development of the multicriteria approach, led the analyses and wrote the first version of the paper. A.I., H.L.B. and B.B.N.S. led the multicriteria modelling. T.M.B., R.C., R.L.C. and S.H.M.B. helped with the development of the multicriteria approach. A.I., H.L.B., C.L.C., E.L., C.C.J., A.B.J., R.C., K.-H.E. and B.B.N.S. developed input datasets. S.H.M.B., G.B., P.F.D., K.-H.E. and C.P. contributed data. D.C., C.A.d.M.S. and F.R.S. helped with the interface with policy applications. B.B.N.S., A.I., H.L.B., C.L.C., R.C., C.C.J., A.B.J., E.L., A.E.L., A.B., T.M.B., S.H.M.B., R.L.C., P.B., D.C., S.D., V.K., L.M., D.L., M.O. and P.V. analysed the results. All authors provided input into subsequent versions of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernardo B. N. Strassburg .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature thanks Simon Ferrier and Robin Naidoo for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended data fig. 1 converted lands and their estimated original ecosystem type..

a , Percentages of converted areas in each planning unit; current croplands and pasturelands are included as potentially restorable areas. b – f , Percentages of converted lands within each original ecosystem type: forests ( b ), natural grasslands ( c ), shrublands ( d ), wetlands ( e ) and arid areas ( f ). Areas in darker grey in b – f represent the current extent of each ecosystem type.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Benefits of ecosystem restoration for biodiversity conservation, the mitigation of climate change and associated costs.

a , Benefits for biodiversity were calculated as the number of avoided extinctions per hectare for all species combined. The map represents the starting situation with current vegetation cover before any restoration takes place. b , Benefits for climate change are calculated as the difference between the potential carbon stored after ecosystem restoration and the carbon currently stored in the agricultural lands. ‘Stock’ refers to carbon in the above- and belowground biomass and down to 30 cm in the soil, include above and belowground biomass and soil carbon sequestration. c , Costs consist of opportunity costs, based on the foregone agricultural benefits of areas allocated for restoration, and restoration implementation costs.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Areas potentially available for restoration and their relative priority across subregions.

a – f , For each of the 17 subregions of IPBES, the horizontal bars show their relative priority percentile for the main scenarios focused on biodiversity ( a ), climate change mitigation ( b ), minimizing costs ( c ), biodiversity and climate change mitigation ( d ) and all three criteria ( e ); the last panel ( f ) shows absolute areas. South America has the greatest extent of converted lands that are relatively evenly distributed in the top 50% of global priorities, whereas the Caribbean has the smallest extent of areas potentially available for restoration—but almost all of them are in the top 10% of global priorities. The patterns in relative priority for restoration for each subregion change substantially across the different restoration scenarios, which further highlights the importance of using multicriteria optimizations that take into account several benefits of restoration simultaneously.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Cost-efficiency of climate change mitigation for main scenarios.

The curves show, for the 5 main scenarios and across 20 targets ranging from 5% to 100%, the carbon value required to cover both opportunity and restoration costs. These results underscore the cost effectiveness of restoration as a climate mitigation option, as carbon values are in the lower range of low and medium mitigation costs according to the IPCC 1 .

Extended Data Fig. 5 Distribution of major ecosystem types that could be restored.

Dominant estimated predisturbance ecosystem type in each cell; for the fraction of each ecosystem type per cell, see Extended Data Fig. 1 .

Extended Data Fig. 6 Accuracy of original ecosystem-cover predictions.

a – f , The accuracy of the predictions of the original proportion of each ecosystem type in each planning unit was quantified using the root mean square error (r.m.s.e.). To better understand any heterogeneity in prediction accuracy, we calculated the r.m.s.e. separately for each of the five land-cover classes (forest, grassland, shrubland, wetland and desert) in addition to the overall r.m.s.e. Overall, predictive accuracy was excellent (total r.m.s.e 6.73%, f ) with relatively little variation among the five land-cover types: forests, 4.0% ( a ); grasslands, 1.7% ( b ); shrublands, 4.3% ( c ); wetlands, 1.2% ( d ); and arid areas, 2.6% ( e ).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Fraction of converted lands available for restoration after closing yield gaps.

Combining yield gaps for croplands and pasturelands, the map indicates the fraction of a planning unit that could be spared if 75% of its yield gap were to be closed.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Global and national priority areas for restoration.

For the multiple benefits scenario and 15% restoration target, areas in green are selected both in the globally unconstrained scenario and in a scenario constrained by national boundaries; areas in red are selected only in the global scenario and areas in blue are selected only in the national version of the scenario. A substantial fraction (69%) of global priority areas would not be restored using uniform national targets. As most of these areas are in lower-income countries, the results reinforce the role that international cooperation mechanisms such as REDD+ can have in achieving cost-effective global outcomes through restoration.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Sensitivity analysis with future land-use change.

a , b , In the pessimistic regional rivalries SSP3 scenario 83 , substantial conversion would happen until 2050 ( a ), and—as a consequence—some priority areas would shift towards newly converted areas of high endemic and threatened biodiversity that are also rich in carbon, in particular in Africa ( b ). c – f , Despite this, the restored fraction in each planning unit would be very similar to those based on 2015 land-use ( c ) (r.m.s.e. = 13%), and 2050 outcomes for biodiversity ( d ), climate ( e ) and costs ( f ) would be within the uncertainty range of 2015 estimates. Although the reduction in extinction debt would be slightly lower in 2050 (55% versus 60%), the extinction debt itself would be 25% higher (10% versus 8% in 2015), so absolute extinctions avoided would be higher.

Extended Data Fig. 10 Comparisons between potential biomass carbon stocks calculated in this study and other estimates.

Comparisons between our estimates of potential carbon stocks in biomass (above and below-ground) and estimates from ref. 24 : Forest Resources Assessment (FRA)-related map (FAO) and remote-sensing based map. Box plots are based on pixel-level estimates of carbon stocks per ha in each biome, have the same sample size (pixels) across maps, and show the median (vertical lines), the interquartile range (bounding boxes) minimum and maximum values (whiskers).

Supplementary information

Reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Strassburg, B.B.N., Iribarrem, A., Beyer, H.L. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586 , 724–729 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9

Download citation

Received : 14 August 2019

Accepted : 08 September 2020

Published : 14 October 2020

Issue Date : 29 October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Global conservation priorities for wetlands and setting post-2025 targets.

• Gong Huixin
• Huang Xiankai

Communications Earth & Environment (2024)

Meta-analysis shows the impacts of ecological restoration on greenhouse gas emissions

• Weixin Ding
• Quanfa Zhang

Nature Communications (2024)

Inputs of terrestrial dissolved organic matter in dam reservoirs during precipitation: impact on water quality and management

• Xingle Ning

Natural Hazards (2024)

Exploring the potential of topsoil pellets to improve native seedling establishment on degraded agricultural land

• Thomas P. Munro
• Todd E. Erickson
• Jodi N. Price

Plant and Soil (2024)

Conceptualising Sustainability as the Pursuit of Life

• Frederik Dahlmann

Journal of Business Ethics (2024)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Ecological Restoration Essays

The nuances of rewilding: striking a balance for sustainable conservation, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Urban forests of Moscow: typological diversity, succession status, and fragmentation assessment

• Research Article
• Published: 28 October 2023
• Volume 38 , pages 3767–3789, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ivan Kotlov   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3251-2778 1 , 2 ,
• Tatiana Chernenkova   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-2254 3 &
• Nadezhda Belyaeva   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8410-2714 3  

419 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Urban forests provide ecosystem services such as temperature regulation, air purification, carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation. It is important to perform baseline assessment and regular monitoring of biodiversity, vegetation dynamics and spatial structure of urban forests. Most cities suffer from the lack of a unified monitoring system. The heterogeneity of Moscow territory land use determines different functions and state of urban forests. To what extent are the forests of modern Moscow support natural resource and ecological potential, and what are the risks in maintaining the social and ecological needs of the population in the urban region?

Assessment of typological diversity, succession status and spatial structure of Moscow forests in the context of three sectors of different land use.

This study integrates typological (cenotic), succession and fragmentation approaches on the basis of remote sensing data. Field relevés were used for cenotic classification into forest formations and association groups. Random forest algorithm was used for cartographic modeling. Forest patches assigned with formations and groups of associations were subject of diversity, dynamics and spatial structure of forests analysis.

Current study presents the assessment of the composition and spatial structure of the Moscow forests in the context of three sectors of different anthropogenic pressure and land use. 11 forest formations and 33 association groups were identified. Overall accuracy of cartographic modeling was 59% for association groups, and 67% for formations. Unsatisfactory ability of forests to support social and ecological needs of residents was revealed especially in the central part of the city. The combination of low fragmentation metrics with a high proportion of long-term derivative forest types is critical for the sustainable existence of forest cover within city center. With distance from the center a fairly high typological diversity of forests is noted.

The combination of low fragmentation metrics with a high proportion of long-term derivative forest types is critical for the sustainable existence of the forest cover. Overall, the methodology and results of the work create a basis for regular monitoring of the Moscow forests, as well as in other urban areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Forest Landscape Dynamic and People’s Livelihood Dependency on Forest: A Study on Bankura District, West Bengal

Use of spatial pattern analysis to assess forest cover changes in the mediterranean region of turkey.

Nuri Bozali, Fatih Sivrikaya & Abdullah E. Akay

Assessing forest fragmentation in north-western Himalaya: a case study from Ranikhet forest range, Uttarakhand, India

Mohit Sharma, Anusheema Chakraborty, … P. K. Joshi

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abdullah H, Skidmore AK, Darvishzadeh R, Heurich M (2019) Sentinel‐2 accurately maps green‐attack stage of European spruce bark beetle (Ips typographus, L.) compared with Landsat‐8. Abstract Remote Sens Ecol Conserv 5(1):87–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/rse2.93

Arellano-Rivas A, Munguía-Rosas MA, De-Nova JA, Montiel S (2017) Effects of spatial patch characteristics and landscape context on plant phylogenetic diversity in a naturally fragmented forest. Trop Conserv Sci 10:1940082917717050. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082917717050

Article   Google Scholar  

Baines O, Wilkes P, Disney M (2020) Quantifying urban forest structure with open-access remote sensing data sets. Urban for Urban Green 50:126653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126653

Belyaeva N, Morozova O, Chernen’kova T, Korznikov K, Suslova YG (2022) Small-leaved forests of the center of the east European plain: ecology and regeneration prospects of native forests. Contemp Probl Ecol 15:817–830

Bohn U, Zazanashvili N, Nakhutsrishvili G (2007) The map of the natural vegetation of Europe and its application in the Caucasus Ecoregion. Bull Georgia Acad Sci 175:112–121

Google Scholar  

Brandtberg P-O, Lundkvist H, Bengtsson J (2000) Changes in forest-floor chemistry caused by a birch admixture in Norway spruce stands. For Ecol Manag 130:253–264

Breiman L (2001) Random forests. Mach Learn 45:5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

Byrne J, Sipe N (2010) Green and open space planning for urban consolidation—a review of the literature and best practice. Griffith University, Brisbane

Chernenkova TV, Morozova OV (2017) Classification and mapping of cenotic diversity of forests. Contemp Probl Ecol 10:738–747. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425517070034

Chernenkova K, Belyaeva NG, Morozova OV, Suslova EG, Puzachenko MY, Krenke AN (2019) Sustainable forest management tools for the Moscow region. Geogr Environ Sustain 12:35–56

Chernenkova TV, Kotlov IP, Belyaeva NG, Suslova EG, Morozova OV, Pesterova O, Arkhipova MV (2020a) Role of silviculture in the formation of Norway spruce forests along the southern edge of their range in the central Russian plain. Forests 11:778. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11070778

Chernenkova TV, Suslova EG, Morozova OV, Belyaeva NG, Kotlov IP (2020b) Forest biodiversity of the Moscow region. Ecosystems 4:61–144.  https://doi.org/10.24411/2542-2006-2020-10065

Chernenkova TV, Puzachenko M, Yu. Belyaeva, NG, Morozova OV (2019) Evaluation of the structure and composition of forests in Moscow region based on field and remote sensing data Izvestiya Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Ser Geogr 4:112–124. https://doi.org/10.31857/S2587-556620194112-124

Chokkalingam U, De Jong W (2001) Secondary forest: a working definition and typology. Int for Rev 3:19–26

Cochran WG (1977) Sampling techniques. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

Davies HJ, Doick KJ, Hudson MD, Schaafsma M, Schreckenberg K, Valatin G (2018) Business attitudes towards funding ecosystem services provided by urban forests. Ecosyst Serv 32:159–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.006

Endreny T, Santagata R, Perna A, Stefano CD, Rallo RF, Ulgiati S (2017) Implementing and managing urban forests: a much needed conservation strategy to increase ecosystem services and urban wellbeing. Ecol Model 360:328–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.07.016

Ferm A (1993) Birch production and utilization for energy. Biomass Bioenerg 4:391–404

Ferreira IJM, da Bragion G, Ferreira R, Benedito JHD, do Couto EV (2019) Landscape pattern changes over 25 years across a hotspot zone in southern Brazil. South For 81:175–184. https://doi.org/10.2989/20702620.2018.1542563

Forest Code of the Russian Federation. Government of Russian Federation, 2022.

Forest plan of the Moscow region for 2019–2028, 2018. Moscow Region Government. Forestry Committee of the Moscow Region.

Forman RTT, Godron M (1986) Landscape ecology. Wiley, New York

Gardner T (2010) Monitoring forest biodiversity: improving conservation through ecologically-responsible management. Routledge, Milton Park

Book   Google Scholar  

Gill S, Handley JF, Ennos R, Pauleit S (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environ 33:115–133. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.33.1.115

Gobron N, Pinty B, Verstraete MM, Widlowski JL (2000) Advanced vegetation indices optimized for up-coming sensors: Design, performance, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 38:2489–2505. https://doi.org/10.1109/36.885197

Gong J, Liu C, Huang X (2020) Advances in urban information extraction from high-resolution remote sensing imagery. Sci China Earth Sci 63:463–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-019-9547-x

Goranova OA, Atroshchenko LA, Bykova MV (2017) Integrated improvement of Moscow urban territories. Landscaping of improvement objects. Moscow City University of Management of the Government of Moscow

Grabska E, Frantz D, Ostapowicz K (2020) Evaluation of machine learning algorithms for forest stand species mapping using Sentinel-2 imagery and environmental data in the Polish Carpathians. Remote Sens Environ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112103

Graham MH (2003) Confronting multicollinearity in ecological multiple regression. Ecology 84:2809–2815. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-3114

Gribova S.A., Isachenko T.I. (1972) Vegetation mapping at survey scales // Field Geobotany. Nauka.

Gustafson EJ, Parker GR (1992) Relationships between landcover proportion and indices of landscape spatial pattern. Landsc Ecol 7:101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02418941

Haklay M, Weber P (2008) OpenStreetMap: user-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive Comput 7:12–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2008.80

Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, Hancher M, Turubanova SA, Tyukavina A, Thau D, Stehman SV, Goetz SJ, Loveland TR, Kommareddy A, Egorov A, Chini L, Justice CO, Townshend JRG (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342:850–853. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1244693

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hancock DW, Dougherty CT (2007) Relationships between Blue and Red‐based Vegetation Indices and Leaf Area and Yield of Alfalfa Crop Science 47(6): 2547–2556. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2007.01.0031

Hardt RA, Forman RT (1989) Boundary form effects on woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology 70:1252–1260

Hanski I, and Gilpin M (1991) Metapopulation dynamics: brief history and conceptual domain. Biol J Linn Soc 42(1–2): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00548.x

Heinrichs S, Ammer C, Mund M, Boch S, Budde S, Fischer M, Müller JH, Schöning I, Schulze E, Schmidt W, Weckesser M, Schall P (2019) Landscape-scale mixtures of tree species are more effective than stand-scale mixtures for biodiversity of vascular plants. Bryophytes Lichens for 10:73

Henriques M, Catry T, Belo JR, Piersma T, Pontes S, Granadeiro JP (2022) Combining multispectral and radar imagery with machine learning techniques to map intertidal habitats for migratory shorebirds. Remote Sens 14:3260

Inglada J, Christophe E (2009) The Orfeo toolbox remote sensing image processing software. In: 2009 IEEE international geoscience and remote sensing symposium, Cape Town, South Africa, 12–17 July 2009. IEEE, pp IV-733–IV-736.

Jänicke C, Wellmann T (2019) Front and back yard green analysis with subpixel vegetation fractions from earth observation data in a city. Landsc Urban Plan 182:44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.010

Karpachevsky ML, Yaroshenko AY, Zenkevich YuE, Aksenov DE, Egorov AV, Zhuravleva IV, Rogova NV, Tikhomirova OM, Antonova TA, Kurakina IN, Komarova AF (2009) The nature of the Moscow region: losses of the last two decades. Publishing House of the Center for Wildlife Conservation In Russian, Mocквa

Klimanova O, Kolbowsky E, Illarionova OA (2018) The ecological framework of Russian major cities: spatial structure, territorial planning and main problems of development. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Earth Sci 63:127–146

Kotlov IP, Chernenkova TV (2020) Modeling of forest communities spatial structure at the regional level through remote sensing and field sampling: constraints and solutions. Forests 11:1088. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11101088

Krummel JR, Gardner RH, Sugihara G, O’Neill RV, Coleman PR (1987) Landscape patterns in a disturbed environment. Oikos 48:321–324. https://doi.org/10.2307/3565520

Lang M, Kaha M, Laarmann D, Sims A (2018) Construction of tree species composition map of Estonia using multispectral satellite images, soil map and a random forest algorithm. Forestry Studies 68:5–24

Levins R (1970) Extinction. In M. Gertenhaber lectures on Mathmatics in the Life sciences. Amer Math Soc Providence Rhode Island 2:77–107.

Lisovsky A, Dudov S, Obolenskaya E (2020) Advantages and limitations of application of the species distribution modeling methods. 1. A general approach. Biol Bull Rev. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0044459620020037

Lurie IK, Baldina EA, Prasolova AI, Prokhorova EA, Semin VN, Tchistov SV (2015) Developing a series of maps for ecological and geographical evaluation of land resources of the new Moscow territory. InterCarto InterGIS 1:3–12

Lutz W, Sanderson W, Scherbov S (2001) The end of world population growth. Nature 412:543–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/35087589

Lyons MB, Keith DA, Phinn SR, Mason TJ, Elith J (2018) A comparison of resampling methods for remote sensing classification and accuracy assessment. Remote Sens Environ 208:145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2018.02.026

McFeeters SK (1996) The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. Int J Remote Sens 17:1425–1432

McGarigal K (1995) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Washington

McKinley DC, Ryan MG, Birdsey RA, Giardina CP, Harmon ME, Heath LS, Houghton RA, Jackson RB, Morrison JF, Murray BC, Pataki DE, Skog KE (2011) A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States. Ecol Appl 21:1902–1924. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0697.1

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Meriam MD, Emily (2022) The world’s most populated and greenest megacities (and how we found out). ArcGIS Blog. https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/arcgis-living-atlas/mapping/worlds-greenest-megacities/ . Accessed 6 Aug 2022.

Molina JR, Martín Á, Drake F, Martín LM, Herrera MÁ (2015) Fragmentation of Araucaria araucana forests in Chile: quantification and correlation with structural variables. iForest 9:244

Nefedova TG, Mkrtchan NV (2017) Migration of rural population and dynamics of agricultural employment in the regions of Russia. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Geography 5:58–67

Nie NH, Bent DH, Hull CH (1975) SPSS: statistical package for the social sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York

Nitsenko AA (1969) On the study of the ecological structure of the vegetation cover. Botanichesky Zhurnal 54:1002–1014

Nitsenko AA (1972) Typology of small-leaved forests in the European part of the USSR. Leningrad University Publishing House, Leningrad

Nizovtsev VA, Kochurov BI, Erman NM, Mironenko IV, Logunova YuV, Kostovska SK, Ivashkina IV, Alekseeva VO (2020) Landscape and environmental studies of Moscow to substantiate the territorial planning of the city. Prometey, Moscow

Nosova LM, Ogureeva GN, Tikhonova EV, Leonova NB (2009) Dynamics of biological diversity of coniferous plantations in the Central Russian Plain. Russian J for Sci 6:18–31

Noss RF (1999) Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework and indicators. For Ecol Manag 115:135–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(98)00394-6

Ogureeva G, Buldakova E (2006) Diversity of forests in the Klinsko-Dmitrovskii ridge related to the landscape structure of the territory. Russ J Sci 1:58–69

Pan T, Kuang W, Hamdi R, Zhang C, Zhang S, Li Z, Chen X (2019) City-level comparison of urban land-cover configurations from 2000–2015 across 65 countries within the global belt and road. Remote Sens 11:1515. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11131515

Perala DA, Alm AA (1990) Reproductive ecology of birch: a review. For Ecol Manage 32:1–38

Petitpas R, Ibarra JT, Miranda M, Bonacic C (2016) Spatial patterns over a 24-year period show an increase in native vegetation cover and decreased fragmentation in Andean temperate landscapes, Chile. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 43:384–395

Plugatar IV, Ermakov NB, Krestov PV, Matveeva NV, Martynenko VB, Golub VB, Neshataeva VI, Neshataev VI, Anenhonov OA, Lavrinenko IA (2020) The concept of vegetation classification of Russia as an image of contemporary tasks of phytocenology. Veg Russ. https://doi.org/10.31111/vegrus/2020.38.3

Population of Moscow by districts. Federal state statistics service, 2022.

Puliti S, Hauglin M, Breidenbach J, Montesano P, Neigh CSR, Rahlf J, Solberg S, Klingenberg TF, Astrup R (2020) Modelling above-ground biomass stock over Norway using national forest inventory data with ArcticDEM and Sentinel-2 data. Remote Sens Environ 236:111501

Püttker T, Crouzeilles R, Almeida-Gomes M, Schmoeller M, Maurenza D, Alves-Pinto H, Pardini R, Vieira MV, Banks-Leite C, Fonseca CR, Metzger JP, Accacio GM, Alexandrino ER, Barros CS, Bogoni JA, Boscolo D, Brancalion PHS, Bueno AA, Cambui ECB, Canale GR, Cerqueira R, Cesar RG, Colletta GD, Delciellos AC, Dixo M, Estavillo C, Esteves CF, Falcão F, Farah FT, Faria D, Ferraz KMPMB, Ferraz SFB, Ferreira PA, Graipel ME, Grelle CEV, Hernández MIM, Ivanauskas N, Laps RR, Leal IR, Lima MM, Lion MB, Magioli M, Magnago LFS, Mangueira JRAS, Marciano-Jr E, Mariano-Neto E, Marques MCM, Martins SV, Matos MA, Matos FAR, Miachir JI, Morante-Filho JM, Olifiers N, Oliveira-Santos LGR, Paciencia MLB, Paglia AP, Passamani M, Peres CA, Pinto Leite CM, Porto TJ, Querido LCA, Reis LC, Rezende AA, Rigueira DMG, Rocha PLB, Rocha-Santos L, Rodrigues RR, Santos RAS, Santos JS, Silveira MS, Simonelli M, Tabarelli M, Vasconcelos RN, Viana BF, Vieira EM, Prevedello JA (2020) Indirect effects of habitat loss via habitat fragmentation: a cross-taxa analysis of forest-dependent species. Biol Conserv 241:108368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108368

Puzachenko,YG, Sandlersky RB, Krenke AN, Puzachenko YM (2014) Multispectral remote information in forest research. Contemp Probl Ecol 7(7):838–854. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1995425514070087

Quality of Life (2019) Projects changing cities. Dynamics of urban development Moscow city relative to others cities of the world in 5 years. PWC, Moscow, Russia.

Ranney J, Bruner M, Levenson JB (1981) Importance of edge in the structure and dynamics of forest islands. In R. L. Burgess and D. M. Sharpe, eds. Forest Island Dynamics in Man-Dominated Landscapes. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Rivas-Martínez S, Penas A, Díaz TE (2004) Biogeographic map of Europe. University of León, Spain

Rusanov A (2019) Dynamics settlements of the second home in the Moscow region. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 5. Geografiya 5:67–76

Samoylov BL, Morozova GV (2011) Red Data Book of Moscow, 2nd, reworked and supplemented ed. Department of Nature Management and Environmental Protection of the City of Moscow, Moscow

Seto KC, Guneralp B, Hutyra LR (2012) Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:16083–16088. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211658109

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shimada M, Itoh T, Motooka T, Watanabe M, Shiraishi T, Thapa R, Lucas R (2014a) New global forest/non-forest maps from ALOS PALSAR data (2007–2010). Remote Sens Environ 155:13–31

Shojanoori R, Shafri HZ (2016) Review on the use of remote sensing for urban forest monitoring. Arboric Urban for 42:400–417

Sowińska-Świerkosz BN, Soszyński D (2014) Landscape structure versus the effectiveness of nature conservation: Roztocze region case study (Poland). Ecol Ind 43:143–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.02.018

Ulanova NG (2007) Mechanisms of vegetation successions in clear cuts in spruce forests of the southern taiga. In: Actual Problems of Geobotany. III All-Russian School-Conference. Lectures. Karelian Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007. Petrozavodsk, pp 198–211.

Urban development (2011) Urban and rural planning and development. Ministry of regional development of the Russian Federation

Vergel K, Zinicovscaia I, Yushin N, Frontasyeva MV (2019) Heavy metal atmospheric deposition study in Moscow Region, Russia. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 103:435–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00128-019-02672-4

Wang K, Wang T, Liu X (2019) A review: individual tree species classification using integrated airborne LiDAR and optical imagery with a focus on the urban environment. Forests 10:1. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10010001

Wiens JA (1992) Ecological flows across landscape boundaries: a conceptual overview. Landsc Bound 217–235

Yu D, Xun B, Shi P, Shao H, Liu Y (2012) Ecological restoration planning based on connectivity in an urban area. Ecol Eng 46:24–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.04.033

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank many colleagues who participated in the collection of the primary material, among whom the proportion in relevés is E.G. Suslova, E.V. Tikhonova, O.A. Pesterova, N.G. Kadetov, O.V. Morozova, M.A. Arkhipova, S.Yu. Popov.

The study was funded by State research tasks of the Institute of Geography RAS FMWS-2024-0007 (1021051703468-8) and Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution RAS «Historical ecology and biogeocenology» (121122300052-5 (0089- 2021-0008)). This study was funded by Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University), Pokrovsky Blvd, 11, Moscow, Russia, 109028

Ivan Kotlov

A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Ave, 33, Moscow, Russia, 119071

Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Staromonetniy Pereulok 29, Moscow, Russia, 119017

Tatiana Chernenkova & Nadezhda Belyaeva

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

IK contributed to formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software, validation, writing of original draft, TC contributed to conceptualization, project administration, supervision, review and editing. NB contributed to formal analysis, resources, validation, review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Kotlov .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kotlov, I., Chernenkova, T. & Belyaeva, N. Urban forests of Moscow: typological diversity, succession status, and fragmentation assessment. Landsc Ecol 38 , 3767–3789 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01788-7

Download citation

Received : 16 February 2023

Accepted : 29 September 2023

Published : 28 October 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01788-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Ecosystem services
• Baseline assessment
• Forest formation
• Cartographic modeling

Advertisement

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Letitia James

Attorney general james and pine barrens commission announce agreement with landscaping supplier for illegally destroying protected land on long island, stephen affatato and his company affa organics will restore the impacted area of the pine barrens they destroyed and pay $100,000 penalty pine barrens are home to long island’s primary natural source of fresh drinking water, april 12, 2024.

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission (Pine Barrens Commission) Executive Director Judith Jakobsen today announced a settlement with Stephen Affatato and his company Affa Organics, Inc. (Affa Organics), a landscaping supply business, for illegally removing trees and vegetation from the Pine Barrens, protected land on Long Island . The Pine Barrens are located on top of Long Island’s largest source of drinking water, and their preservation is necessary to ensure residents’ access to clean water. Affatato destroyed acres of this land by bulldozing and excavating soil, cutting down trees, and clearing natural ground cover, harming the Pine Barrens’ delicate ecosystem. As a result of this agreement, Affatato will pay a civil penalty of $100,000, and is required to fully restore the site. Affatato will be required to pay an additional $200,000 if he fails to complete the site restoration.  

“Long Island’s Pine Barrens are among New York’s most precious natural resources, and their protection is paramount to the health of Long Island’s drinking water and our shared environment,” said Attorney General James . “Stephen Affatato ignored the law and destroyed protected land for his own benefit, and now he must repair the damage and restore the area. I want to thank the Pine Barrens Commission for their continued partnership in protecting this critical natural resource on Long Island and ensuring it is preserved for generations to come.”

“One of the most important aspects of our work at the Central Pine Barrens Commission is protecting lands preserved by municipalities with taxpayer dollars so all Suffolk residents as well as visitors can fully appreciate all the region has to offer,” said Pine Barrens Commission Executive Director Jakobsen . “The tremendous efforts of Attorney General James and her office to bring this case to a close demonstrates that she is fully on board with this priority, and for that, we cannot thank her enough.”

The Long Island Central Pine Barrens is a 106,000-acre natural area in Suffolk County that is home to some of New York’s greatest ecological diversity, including many endangered or threatened animal and plant species. In 1993, New York adopted the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act, which established the Pine Barrens Commission to safeguard the Pine Barrens and develop and oversee a comprehensive land use plan for the area. This plan designated 55,000 acres of the Pine Barrens as a core preservation area and specified that any entity seeking to engage in development activities such as clearing, excavation, or construction in the area must apply for and receive a waiver from the Pine Barrens Commission.

In October 2012, Affatato and his company, Affa Organics, destroyed conserved property in the Pine Barrens that did not belong to him. Affatato did not obtain a waiver before removing trees, vegetation, and natural ground cover, and excavating and bulldozing soil into huge piles the property. These violations were observed by Pine Barrens Commission staff on a site visit to the property.

This agreement resolves ongoing litigation regarding the clean-up and restoration of the site. As a result of the agreement, Affatato will implement and pay for a complete site restoration plan, including soil excavation, deer fencing, site grading, replanting of native plant species, sediment and erosion control, and monitoring and reporting, among other requirements. Affatato will also pay a civil penalty of $100,000 and provide $200,000 in the form of a bond or other financial security that must be paid if Affatato fails to follow or complete the site restoration plan. 

Attorney General James and Executive Director Jakobsen would like to thank the Town of Brookhaven, which issued a Notice of Violation in 2012 and was instrumental throughout the case.

“Suffolk County’s Pine Barrens ensure the drinking water for its 1.5 million residents,” said State Senator Monica R. Martinez . “I hope this agreement will send a ripple through the notion that these vast lands can be defiled without consequence.  Thank you, Attorney General James, for holding those who threaten our water supply and our natural resources by impugning the integrity of the Pine Barrens, accountable.”

“Nearly 30 years ago, I helped shape the Pine Barrens Protection Act, pledging to safeguard Long Island's Pine Barrens,” said Assemblymember Fred W. Thiele, Jr.  “Today's settlement underscores the commitment to holding accountable those who harm our environment and preserving our natural resources.”

“We should all be grateful that Attorney General Letitia James has wisely used her discretion to protect Suffolk’s sole source of drinking water, said Suffolk County Legislator Steven Engelbright . “Her actions to prevent the criminal despoliation of the Pine Barrens are a necessary and timely warning to all who would destroy the ancient trees that stand as sentinels guarding our purest ground water source area.”  

This matter was handled for the Pine Barrens Commission by Executive Director Judith Jakobsen, Science and Stewardship Program Manager Polly Weigand, and Counsel John Milazzo. 

This matter was handled for OAG by Assistant Attorney General Mihir A. Desai and Section Chief Elizabeth Morgan of the Environmental Protection Bureau under the supervision of Bureau Chief Lemuel M. Srolovic. The Environmental Protection Bureau is part of the Division for Social Justice, which is led by Chief Deputy Attorney General Meghan Faux and overseen by First Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Levy.

We Value Your Privacy We use cookies to enhance your browsing experience, serve personalized content, and analyze our traffic. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.