Regenerative dynamics – The future of sustainability?

In a world facing escalating environmental crises, sustainability is evolving. Here is a proposal of a revolutionary approach that goes beyond maintaining the status quo to actively restoring and enhancing natural systems: regenerative dynamics!

What are regenerative dynamics?

Regenerative dynamics focus on repairing and rejuvenating ecosystems. Unlike traditional sustainability, which aims for zero impact, regenerative practices strive for a positive impact. This means adopting methods that restore soil health, increase biodiversity, and sequester carbon, ensuring a thriving planet for future generations.

The urgency of regenerative approaches

Climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion are urgent issues. Some people argue that traditional sustainability practices are insufficient in the face of these global issues. We need to shift our focus to practices that restore and enhance natural systems, they say.

Key elements of regenerative dynamics

1. Restorative agriculture: Practices like cover cropping, no-till farming, and agroforestry rebuild soil health and sequester carbon, leading to healthier and more resilient farming systems.
2. Circular economy: A circular economy minimizes waste and promotes recycling and reusing materials, reducing the strain on natural resources and lowering carbon emissions.
3. Ecosystem restoration: Initiatives such as planting native trees, restoring wetlands, and protecting coral reefs rebuild habitats and support wildlife.
4. Social equity: Ensuring fair access to resources and opportunities for all, including marginalized communities, is a cornerstone of a regenerative approach.

Restorative agriculture is one example of regenerative dynamics. It can have positive impacts on the agroecosystem, making it healthier and more resilient.
(Source: iStock)

Recommendations for mainstreaming regenerative dynamics

1. Policy support: Governments should create policies that support regenerative practices, such as subsidies and incentives.
2. Education and awareness: Public campaigns and educational programs can increase awareness and understanding of regenerative dynamics.
3. Business innovation: Encouraging businesses to innovate and adopt regenerative practices is crucial.
4. Community engagement: Involving local communities ensures the success of regenerative projects.

Moving forward: A regenerative future

By embracing regenerative dynamics, we can create systems that are not only sustainable but also restorative. This shift requires collaboration across all sectors of society. In conclusion, the goal is not just to sustain but to regenerate. Through innovative practices and collaborative efforts, we can heal our planet and build a resilient and thriving world for future generations. It’s time to move beyond sustainability and embrace a regenerative future.

If you want to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Fischer, J., Farny, S., Abson, D.J., Zeidler, V.Z., von Salisch, M., Schaltegger, S., Martín-López, B., Temperton, V.M., Kümmerer, K. Mainstreaming regenerative dynamics for sustainability. Nat Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01368-w

Text by Isabelle Andres

From vulnerability to strength: Enhancing coastal governance for climate change

Coastal areas are dynamic environments where land meets the sea. This creates unique ecological zones that are rich in biodiversity and essential to human livelihoods. But they are also very vulnerable to climate change. The governance of these regions is thus of paramount importance. And here comes the question: How can effective governance bolster the resilience of these vulnerable areas? What do we have to do so that coastal governance becomes more robust and adaptive in the face of climate change?

The importance of coastal governance

In an era where climate change’s impacts are increasingly felt across the globe, coastal regions stand on the front lines, facing rising sea levels, intensified storms, and other environmental challenges. Hence, effective governance is key to protecting these regions – not only to safeguard the biodiversity they provide, but also to ensure the sustainability of economic activities and the safety of coastal communities.

Coastal regions are very vulnerable to climate change and its intensifying impacts.
(Source: iStock)

However, recent studies found that traditional top-down approaches are not enough. Rather, a more integrated and participatory method should come in place. This involves local communities, scientists, policymakers, and industry working together.

Collaboration: The key to more resilience

Collaboration is crucial for building climate resilience. Different groups can combine their knowledge and resources to create better solutions. Local communities often have valuable traditional knowledge that can complement scientific research and policy. Such transdisciplinary approaches can lead to more resilient and adaptive management of coastal areas.

Collaboration is key for better coastal governance systems.
(Source: iStock)

Recommendations for policy and practice

Here are some actionable recommendations for better coastal governance:

• Inclusive governance structures: This means including all relevant stakeholders in decision-making.
• Knowledge exchange: Effective knowledge exchange is vital. Knowledge is often kept within specific groups, which hinders comprehensive action. There is a need for platforms and networks that allow ongoing communication between stakeholders to bridge those knowledge gaps.
• Stakeholder agency: Empowering local stakeholders is essential. Those most affected by climate change should have a significant say in how their environments are managed. This ensures that governance strategies are both technically sound and socially equitable.
• Adaptive management practices: Encouraging flexible approaches that can adapt to new information and changing conditions is an important feature when dealing with issues like climate change.

By implementing these recommendations, we can create more resilient coastal governance systems. There is a strong need for collaborative, inclusive, and adaptive coastal governance in the face of intensifying climate change impacts. By fostering partnerships, promoting knowledge exchange, and empowering local stakeholders, we can make coastal areas more resilient. As climate change continues to impact our world, these strategies will be crucial in protecting our coastal regions for future generations.

If you want to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Rölfer, L., Celliers, L., Fernandes, M., Rivers, N., Snow, B. & Abson, D. Assessing collaboration, knowledge exchange, and stakeholder agency in coastal governance to enhance climate resilience. Reg Environ Change 24, 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02163-7

Text by Isabelle Andres

Narratives in nature: The challenge of managing conflict and collaboration in cultural landscapes

Cultural landscapes are changing due to a range of different, interacting drivers such as land abandonment, agricultural intensification, and climate change. This makes it difficult but also very important to manage and preserve their biological and cultural values. However, there are significant differences in how various stakeholders perceive a cultural landscape and what values they consider a priority. So once again the question is how to manage cultural landscapes and how to address the impacts of land use change…

Ongoing land use change, in particular the abandonment of farmland and the intensification of agriculture, knowingly threatens biodiversity and ecosystem health, but also results in loss of traditional cultural landscapes – and this is often overseen. Nevertheless, cultural landscapes are just as important because they result from a co-evolution of humans and nature, making them considerable social-ecological systems. We associate a wide variety of values with these landscapes, meaning that they have many subjective and diverse interpretations and meanings. While plurality and diversity is often essential (read more here), it also poses challenges to preserve cultural landscapes: How do we deal with different stakeholder perceptions in management? How do we integrate diverging viewpoints in governance? How do we address multiple interests and values in decision-making?

There might be an answer: Narratives! Narratives provide a conceptual lens to identify different perceptions of issues and to reveal underlying beliefs, priorities, and values. They are shared interpretations and meanings assigned to certain cultural landscapes. As storylines, they can help understand land-use conflicts and different viewpoints by emphasizing what is perceived to be the right course of action or management.

Narratives reveal the underlying beliefs, priorities, and values of their storytellers, which helps in managing cultural landscapes.
(Source: iStock)

Of course, just as perceptions of cultural landscapes differ, so do landscape narratives: How do stakeholders characterize the landscape? How do they appreciate it? What do they perceive as threats in the narratives? These different problem-framings present a barrier for collaborative management and effective decision-making.

Future research should focus on participatory vision development to help address narrative tensions and bring different landscape narratives together. A resulting more integrative perspective would better include cultural aspects and provide direction for future planning and management.

If you want to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Schaal-Lagodzinski, T., König, B., Riechers, M., Heitepriem, N. & Leventon, J. (2024) Exploring cultural landscape narratives to understand challenges for collaboration and their implications for governance, Ecosystems and People, 20:1, 2320886, DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2024.2320886

Text by Isabelle Andres

The art of compromise: Ecosystem services and stakeholder conflicts

Ecosystem services are a concept that highlights the multiple benefits of nature and recognizes the complexity of the interactions between social and ecological systems at the same time. The framework can help deal with global environmental issues and contribute to the protection of nature. But how exactly are ecosystem services managed, especially when there is societal debate about certain situations? How do stakeholders argue in these management conflicts when, for example, maximizing one ecosystem service might jeopardize another?

Ecosystem services can be co-produced in social-ecological processes when natural and anthropogenic contributions together produce a specific ecosystem service. Whenever the social and ecological sphere come together, trade-offs can arise. This means management has to weigh diverse arguments against each other to make a decision in certain situations. In these situations, the provision of one ecosystem service might increase at the cost of another. Now this all sounds very abstract, so here’s an example:

Hydropower projects become more and more important and demanded due to climate policy targets and an increasing demand for electricity. However, they are also a potential source of conflict as they imply trade-offs between renewable (and affordable) energy supply, biodiversity, and the ecosystem services provided by river systems. The building of dams and reservoirs for hydropower projects decreases connectivity of rivers and destroys related aquatic as well as terrestrial habitats. Followingly, it is not easy to manage and govern river ecosystems, the services they provide and the human influences that impact them. Conflicts related to hydropower projects resolve around the necessity of them on the one hand, justifying the damage to nature caused by the respective project and expanding the use of natural resources, and the protection of the river and the riparian ecosystem on the other hand.

Hydropower projects are one example of situations in which trade-offs of ecosystem serviceshave to be managed.
(Source: iStock)

So, what now? How can we deal with this? Well, political structures and legal norms help define what stakeholder arguments are considered as valid in the management of trade-offs. It is therefore important to further emphasize governance and management interactions that affects the interlinkages between ecological and social systems. Only so can ecosystem services be successfully co-produced. Only so can we improve certain projects towards more sustainable outcomes.

If you want to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Eerika Albrecht, Roman Isaac, Aleksi Räsänen; Legal and political arguments on aquatic ecosystem services and hydropower development – A case study on Kemi River basin, Finland. Ecosystem Services, Volume 67, 2024, 101623, ISSN 2212-0416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101623.

Text by Isabelle Andres

Diversity is key! How linguistic diversity can help sustainability science

We all know that diversity is important in many aspects of our lives. Politics, nature, social contacts, experiences – even in nutrition. Followingly, we also need diversity in science and knowledge production. But most of scientific literature is English, although other languages also have a lot to say. But why? Let’s explore the importance of linguistic diversity in sustainability science!

Biocultural approaches resolve around the multiple and dynamic relationships between the diversity (again: diversity…!) of culture and nature. This means that they emphasize the interconnections of humans and their environments, creating biocultural diversity: the mutual adaptations between humans, non-humans, and their local environments. Examples of what biocultural approaches include are the diversity of cultural values, knowledge systems, and ways in which people live with and manage nature.

Just as this blog post, most scientific publications are in English – because it’s our global scientific language, allowing “easy” communication among scientists and with the public. However, this predominant pattern of knowledge production overlooks linguistic diversity of science production. Other languages also have a lot to say! Especially Spanish scientific literature has worked a lot on the topic of biocultural approaches. It could add much value to the existing (English) knowledge and therefore help to cope with sustainability challenges. If only the English literature didn’t overshadow it…

But there’s hope – and the suggestion is quite “simple”: Linguistic diversity is essential for scientific knowledge production as it assures broad and balanced evidence. It adds more perspectives to the existent knowledge to successfully deal with sustainability issues.  Thus, it is also crucial for the exploration of biocultural approaches and in the way through which relationships between people and nature are interpreted. Linguistic diversity just gives us more options to tackle the problems English literature already addresses in sustainability science. So why not include non-English (e.g. Spanish) publications in our research and complement the existing English literature?

Let’s add a little more diversity to science and knowledge production! And while we’re at it… why not be more diverse in other aspects of our lives? Some ideas: Eat as diverse as possible, add some biodiversity to your garden by planting different plants, try something new every once in a while, get your information about anything from diverse sources, … There’s so much more to life than just one perspective!

If you want to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Díaz-Reviriego, I., Hanspach, J., Torralba, M. et al. Appraising biocultural approaches to sustainability in the scientific literature in Spanish. Ambio 53, 499–516 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-023-01969-3

Text by Isabelle Andres

Ecosystem restoration: Climbing the social-ecological ladder of restoration ambition

Ecosystem restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been damaged, degraded or destroyed, mostly due to human activities. Restoration activities hold immense promise for addressing pressing environmental challenges such as biodiversity loss or climate change. But how do we scale up our restoration efforts to achieve meaningful and lasting impact? How can the new demands on restoration and the need to address complex social-ecological dynamics be met? Let’s explore the factors that influence the scale and scope of restoration initiatives…

Social and ecological factors are strongly interconnected in shaping restoration ambition. Ecological considerations such as habitat connectivity, species diversity, and ecosystem resilience play a crucial role in determining the scale and scope of restoration initiatives. But social factors such as governance structures, institutional capacity, and community engagement are equally important.

An example: At the local level, restoration efforts may be driven by community-led initiatives aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems and improving livelihoods. These projects then often rely on traditional knowledge, local resources, and social networks to achieve their goals, which emphasizes the importance of community empowerment and participation in restoration activities. In contrast, at the regional or national level, restoration ambition may be driven by broader policy goals such as climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation, or sustainable land management. In these cases, restoration efforts are often guided by national strategies, legal frameworks, and funding mechanisms aimed at scaling up restoration activities and achieving landscape-scale impact.

However, scaling up restoration ambition from local to landscape levels is not without its challenges. Desirable goals can get in each other’s way, and then actors have to handle complex decisions regarding which ambitions to pursue to which degree. This can hinder progress and undermine the effectiveness of restoration efforts. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-level approach. The “social-ecological ladder of restoration ambition” aims to do this.

The social-ecological ladder to restoration ambition helps to approach restoration goals that dynamically shift.
(Source: iStock)

Said ladder is a conceptual model to approach dynamically shifting social and ecological restoration goals, and can therefore help to navigate the common challenges that come up with restoration projects. What this ladder can do:

• illustrating that both social and ecological goals are important
• underlining that goals change over time
• increasing awareness of restoration challenges and trade-offs
• indicating ways to foster synergies through time
• encouraging iterative assessments of restoration projects (adaptive management!)

In addition to addressing all these specific challenges, the social-ecological ladder of restoration ambition helps to improve restoration science and practice: It views restoration sites as social-ecological systems. And it makes restoration more adaptive and dynamic, which is becoming more and more important in the context of global environmental change. So the ladder basically (and literally?) helps us climb towards an increasingly more sustainable world.

If you want to read more about this topic, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Frietsch, M., Pacheco-Romero, M., Temperton, V.M., Kaplin, B.A., Fischer, J. The social–ecological ladder of restoration ambition. Ambio (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02021-8

Text by Isabelle Andres

Beyond the crop: Diversified farming for long-term sustainable agriculture?

“Agriculture is one of the main drivers of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, and its impact is expected to grow further with the increasing population. Converting our current agricultural system to a more sustainable one is essential if we want to achieve the IPBES strategic goals of conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services and the sustainable development goals.” (Rosa-Schleich et al., 2024)

At the core of diversified farming lies the concept of agroecology — a system of farming that emphasizes ecological principles such as biodiversity, soil health, and natural resource conservation. By integrating various crops, livestock, and other elements into a single farming system, diversified farmers aim to create resilient and sustainable food production systems that benefit both people and the planet.

The principle of agroecology and its components.
(Source: iStock)

Adjacent to the diversity of this type of farming, there are also diverse perceptions farmers have of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. While some farmers emphasize the environmental benefits, such as improved soil fertility, enhanced biodiversity, and reduced reliance on chemical inputs, others focus on the economic advantages, such as increased farm income, diversified revenue streams, and enhanced market opportunities.

Why diversified farming?

For many farmers, the decision to adopt diversified farming practices is driven by a desire to mitigate risks and adapt to changing environmental conditions. By diversifying their crops and livestock, they are better able to withstand the impacts of climate change, pest outbreaks, and market fluctuations, ensuring the long-term resilience and viability of their farming operations.

Crop diversity and diversified farming can help to withstand changing environmental conditions.
(Source: iStock)

But the benefits of diversified farming extend “beyond the crop”. By enhancing ecosystem services such as pollination, pest control, and water regulation, diversified farming systems contribute to broader environmental goals such as biodiversity conservation, soil health, and climate change mitigation. In this way, diversified farmers can play a crucial role in safeguarding the health and resilience of the natural ecosystems upon which we all depend.

Hesitation towards diversified farming

Yet, despite its many benefits, diversified farming is not without its challenges. A lot of farmers are still hesitant towards applying diversified farming. They may see barriers such as limited access to markets, technical knowledge, and financial resources, as well as social and cultural norms that favor conventional farming practices. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach that includes supportive policies, extension services, market incentives, and farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing.

So, what does this mean?

Diversified farming has a lot of potential to transform our agricultural systems and create a more sustainable future for all. By embracing the principles of agroecology and fostering a culture of innovation and collaboration, diversified farming can protect the planet, build resilient communities, and provide food for people. However, there is still a need for environmental policy to consider the different perceptions farmers have of diversified farming,

If you want to read more about this topic, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Ferrante, M., Mußhoff, O., & Tscharntke, T. (2024). Mixed farmers’ perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. Ecological Economics, 220, 108174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174

Text by Isabelle Andres

A balancing act: Navigating land-use change for sustainable ecosystem services

Diverse landscapes such as the ones found in southwestern Ethiopia provide a multitude of essential services that sustain both nature and people. But human activities continue to shape the land. What does this land-use change do to these invaluable ecosystem services? How does the future look like for southwestern Ethiopia’s landscapes? Let’s find out…

A recent study conducted by SESI members and other researchers offers insights into how land-use changes may impact the provision of ecosystem services in the years to come. Their findings shed light on the question of how ecosystem service provision might look like under future land-use change scenarios. Although rooted in the context of southwestern Ethiopia, this carries broader implications for global conservation efforts and sustainable development practices.

Every decision we make about how we utilize the land has far-reaching consequences for the services it provides. Consider, for example, the vital role that forests play in regulating the Earth’s climate. As trees are cleared to make way for agriculture or urban areas, the capacity of these ecosystems to sequester carbon is compromised. This, in turn, can lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions, and thus contribute to climate change. And this example is only one of many ways human activities alter ecosystems and change landscapes.

Deforestation is just one of the many ways human activities change landscapes and affect ecosystem service provision.
(Source: iStock)

Yet, amidst these challenges, there are opportunities for positive change. With the help of participatory scenario planning, the researchers were able to anticipate likely future changes to landscapes. They developed four future land-use scenarios, each showing different potential ecosystem service changes:

• Gain over grain
• Coffee and conservation
• Mining green gold
• Food first

The intensification of agriculture is the strongest factor influencing land-use change. It has diverse negative effects on ecosystems.
(Source: iStock)

Not surprisingly, the study found that landscape modification was strongest for scenarios involving agricultural intensification, resulting in negative effects on ecosystem service provision. In contrast, the most sustainable scenario is “Coffee and conservation”. It is an integrative approach of food production AND biodiversity conservation and therefore secures diverse ecosystem services for the long-term.

Ultimately, the findings of this study underscore the urgent need for concerted action to safeguard the future of ecosystem services in southwestern Ethiopia and beyond. They can help stakeholders and decision-makers to understand and assess the viability of current development policies, as well as identify and design more sustainable land-use options.

If you would like to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Duguma, D. W., Brueck, M., Shumi, G., Law, E., Benra, F., Schultner, J., Nemomissa, S., Abson, D. & Fischer, J. (2024). Future ecosystem service provision under land-use change scenarios in southwestern Ethiopia. Ecosystems and People, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2024.2321613

Text by Isabelle Andres

Innovating for Tomorrow: Lessons from Biosphere Reserve Sustainability

(Source: iStock)

Biosphere Reserves are not just protected areas; they are hubs of innovation, testing grounds for sustainable practices that could change the world. In their recent study, Dabard et al. delved deep into these model regions, analyzing the types of sustainability innovations found within them. The study’s findings shed light on how these innovations could transform our approach to conservation and development.

From community-based conservation efforts to cutting-edge technological solutions, sustainability innovations embody diverse approaches aimed at harmonizing human activities with the natural environment. However, beyond their individual merits, what truly sets these innovations apart is their collective capacity to instigate transformative change.

Grouping sustainability innovations into patterns, so called archetypes, helps studying and analyzing them. These archetypes reveal the essence of what makes sustainability innovations tick and how they can make a real difference.

The study identified six different archetypes:

1. Participative Transformation Governance
2. New Sectors for Social-ecological Transformations
3. Social and Sustainable Entrepreneurs
4. Social Innovations
5. Service Innovations
6. Technological Efficiency Innovations

Each of these archetypes targets different leverage points — so points where sustainability innovations cause a change and enhance impacts. This archetype approach is thus suitable for capturing a diverse range of sustainability innovations and characterizing their transformative outcomes.

What does all this mean for the world beyond Biosphere Reserves? It means we have a blueprint — a roadmap for how to tackle environmental issues in a way that works with nature, not against it. The findings underscore the importance of holistic and context-specific approaches that transcend disciplinary boundaries and cater to the diverse needs and aspirations of communities and ecosystems alike.

(Source: iStock)

In essence, the study invites us to reframe our understanding of sustainability innovations not merely as isolated interventions but as interconnected components of a larger transformative process. By recognizing and harnessing the diverse archetypes of sustainability within Biosphere Reserves (and beyond), we can chart a course towards a more resilient, equitable, and thriving future for both humanity and the planet. It shows us that the key to a sustainable future lies not in one big idea, but in many small ones working together in harmony. And Biosphere Reserves are where those ideas come to life.

If you would like to explore this topic further, you can find the whole paper HERE.

Caroline Hélène Dabard, Carsten Mann, Berta Martín-López (2024). An archetype analysis of sustainability innovations in Biosphere Reserves: Insights for assessing transformative potential. Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 153, 2024, 103674, ISSN 1462-9011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103674.

Text by Isabelle Andres

Stories and insights from the field

Felipe Benra talks about his fieldwork in southern Chile

Dr. Felipe Benra, SESI member and research associate in the professorship for sustainable landscapes at Leuphana University, just came back from field studies in southern Chile. He has very interesting insights to share about his journey and the case study – and so he wrote a super exclusive guest contribution for you. Enjoy!

In many places of the world, land surface to create traditional protected areas is scarce. So called “working landscapes” – the landscapes where people live, work and thrive – don’t seem to receive the attention they deserve. That’s why it came as a surprise to me when I realized during a field campaign in southern Chile that people are indeed very interested in conservation and restoration and that they want to be part of the solution.

Working landscape at its purest. A combination of pastures with linear features of tree cover. Multiple ecosystems services are provided here, for example fodder, timber, and aesthetic beauty. In the background the Andes Mountains at latitude 40°S. (Photo credits: Felipe Benra)

The main economic activity in the study area is agriculture with a focus on dairy farming. (Photo credits: Felipe Benra)

The fieldwork campaign was conducted on a dairy working landscape in southern Chile in the frame of a future application of a DFG Emmy Noether program. It consisted of interviews with landowners designed to obtain insights about motivations and values for restoration. Through a deep collaboration and understanding of the landowners’ culture in the area, we were able to conduct 100 interviews.
(By “we” here I mean myself and primarily my colleague Victor Vergara. He is a farmer’s son and therefore well acquainted with the area. That local knowledge seemed to pay off because he was welcomed there with open arms.)

The Chirre River: One of the seven investigated rivers. Many people own land along these rivers, making them key actors for restoration. Multiple species find harbor on the riverine forests. (Photo credits: Felipe Benra)

We got to know beautiful places which are not quite open to the public sphere, and we learned about geographies of several municipalities in the region. The idea of this case study was to understand the perspective and socio-ecological conditions of landowners/managers who own properties along seven rivers in the region. The selection of these rivers is based on their condition of linear landscape features that allow for several types of connectivity and for movement of local (and introduced) flora and fauna. We also wanted to see which type of land cover the landowners are willing to restore: Rather grasslands or forests (which are the dominant land covers in the study area)?

Many grasslands contain a rich diversity of native and introduced species. This shows a pasture that’s been mowed at its peak in late November. (Photo credits: Felipe Benra)

Exotic tree plantations pose risks for local biodiversity. In this case, eucalyptus are very fire prone and the shown stand will soon be clear-cutted. All understory (composed of native species) is removed as well. (Photo credits: Felipe Benra)

With the data collected through the interviews, we will now be able to make connections between social and ecological variables and find out how they interplay to possibly enable restoration.

Overall, we gained access to 100 properties with a total area of 13,968 hectares. Most of the landowners (95 %) agreed that we access their properties again in the future to establish experiments there. It is still up for question where exactly the experiments will be located (within the properties), but we will work on this as part of the proposal to DFG.

I am personally very happy with the field study and hope to obtain some nice insights – and why not come up with a couple of papers out of the data? Maybe you’ll even spot one or another here… ; )

If you’re interested in Felipe’s work and want to know more about it or follow his project-journey, contact him via e-mail (felipe.benra@leuphana.de) or keep track on any news about it on the SESI website.

Text by Isabelle Andres