DOI: 10.5061/dryad.n5tb2rbwh
title: Database outcomes systematic review on participatory restoration ecology scenarios

description: Large-scale ecological restoration is crucial for effective biodiversity
 conservation and combating climate change. However, perspectives on the
 goals and values of restoration are highly diverse, as are the different
 approaches to restoration e.g., ranging from the restoration of cultural
 ecosystems to rewilding. We assess how the future of nature is envisioned
 in participatory scenarios, focusing on which elements of rewilding and
 nature contributions to people have been considered in scenario narratives
 across Europe. We use the Nature Futures Framework to study how different
 perspectives on the the relationship of people with nature are captured in
 participatory scenarios. We found that a range of material, regulating and
 non-materical benefits were well represented in participatory scenarios.
 The different ecological aspects of rewilding were also present in many
 participatory scenarios, but not as well represented as nature
 contributions to people. Nature as culture was  the main
 perspective present in the scenarios, with expected highest positive
 impacts on non-material benefits and to a lessesr extent on regulating
 benefits. Nature for nature futures were  associated with
 positive impacts on regulating benefits and negative impacts on material
 benefits, being the only type of future associate with positive impacts on
 all three components of rewilding. Nature for society futures were
 associated with moderate positive impacts on all three types of nature
 contributions to people. Business as usual futures were associate with
 negative impacts on regulating and non-material benefits and on all three
 components of rewilding. Our results also highlight two major gaps that
 should be addressed in participatory restoration planning and models.
 Firstly, there is a paucity of spatially explicit approaches, with most
 studies failing to transform the results of participatory scenario
 planning into model projections. Secondly, we found scenarios that
 explored co-benefits between multiple nature perspectives were overall
 missing from the literature.
description: We carried out a systematic review of the scientific publications
 and grey literature (Case reports,
 project reports) focusing on participatory scenarios for land
 management, area-based conservation and/or ecosystem restoration in
 Europe. We used the ROSES (RepOrting
 standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses),framework to guide the
 systematic review throughout the steps of searching, screening and
 critical appraisal (Haddaway et al. 2018). For this review, we consulted two
 different databases ‘Web of Science’ and ‘Scopus’ using a time frame between 2000 and
 2020. We used two search strings  for the title, abstracts and
 keywords: (1) a combination of terms targeting publications
 on scenarios for landscape management (or the lackthereof, i.e. terms
 related to land abandonment which is particularly relevant in the case of
 rewilding in Europe (Navarro and
 Pereira 2012)), and (2) a combination targeted
 at scenarios for biodiversity conservation, restoration and rewilding. Our search returned a total of
 3419 articles to which we applied the following inclusion criteria: the
 case study explicitly mentions the development of participatory scenarios,
 the participatory scenarios are located in Europe and are
 addressing
 biodiversity conservation, restoration, and/or rewilding or related components <em>sensu
 </em>Perino et al., 2019, that is trophic complexity, connectivity,
 disturbance. With these criteria, our initial pool of publications was
 narrowed down to 246 scenario storylines from 70 articles selected for the
 data synthesis and analysis.  We synthesised information of
 the different studies focusing
 on 3 main
 blocks of information: (1)
 General scenario components;(2) Components of rewilding; and (3) of Nature Contributions to People. We then assessed to which extent each scenario
 matched the three NFF archetypes as well as the Business-as-Usual
 scenarios.
description: <strong>First,</strong> we
 identified the elements of rewilding and nature contributions to people
 being considered in participatory processes by using the set of indicators
 defined in Torres et al.
 2018 
 and Harrison et al. 2019 For measuring rewilding
 progress,these components are divided into two categories:
 “ecological integrity” which includes the restoration of connectivity
 (e.g. landscape fragmentation), stochastic disturbance (e.g. restoration
 of flooding regimes), and trophic complexity (e.g. community composition)
 of ecosystems and the “reduction of human inputs and outputs” (e.g.
 reduction of cropland area and intensity).  For nature
 contributions to people, we divided the
 assessment of the NCPS into the following sub-categories: regulatory,
 material and non-material NCPs according to. These categories were then further organized
 into individual NCPs such as the regulation of invasive species, food
 provision and pollination (for a full list of NCPs considered see Harrison
 et al., 2019) We assessed
 when NCPs or rewilding componets were explicitly considered as a part of
 the scenario storyline. We gave a score of 1 if the scenario mentioned
 positive effects on the NCP (e.g. an increase of food provision) or -1
 when negative effects were mentioned in the narratives reviewed (e.g.
 decrease of food provision) and N.A where there was no
 information.  <strong>Second,</strong>
 we mapped the case studies scenarios to the
 Nature futures framework (NFF) and the Business-as-usual archetypes. To do
 this we systematically assigned each scenario storyline from the case
 studies to one or several Nature Future scenarios based on the
 descriptions of the scenario storylines and the NFF archetypes
 description. We then assessed how the different NCPs and rewilding
 components considered (or not) by each scenario are reflected in each of
 the NFF as well as the business-as-usual scenario. To that purpose, we
 assigned a weight to each scenario of each case study depending on how
 closely they matched the Nature Future narratives and the
 business-as-usual scenario. We gave for each NFF and each scenario a
 weight between 0 and 1, where a value of 1 means that the scenario fully
 matched with the NFF archetype description, and 0 when there were no
 elements in common.