Abstract
In the face of the climate and biodiversity crisis, global targets for the restoration of degraded lands have become ever more ambitious and urgent. Here we explain the case for placing justice at the heart of restoration practice. Although this is increasingly accepted, there is an unfortunate tendency to address justice in superficial ways, through tokenistic forms of participation and benefit sharing. We address this problem by classifying the different levels at which justice can be addressed and elaborating the level that restoration practice should aspire to if it is to be just and transformative.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Prăvălie, R. Exploring the multiple land degradation pathways across the planet. Earth Sci. Rev. 220, 103689 (2021).
Becoming #GenerationRestoration: Ecosystem Restoration for People, Nature and Climate (UNEP, 2021); https://www.unep.org/resources/ecosystem-restoration-people-nature-climate
Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022); https://www.cbd.int/gbf/
Tedesco, A. M. et al. Beyond ecology: ecosystem restoration as a process for social-ecological transformation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 38, 643–653 (2023).
Benra, F. et al. National ecosystem restoration pledges are mismatched with social-ecological enabling conditions. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 731 (2024).
Obura, D. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework: business as usual or a turning point? One Earth 6, 77–80 (2023).
Dawson, N. M. et al. Is it just conservation? A typology of Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ roles in conserving biodiversity. One Earth 7, 1007–1021 (2024).
West, P. & Brockington, D. An anthropological perspective on some unexpected consequences of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 20, 609–618 (2006).
Rozzi, R. in From Biocultural Homogenization to Biocultural Conservation Vol. 3 (eds Rozzi, R. et al.) 303–314 (Springer, 2018).
Martin, A. Just Conservation: Biodiversity, Wellbeing and Sustainability (Routledge, 2017).
Anguelovski, I. & Corbera, E. Integrating justice in nature-based solutions to avoid nature-enabled dispossession. Ambio 52, 45–53 (2023).
Urzedo, D., Pedrini, S., Hearps, C., Dixon, K. & Van Leeuwen, S. Indigenous environmental justice through coproduction of mining restoration supply chains in Australia. Restor. Ecol. 30, e13748 (2022).
Gann, G. D. et al. International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, S1–S46 (2019).
Shelton, M. R., Kanowski, P. J., Kleinschmit, D. & Ison, R. L. Critical social perspectives in forest and landscape restoration—a systematic review. Front. Environ. Sci. 12, 1466758 (2024).
Campion, O. B. et al. Balpara: a practical approach to working with ontological difference in Indigenous land & sea management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 37, 695–715 (2024).
Standards of Practice to Guide Ecosystem Restoration: a Contribution to the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (FAO, SER & IUCN, 2023).
Jurjonas, M. et al. The perceived ecological and human well-being benefits of ecosystem restoration. People Nat. 6, 4–19 (2024).
Coolsaet, B. & Dawson, N. M. JustConservation—global data of site-level biodiversity conservation and its social-ecological outcomes (1970–2019). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7688777 (2023).
Kandel, M., Agaba, G., Alare, R. S., Addoah, T. & Schreckenberg, K. Assessing social equity in farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) interventions: findings from Ghana. Ecol. Restor. 39, 64–76 (2021).
Löfqvist, S. et al. How social considerations improve the equity and effectiveness of ecosystem restoration. BioScience 73, 134–148 (2023).
Elias, M., Joshi, D. & Meinzen-Dick, R. Restoration for whom, by whom? A feminist political ecology of restoration. Ecol. Restor. 39, 3–15 (2021).
McElwee, P. & Huu Nghi, T. Assessing the social benefits of tree planting by smallholders in Vietnam: lessons for large-scale reforestation programs. Ecol. Restor. 39, 52–63 (2021).
Almassi, B. Ecological restorations as practices of moral repair. Ethics Environ. 22, 19–40 (2017).
Mansourian, S. et al. Human Dimensions of Forest Landscape Restoration (International Union of Forest Research Organizations, 2024); https://hdl.handle.net/10568/141866
Reyes-García, V. et al. The contributions of Indigenous peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restor. Ecol. 27, 3–8 (2019).
Artelle, K. A. et al. Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: a nascent mechanism for just and effective conservation. Biol. Conserv. 240, 108284 (2019).
Hall, M. M. et al. Promoting social and environmental justice to support Indigenous partnerships in urban ecosystem restoration. Restor. Ecol. 29, e13305 (2021).
Martinez, D. J., Cannon, C. E. B., McInturff, A., Alagona, P. S. & Pellow, D. N. Back to the future: Indigenous relationality, kincentricity and the North American model of wildlife management. Environ. Sci. Policy 140, 202–207 (2023).
Slayi, M., Zhou, L., Thamaga, K. H. & Nyambo, P. The role of social inclusion in restoring communal rangelands in Southern Africa: a systematic review of approaches, challenges, and outcomes. Land 13, 1521 (2024).
Meadows, D. Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System (Sustainability Institute, 1999).
Abson, D. J. et al. Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39 (2017).
The Thematic Assessment Report of the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity: Summary for Policymakers (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2024).
Schlosberg, D. Reconceiving environmental justice: global movements and political theories. Environ. Polit. 13, 517–540 (2004).
Bullard, R. D. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality (Routledge, 1990).
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).
Schultz, B. et al. Recognizing the equity implications of restoration priority maps. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 114019 (2022).
Li, T. M. What is land? Assembling a resource for global investment. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 39, 589–602 (2014).
Vatn, A. et al. Incorporating diverse values of nature in decision-making—theory and practice. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 379, 20220315 (2024).
Geels, F. W. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory Cult. Soc. 31, 21–40 (2014).
Gaventa, J. Finding the spaces for change: a power analysis. IDS Bull. 37, 23–33 (2006).
Kanger, L., Sovacool, B. K. & Noorkõiv, M. Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: a conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Res. Policy 49, 104072 (2020).
West, S., Haider, L. J., Stålhammar, S. & Woroniecki, S. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People 16, 304–325 (2020).
Himes, A. et al. Why nature matters: a systematic review of intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values. BioScience 74, 25–43 (2024).
Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature: Summary for Policy Makers (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2022).
Rodriguez, I. in The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Restorative Justice (eds Pali, B. et al.) 531–561 (Springer, 2022).
Osborne, T. et al. The political ecology playbook for ecosystem restoration: principles for effective, equitable, and transformative landscapes. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102320 (2021).
Escobar, A. Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds (Duke Univ. Press, 2018).
Rössler, M. World Heritage cultural landscapes: a UNESCO flagship programme 1992–2006. Landsc. Res. 31, 333–353 (2006).
Orlove, B. et al. Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research. Ambio 52, 1431–1447 (2023).
Verschuuren, B. et al. Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature: Guidance for Protected and Conserved Area Governance and Management (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2021); https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2021.PAG.32.en
Bartlett, C., Marshall, M. & Marshall, A. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2, 331–340 (2012).
Biedenweg, K., Harguth, H. & Stiles, K. The science and politics of human well-being: a case study in cocreating indicators for Puget Sound restoration. Ecol. Soc. 22, art11 (2017).
Lee, L. C. et al. Chiixuu Tll iinasdll: Indigenous ethics and values lead to ecological restoration for people and place in Gwaii Haanas. Ecol. Restor. 39, 45–51 (2021).
Brondízio, E. S. et al. Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: Indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 481–509 (2021).
Larson, A. Toolbox: Understanding and Addressing Tenure in Forest Landscape Restoration in Community Lands (CIFOR-ICRAF, 2024).
Aini, J. et al. Reimagining conservation practice: Indigenous self-determination and collaboration in Papua New Guinea. Oryx 57, 350–359 (2023).
Fox, C. A., Reo, N. J., Fessell, B. & Dituri, F. Native American tribes and dam removal: restoring the Ottaway, Penobscot and Elwha Rivers. Water Alter. 15, 31–55 (2022).
Schneider, L. Decolonizing conservation? Indigenous resurgence and buffalo restoration in the American West. Environ. Plan. E 6, 801–821 (2022).
Hill, R. et al. Community-based approaches to biodiversity finance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 73, 101521 (2025).
Ranjatson P. & Razafimahatratra A. Lessons in Adaptive Governance of Complex Social Ecological Systems: Long Term Experiences from the Fandriana Marolambo Forest Landscape Restoration, Madagascar (CIFOR-ICRAF, 2024).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.M. led the writing. I.R., N.D., R.B. and I.C. contributed to the literature review, analysis and writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Sustainability thanks Carlos Andres Gallegos-Riofrío, Victoria Reyes-Garcia and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Martin, A., Dawson, N., Rodríguez, I. et al. Towards just and transformative social–ecological restoration. Nat Sustain (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01702-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01702-w
