Forest restoration

One concept, multiple interpretations

Bibliographic Data

ID21704583
AuthorsMaitane Erdozain (0000-0002-4078-0131, Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia, corresponding author), Victoria Madrid (Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia), Aitor Àvila Callau (0000-0002-6582-3353, Forest Science and Technology Centre of Catalonia), Iciar Alberdi (0000-0003-1338-8465, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Isabel Cañellas (0000-0002-9716-7776, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas), Rafael M Navarro-Cerrillo (University of Córdoba), Guillermo Palacios-Rodríguez (0000-0001-8786-0211, University of Córdoba), Jordi Palau (0000-0001-9492-7306, Universitat de Lleida), Sergio de-Miguel (Universitat de Lleida)
Year2026
Volume190
Pages103869
Publication date2026-09-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueForest Policy and Economics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1389-9341 • E-ISSN: 1872-7050
PublisherElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103869
OpenAlexW7167501074
LanguageEN
References cited42

Forest restoration is gaining global momentum, with increasingly ambitious goals and targets. Yet, a fundamental challenge persists: reaching a shared understanding of what “forest restoration” and “forest adaptation” actually mean, concepts that are complex, dynamic and often interpreted differently in theory and practice. This study explores expert interpretations of forest restoration and adaptation by assessing levels of agreement, testing definitions through case studies, identifying influencing factors, and fostering dialogue to build mutual understanding and consensus. We applied the Delphi method, engaging 62 experts through one online and three in-person workshops to complete two successive questionnaires. While experts broadly agreed on preferred definitions, there was marked variability in their practical interpretations, especially regarding rewilding and passive restoration. To bridge these gaps, experts identified four widely supported criteria for defining forest restoration: long-term outcomes, focus on ecological processes and functions, delivery of ecosystem services and resilience to climate change (94, 91, 91 and 89% support, respectively). Differences in interpretation were partially linked to participants' gender, age and professional background, as well as to the ambiguous language used in existing definitions. These divergences pose a challenge for developing national restoration strategies and for assessing alignment with frameworks such as the EU Nature Restoration Regulation. Clarifying core concepts and incorporating diverse perspectives through participatory processes can foster greater consensus and more effective restoration planning

Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management · Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies · Forest Management and Policy

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access