A framework for ecological restoration cost accounting across context and scale

被引:2
|
作者
Andres, Samantha E. [1 ]
Mills, Charlotte H. [2 ,3 ]
Gallagher, Rachael V. [1 ]
Adams, Vanessa M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Western Sydney Univ, Hawkesbury Inst Environm, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
[2] AirSeed Technol, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] UNSW Sydney, Ctr Ecosyst Sci, Sch Biol Earth & Environm Sci, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
[4] Univ Tasmania, Sch Geog Planning & Spatial Sci, Hobart, Tas, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Biodiversity; Regeneration; Ecological economics; Financial planning; Relative costs; Expense accounting; Sustainability; Technological advancements; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; ECONOMICS; SUCCESS; BIODIVERSITY; ENHANCEMENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110671
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Restoration programs that can deliver implementation outcomes across large-scales are critical to achieving global conservation targets such as Target 2 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet, limited funding poses a strong barrier to the achievement of these ambitious goals, suggesting the adoption of emerging technologies capable of delivering cost-effective solutions to restoration at scale may be required. To date, there has been limited reporting of restoration implementation costs at scales that are meaningful for decision making, hindering the capacity for evidence-based comparisons of existing and emerging restoration methods. Here, we demonstrate the application of a detailed framework that addresses the shortcomings of previous frameworks by matching the costs of conservation actions to their outcomes across multiple scales. We estimate the financial costs of two planting methods from the perspective of a restoration practitioner comparing an established method (tubestock planting) to an emerging method (drone seeding: seed pelleting and delivery via drones), across five spatial scales (1, 10, 100, 500, and 1000 ha). Using data from a hypothetical case-study, we show that both methods exhibit economies of scale (decrease in the cost per hectare to action with increase in scale); however, the economies of scale were greater for drone seeding. Our framework allows for transparent cost accounting of project implementation to guide practitioners and policy makers when budgeting and reporting costs for future projects. Users of this framework can also explore if and how context influences the costs of restoration to maximise the delivery of cost-efficient restoration at scale.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Incorporating resilience and cost in ecological restoration strategies at landscape scale
    Stefanes, Mauricio
    Ochoa-Quintero, Jose Manuel
    Roque, Fabio de Oliveira
    Moreira Sugai, Larissa Sayuri
    Tambosi, Leandro Reverberi
    Lourival, Reinaldo
    Laurance, Susan
    [J]. ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2016, 21 (04):
  • [2] Accounting for private benefits in ecological restoration planning
    Polyakov, Maksym
    Pannell, David
    [J]. LEARNING FROM AGRI-ENVIRONMENT SCHEMES IN AUSTRALIA: INVESTING IN BIODIVERSITY AND OTHER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ON FARMS, 2016, : 181 - 190
  • [3] River ecological restoration across frontiers
    Bernez, I.
    Dutoit, T.
    [J]. KNOWLEDGE AND MANAGEMENT OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS, 2011, (402)
  • [4] Ecological restoration: context, constraints, and indicators
    Cristofoli, Sara
    Mahy, Gregory
    [J]. BIOTECHNOLOGIE AGRONOMIE SOCIETE ET ENVIRONNEMENT, 2010, 14 (01): : 203 - 211
  • [5] Stepwise Ecological Restoration: A framework for improving restoration outcomes
    Liu, Junguo
    Dou, Yuehan
    Chen, He
    [J]. GEOGRAPHY AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 5 (02) : 160 - 166
  • [6] Three decadal large-scale ecological restoration projects across the Tibetan Plateau
    Zhao, Hui
    Wei, Da
    Wang, Xiaodan
    Hong, Jiangtao
    Wu, Jianbo
    Xiong, Donghong
    Liang, Yuling
    Yuan, Zhengrong
    Qi, Yahui
    Huang, Lin
    [J]. LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT, 2024, 35 (01) : 22 - 32
  • [7] Cost-effective ecological restoration
    Kimball, Sarah
    Lulow, Megan
    Sorenson, Quinn
    Balazs, Kathleen
    Fang, Yi-Chin
    Davis, Steven J.
    O'Connell, Michael
    Huxman, Travis E.
    [J]. RESTORATION ECOLOGY, 2015, 23 (06) : 800 - 810
  • [8] ACCOUNTING FRAMEWORK FOR REPORTING IN THE CONTEXT OF REFORM
    Burova, T. A.
    Uzhva, A. M.
    Gnatenko, Ye. P.
    Soboleva, I., V
    [J]. FINANCIAL AND CREDIT ACTIVITY-PROBLEMS OF THEORY AND PRACTICE, 2019, 3 (30): : 70 - 77
  • [9] PAST AND PRESENT OF ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION IN THE VENEZUELAN CONTEXT
    Mazon, Marina
    Gutierrez, Nestor
    [J]. INTERCIENCIA, 2016, 41 (07) : 454 - 460
  • [10] A conceptual framework for urban ecological restoration and rehabilitation
    Klaus, Valentin H.
    Kiehl, Kathrin
    [J]. BASIC AND APPLIED ECOLOGY, 2021, 52 : 82 - 94