Are Socioeconomic Benefits of Restoration Adequately Quantified? A Meta‐analysis of Recent Papers (2000–2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 Other Scientific Journals

By J. Aronson, J. Blignaut, S. Milton, D. L. Le Maître, Karen J. Esler, A. Limouzin, C. Fontaine, M. D. de Wit, W. Mugido, P. Prinsloo and 2 more. 2010

264 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/08b7f93dc906250d1af2c5d9f31d01ca6d81f5a2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function (2014, background): “Accounting for market and non-market benefits strengthens the rationale for restoration but projects seldom include all socioeconomic values and benefits (Aronson et al., 2010).”
Time, space, place, and the Bonn Challenge global forest restoration target (2017, background): “…geographic scales, few studies in the restoration literature have estimated the value of the ecosystem service benefits of restoration because the predominant trend has been to evaluate restoration projects with ecological rather than economic indicators (Aronson et al. 2010; Wortley et al. 2013).”
Impacts of large‐scale forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we know and do not know (2016, background): “Two previous reviews attempted to bridge this gap (Aronson et al. 2010, Le et al. 2012), showing that some of the benefits that can be expected from reforestation projects at the local level are increases in income, availability of food and fiber supplies, employment and other livelihood…”
Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review (2020, result): “The geographical representation of studies of invasive plant species control in ecological restoration was similar to other reviews on restoration (e.g. Aronson et al., 2010 for a socio-economic review), in which the studies were mostly performed in developed countries, especially the United States.”
Impacts of invasive Australian acacias: implications for management and restoration (2011, background): “…societal support for management, and restoration of affected ecosystems should be based on a thorough understanding of the impacts on services and benefits that society derives from those ecosystems (D’Antonio & Meyerson, 2002; Clewell & Aronson, 2006; Turpie et al., 2008; Aronson et al., 2010).”
Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (2012, background): “, 2001; Leimu & Koricheva, 2004; Luiselli, 2008) and in conservation biology (Ojeda-Martinez et al., 2007; Aronson et al., 2010; Marczak et al., 2010).”