Integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches Improves Practicality and Efficiency of Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Planning: Insights from a Social-Ecological System

Zhaowei Ding, Hua Zheng, Jun Wang, Patrick O'Connor, Cong Li, Xiaodong Chen, Ruonan Li, Zhiyun Ouyang

Engineering ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (12) : 50-58.

PDF(2482 KB)
PDF(2482 KB)
Engineering ›› 2023, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (12) : 50-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2022.08.008
Research
Article

Integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches Improves Practicality and Efficiency of Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Planning: Insights from a Social-Ecological System

Author information +
History +

Highlights

• Large scale eco-restoration programs (LSERPs) are socio-ecological systems (SESs).

• A new framework for SESs integrating top-down and bottom-up approaches was established.

• The bottom-up approach integrated meta-analysis and stochastic modeling.

• The new framework was tested on the Yangtze River Basin-based Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program.

• Embedding bottom-up approaches improved the practicality and efficiency of LSERP planning.

Abstract

Ecological restoration policies and their implementation are influenced by ecological and socioeconomic drivers. Top-down approach-based spatial planning, emphasizing hierarchical control within government structures, and without a comprehensive consideration of social-ecological interactions may result in implementation failure and low efficiency. Although many researchers have indicated the necessity to engage social-ecological interactions between stakeholders in effective planning processes, socioeconomic drivers of ecological restoration on a large scale are difficult to quantify because of data scarcity and knowledge limitations. Here, we established a new ecological restoration planning approach linking a social-ecological system framework to large-scale ecological restoration planning. The new spatial planning approach integrates bottom-up approaches targeting stakeholder interests and provides social considerations for stakeholder behavior analysis. Based on this approach, a meta-analysis is introduced to recognize key socioeconomic and social-ecological factors influencing large-scale ecological restoration implementation, and a stochastic model is constructed to analyze the impact of socioeconomic drivers on the behavior of authorities and participants on a large scale. We used the Yangtze River Basin-based Conversion of Cropland to Forest Program (CCFP), one of the largest payments for ecosystem service programs worldwide, to quantify the socioeconomic impacts of large-scale ecological restoration programs. Current CCFP planning without socioeconomic considerations failed to achieve large-scale program goals and showed low investment efficiency, with 19.71% of the implemented area reconverting to cropland after contract expiry. In contrast, spatial matching between planned and actual restoration increased from 61.55% to 81.86% when socioeconomic drivers were included. In addition, compared to that with the current CCFP implementation, the cost effectiveness of spatial planning with social considerations improved by 46.94%. Thus, spatial optimization planning that integrates both top-down and bottom-up approaches can result in more practical and effective ecological restoration than top-down approaches alone. Our new approach incorporates socioeconomic factors into large-scale ecological restoration planning with high practicality and efficiency.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Social-ecological system / Ecological restoration / Top-down approach / Bottom-up approach

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download citation ▾
Zhaowei Ding, Hua Zheng, Jun Wang, Patrick O'Connor, Cong Li, Xiaodong Chen, Ruonan Li, Zhiyun Ouyang. Integrating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches Improves Practicality and Efficiency of Large-Scale Ecological Restoration Planning: Insights from a Social-Ecological System. Engineering, 2023, 31(12): 50‒58 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.08.008

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
K.A. Wilson, E.C. Underwood, S.A. Morrison, K.R. Klausmeyer, W.W. Murdoch, B. Reyers, et al.. Conserving biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Biol, 5(9) ( 2007), p. e223 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050223
[2]
T.M. Koontz, J. Newig.From planning to implementation: top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management. Policy Stud J, 42(3) ( 2014), pp. 416-442
CrossRef Google scholar
[3]
J.R.A. Butler, R.M. Wise, T.D. Skewes, E.L. Bohensky, N. Peterson, W. Suadnya, et al.. Integrating top-down and bottom-up adaptation planning to build adaptive capacity: a structured learning approach. Coast Manage, 43(4) ( 2015), pp. 346-364
CrossRef Google scholar
[4]
L. Roberts, R. Stone, A. Sugden. The rise of restoration ecology. Science, 325 (5940) ( 2009), p. 555 DOI: 10.1126/science.325_555
[5]
J. Cavender-Bares, S. Polasky, E. King, P. Balvanera. A sustainability framework for assessing trade-offs in ecosystem services. Ecol Soc, 20 (1) ( 2015), p. 17
[6]
C.M. Kennedy, D.A. Miteva, L. Baumgarten, P.L. Hawthorne, K. Sochi, S. Polasky, et al.. Bigger is better: improved nature conservation and economic returns from landscape-level mitigation. Sci Adv, 2 (7) ( 2016), p. e1501021
[7]
P. Meli, A. Calle, Z. Calle, C.I. Ortiz-Arrona, M. Sirombra, P.H.S. Brancalion. Riparian-forest buffers: bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up restoration approaches in Latin America. Land Use Policy, 87 ( 2019), p. 104085
[8]
K.D. Holl. Restoring tropical forests from the bottom up. Science, 355 (6324) ( 2017), pp. 455-456 DOI: 10.1126/science.aam5432
[9]
R.L. Chazdon, P.H.S. Brancalion, D. Lamb, L. Laestadius, M. Calmon, C. Kumar.A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and landscape restoration: a policy-driven agenda for restoration. Conserv Lett, 10 (1) ( 2017), pp. 125-132
CrossRef Google scholar
[10]
A.T. Knight, R.M. Cowling.Embracing opportunism in the selection of priority conservation areas. Conserv Biol, 21 (4) ( 2007), pp. 1124-1126
CrossRef Google scholar
[11]
R.M. Cowling, A. Willhenlm-Rechmann. Social assessment as a key to conservation success. Oryx, 41 ( 2007), pp. 135-136
[12]
K.M.A. Chan, R.M. Pringle, JAI Ranganathan, C.L. Boggs, Y.L. Chan, P.R. Ehrlich, et al.. When agendas collide: human welfare and biological conservation. Conserv Biol, 21(1 ( 2007), pp. 59-68
CrossRef Google scholar
[13]
R.J. Smith, D. Veríssimo, N. Leader-Williams, R.M. Cowling, A.T. Knight. Let the locals lead. Nature, 462 (7271) ( 2009), pp. 280-281 DOI: 10.1038/462280a
[14]
E. Ostrom. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939 ( 2009), pp. 419-422
CrossRef Google scholar
[15]
P. Leenhardt, L. Teneva, S. Kininmonth, E. Darling, S. Cooley, J. Claudet. Challenges, insights and perspectives associated with using social-ecological science for marine conservation. Ocean Coast Manage, 115 ( 2015), pp. 49-60
[16]
C. Chen, B. Matzdorf, C. Meyer, H.J. König, L. Zhen.How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental payments for ecosystem services program. Ecosyst People, 15(1( 2019), pp. 317-330
CrossRef Google scholar
[17]
N.C. Ban, M. Mills, J. Tam, C.C. Hicks, S. Klain, N. Stoeckl, et al.. A social-ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations. Front Ecol Environ, 11 (4) ( 2013), pp. 194-202 DOI: 10.1890/110205
[18]
J. He, T. Sikor. Notions of justice in payments for ecosystem services: insights from China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program in Yunnan Province. Land Use Policy, 43 ( 2015), pp. 207-216
[19]
Y. Chen, S. Zhang, D. Huang, B.L. Li, J. Liu, W. Liu, et al.. The development of China’s Yangtze River Economic Belt: how to make it in a green way?. Sci Bull, 62 (9) ( 2017), pp. 648-651
[20]
S.V. Asselen, P.H. Verburg, J.E. Vermaat, J.H. Janse, A. Merenlender.Drivers of wetland conversion: a global meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 8 (11) ( 2013), p. e81292 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081292
[21]
H.L. Long, G.K. Heilig, J. Wang, X.B. Li, M. Luo, X.Q. Wu, et al.. Land use and soil erosion in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River: some socio-economic considerations on China’s Grain-for-Green Programme. Land Degrad Dev, 17 (6) ( 2006), pp. 589-603 DOI: 10.1002/ldr.736
[22]
J. Liu, W. Yang. Integrated assessments of payments for ecosystem services programs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 110 (41) ( 2013), pp. 16297-16298 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1316036110
[23]
L. Gutiérrez Rodríguez, N.J. Hogarth, W. Zhou, C. Xie, K. Zhang, L. Putzel. China’s conversion of cropland to forest program: a systematic review of the environmental and socioeconomic effects. Environ Evid, 5 (1) ( 2016), p. 21
[24]
L. Jin, I. Porras, A. Lopez, P. Kazis. Sloping Lands Conversion Programme, People’s Republic of China. I. Porras, E. Mohammed, P. Steele (Eds.), Conditional transfers, poverty and ecosystems:national programmes highlights, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London ( 2017)
[25]
M.T. Bennett, C. Xie, N.J. Hogarth, D. Peng, L. Putzel. China’s conversion of cropland to forest program for household delivery of ecosystem services: how important is a local implementation regime to survival rate outcomes?. Forests, 5 (9) ( 2014), pp. 2345-2376 DOI: 10.3390/f5092345
[26]
X. Hu, Z. Li, J. Chen, X. Nie, J. Liu, L. Wang, et al.. Carbon sequestration benefits of the Grain for Green Program in the hilly red soil region of southern China. Int Soil Water Conserv Res, 9 (2) ( 2021), pp. 271-278
[27]
K. Ning, J. Chen, Z. Li, C. Liu, X. Nie, Y. Liu, et al.. Land use change induced by the implementation of ecological restoration programs increases future terrestrial ecosystem carbon sequestration in red soil hilly region of China. Ecol Indic, 133 ( 2021), p. 108409
[28]
L. Wang, Z. Li, D. Wang, J. Chen, Y. Liu, X. Nie, et al.. Unbalanced social-ecological development within the Dongting Lake Basin: inspiration from evaluation of ecological restoration projects. J Clean Prod, 315 ( 2021), p. 128161
[29]
C. Gauvin, E. Uchida, S. Rozelle, J. Xu, J. Zhan. Cost-effectiveness of payments for ecosystem services with dual goals of environment and poverty alleviation. Environ Manage, 45 (3) ( 2010), pp. 488-501 DOI: 10.1007/s00267-009-9321-9
[30]
B. Zheng, Y. Gu, H. Zhu.Land tenure arrangements and rural-to-urban migration: evidence from implementation of China’s rural land contracting law. J Chin Gov, 5 (3) ( 2020), pp. 322-344
CrossRef Google scholar
[31]
B. Matzdorf, C. Sattler, S. Engel. Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. For Policy Econ, 37 ( 2013), pp. 57-64
[32]
M.T. Bennett. China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: institutional innovation or business as usual?. Ecol Econ, 65 (4) ( 2008), pp. 699-711
[33]
J. He, R. Lang. Limits of state-led programs of payment for ecosystem services: field evidence from the Sloping Land Conversion Program in southwest China. Hum Ecol, 43 (5) ( 2015), pp. 749-758 DOI: 10.1007/s10745-015-9782-9
[34]
J. Xu, R. Tao, Z. Xu, M.T. Bennett. China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: does expansion equal success?. Land Econ, 86 (2) ( 2010), pp. 219-244 DOI: 10.3368/le.86.2.219
[35]
X. Chen, F. Lupi, A. Viña, G. He, J. Liu.Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conserv Biol, 24 (6)( 2010), pp. 1469-1478
CrossRef Google scholar
[36]
A.T. Peterson. Uses and requirements of ecological niche models and related distributional models. Biodivers Inform, 3 ( 2006), pp. 59-72 DOI: 10.1080/09638280500167241
[37]
K. Remya, A. Ramachandran, S. Jayakumar. Predicting the current and future suitable habitat distribution of Myristica dactyloides Gaertn. using MaxEnt model in the eastern Ghats, India. Ecol Eng, 82 ( 2015), pp. 184-188
[38]
J.A. Swets. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240 (4857) ( 1988), pp. 1285-1293 DOI: 10.1126/science.3287615
[39]
D. Lu, Q. Weng. A survey of image classification methods and techniques for improving classification performance. Int J Remote Sens, 28 (5) ( 2007), pp. 823-870 DOI: 10.1080/01431160600746456
[40]
China Forestry Statistical Yearbook Committee. The task table of Cropland Converted to Forest Program in 2016. China forestry statistical yearbook (2016), China Forestry Publishing House, Beijing ( 2016)[Chinese]
[41]
L. Kong, H. Zheng, E. Rao, Y. Xiao, Z. Ouyang, C. Li. Evaluating indirect and direct effects of eco-restoration policy on soil conservation service in Yangtze River Basin. Sci Total Environ, 631-632 ( 2018), pp. 887-894
[42]
M. Liu, Y. Bai, N. Ma, D. Rao, L. Yang,Q. Min. Blood transfusion or hematopoiesis? How to select between the subsidy mode and the long-term mode of eco-compensation. Environ Res Lett, 15 (9) ( 2020), p. 094059 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab9793
[43]
B. DeAngelis, A. Sutton-Grier, A. Colden, K. Arkema, C. Baillie, R. Bennett, et al.. Social factors key to landscape-scale coastal restoration: lessons learned from three U.S. case studies. Sustainability, 12 (3) ( 2020), p. 869 DOI: 10.3390/su12030869
[44]
X. Yu. Undetermined center, non-working localities, and inactive farmers: the implementation failures of China’s Reforestation Program. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor ( 2013)
[45]
H. Weyerhaeuser, A. Wilkes, F. Kahrl. Local impacts and responses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China’s northwest Yunnan Province. Agric Syst, 85 (3) ( 2005), pp. 234-253
[46]
I. Palomo, C. Montes, B. Martín-López, J.A. González, M. García-Llorente, P. Alcorlo, et al.. Incorporating the social-ecological approach in protected areas in the anthropocene. Bioscience, 64 (3) ( 2014), pp. 181-191 DOI: 10.1093/biosci/bit033
[47]
P.S. Aung. Social-ecological coevolution and its implications for protected area management: case study in Natma Taung National Park, Myanmar[dissertation] Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden ( 2020)
[48]
T. Miyasaka, Q.B. Le, T. Okuro, X. Zhao, K. Takeuchi. Agent-based modeling of complex social-ecological feedback loops to assess multi-dimensional trade-offs in dryland ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol, 32 (4) ( 2017), pp. 707-727 DOI: 10.1007/s10980-017-0495-x
[49]
Z. Sun, D. Müller. A framework for modeling payments for ecosystem services with agent-based models, Bayesian belief networks and opinion dynamics models. Environ Model Softw, 45 ( 2013), pp. 15-28
[50]
G.S. Cumming, C.R. Allen, N.C. Ban, D. Biggs, H.C. Biggs, D.H.M. Cumming, et al.. Understanding protected area resilience: a multi-scale, social-ecological approach. Ecol Appl, 25 ( 2) ( 2015), pp. 299-319
CrossRef Google scholar
[51]
A.M. Guerrero, K.A. Wilson. Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans. Conserv Biol, 31 (2) ( 2017), pp. 290-301 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12832
[52]
S. Cao, C. Xu, L. Chen, X. Wang. Attitudes of farmers in China’s northern Shaanxi Province towards the land-use changes required under the Grain for Green Project, and implications for the project’s success. Land Use Policy, 26 (4) ( 2009), pp. 1182-1194
[53]
C. Song, Y. Zhang, Y. Mei, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, Q. Zhang, et al.. Sustainability of forests created by China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program: a comparison among three sites in Anhui, Hubei, and Shanxi. For Policy Econ, 38 ( 2014), pp. 161-167
[54]
X. Wu, S. Wang, B. Fu, Y. Liu, Y. Zhu. Land use optimization based on ecosystem service assessment: a case study in the Yanhe Watershed. Land Use Policy, 72 ( 2018), pp. 303-312
[55]
C.M. Kennedy, P.L. Hawthorne, D.A. Miteva, L. Baumgarten, K. Sochi, M. Matsumoto, et al.. Optimizing land use decision-making to sustain Brazilian agricultural profits, biodiversity and ecosystem services. Biol Conserv, 204 ( 2016), pp. 221-230
Funding
the National Natural Science Foundation of China(41925005); the National Natural Science Foundation of China(72022014); the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (STEP) program(2019QZKK0307)
AI Summary AI Mindmap
PDF(2482 KB)

Accesses

Citations

Detail
Sections
Recommended

/

〈 〉