Not only biology matters: socioeconomic factors change land prioritization for restoration

Abstract

Ecological restoration requires a holistic view of the interconnectedness between degraded areas, remaining ecosystems, and the repercussions of land use and other socioeconomic costs. In this study, we analyze how biological priorities for restoration change when ecological, social, and economic feasibility are considered. A multi‐criteria approach was used to prioritize restoration areas, using the Mexican side of the transboundary Grijalva‐Usumacinta basin (78,831 km2) as a study model, one of Mexico's most important regions, thanks to its hydrology, biology, and social conditions. Fourteen indicators of biological value and feasibility for restoration were identified. The results showed that when considering only biological factors (B scenario), 9.35% of the basin area had high or very high priority for restoration within or near natural protected areas (NPAs). When including feasibility (B + F scenario), the area with high to very high priority values for restoration increased to 34.3%. This means that many feasible areas had medium or low biological priority for restoration, and consequently, in many cases, there is a tradeoff between the possible biological recovery versus viability derived mainly from socioeconomic factors. Without discerning where restoration can offer the most pronounced ecological and socioeconomic benefits, efforts risk being misdirected or squandered. This approach provides a suitability assessment useful for decision‐makers and stakeholders because it generates a more complete picture of opportunities and threats to make a final selection of priority areas for intervention.