Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities

Abstract

Forest restoration occupies centre stage in global conversations about carbon removal and biodiversity conservation, but recent research rarely acknowledges social dimensions or environmental justice implications related to its implementation. We find that 294.5 million people live on tropical forest restoration opportunity land in the Global South, including 12% of the total population in low-income countries. Forest landscape restoration that prioritizes local communities by affording them rights to manage and restore forests provides a promising option to align global agendas for climate mitigation, conservation, environmental justice and sustainable development. An analysis of the overlap between tropical forest restoration, human populations, development and national policies for community forest ownership shows that 294.5 million people live within forest restoration opportunity land in the Global South.

Full text

Brief CommuniCation
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01282-2
1Environmental Studies Program, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 2Bharti Institute of Public Policy, Indian School of Business, Hyderabad, India.
3Dartmouth Library, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 4Global Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 5School of
Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6Sheffield Institute for International Development, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK. ✉e-mail: james.t.erbaugh@dartmouth.edu
Forest restoration occupies centre stage in global conversa-
tions about carbon removal and biodiversity conservation,
but recent research rarely acknowledges social dimensions or
environmental justice implications related to its implementa-
tion. We find that 294.5 million people live on tropical forest
restoration opportunity land in the Global South, including
12% of the total population in low-income countries. Forest
landscape restoration that prioritizes local communities by
affording them rights to manage and restore forests provides
a promising option to align global agendas for climate miti-
gation, conservation, environmental justice and sustainable
development.
Forest restoration is considered to be a crucial strategy for
conserving global biodiversity and mitigating climate change1–3.
New research identifies the global extent of forest restoration
opportunities, demonstrates the promise of forest restoration for
mitigating climate change and calls for more ambitious global for-
est restoration efforts1–6. There is some disagreement about the
degree to which forest restoration can or should contribute to atmo-
spheric carbon removal7–9, as mitigating climate change depends on
decarbonizing the economy while protecting intact forests and
restoring degraded landscapes10. Yet prominent conservation ini-
tiatives such as ‘global no net loss’ of natural ecosystems, ‘half for
nature’ and the Aichi Target 11 still combine conservation of intact
natural habitat and restoration of degraded forests to reach their
ambitious targets11–13.
To progress those goals, recent research on forest restoration
advances conservation and climate mitigation agendas with knowl-
edge about where trees can be grown and the global potential for
restoration. It often fails, however, to address the social implica-
tions of global forest restoration. Here, we argue that the success
of global forest restoration critically depends on prioritizing local
communities14.
To realize its full potential, forest restoration cannot avoid rural
populations. Confining restoration efforts to sparsely inhabited
forest landscapes removes the concern of displacing or marginal-
izing local populations, but it limits global restoration in three ways.
First, remote restoration regions (1 person per km2 or less within
a 500 km radius) represent only 11% of global forest restoration
opportunity areas15. Second, because remote forest restoration is
possible only in areas far from human settlements, fewer people will
enjoy any local benefits. Third, pursuing only remote forest restora-
tion would not contribute as meaningfully to biodiversity conser-
vation. The tropics are home to a disproportionate amount of the
world’s biodiversity but contain only 0.68% of all remote restoration
opportunities. Remote forest restoration holds promise for carbon
sequestration, but global agendas that seek to deliver the greatest
number of benefits from forest restoration will need to focus on
populated landscapes5.
Forest restoration initiatives must, therefore, identify how best to
work with local communities. Approaches that exclude indigenous
people and local communities, including some protected areas,
have been associated with environmental conflicts, poor conserva-
tion performance and negative social outcomes16–18. Restoring for-
ests without the consent of those who depend on the same land will
probably lead to forced displacement (physical or economic) and/
or costly monitoring and regulation to prohibit illegal (though often
legitimate) activities.
Excluding indigenous people and local people from forest res-
toration also poses ethical problems. Such exclusion would force
some of the most multidimensionally poor people—those who live
in rural areas within low-income countries—to move or give up
their current livelihood for a global carbon and biodiversity debt to
which they contributed little19. Just and equitable climate mitigation
and biodiversity conservation from forest restoration require the
inclusion and participation of local communities20,21.
As a mechanism of land and resource management, forest land-
scape restoration (FLR) has considerable potential to include local
populations and improve local livelihoods. FLR was initially con-
ceived as a management approach to promote ecological restoration
and human well-being in degraded landscapes by engaging local
stakeholders22. By including local stakeholders from the public, pri-
vate and civil society sectors, proponents assert that FLR contributes
to human well-being through the use and sale of forest products,
increases in food as well as water security, and through diverse cul-
tural values people hold for trees and forests21–25. However, compet-
ing definitions of FLR exist26. The Bonn Challenge to commence
restoration of 350 million ha of forest landscapes by 2030 refers to
FLR as large-scale forest restoration projects but does not empha-
size the importance of engaging local stakeholders in planning
and implementation processes2,27,28. Thus, many current debates
about FLR reflect a lack of conceptual clarity and do not adequately
address recent evidence as to how forest restoration can promote
ecological as well as human well-being24,29. Here we define FLR
as an approach to landscape planning and management that aims
to restore ecological integrity and enhance human well-being on
deforested and degraded lands through the inclusion and engage-
ment of local stakeholders22.
Global forest restoration and the importance of
prioritizing local communities
J. T. Erbaugh 1 ✉ , N. Pradhan 2, J. Adams 3, J. A. Oldekop 4, A. Agrawal5, D. Brockington 6,
R. Pritchard4,6 and A. Chhatre 2
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

Brief CommuniCation Nature ecoloGy & evolutioN
To unite global agendas for climate mitigation, conservation and
environmental justice, FLR must go beyond merely including local
stakeholders and prioritize local communities. Given the uncer-
tainty surrounding forest restoration and its impacts on human
well-being30–32, the tendency to implement restoration without con-
sulting local stakeholders is untenable33. Consulting local stakehold-
ers alone does not guarantee just and equitable forest restoration.
However, there are numerous examples in the conservation sec-
tor where indigenous people and local communities have gener-
ated positive human and environmental outcomes when afforded
rights to manage and use forests16,34. Technical training and equi-
table resource access reduce some risks associated with community
resource management, including elite capture, overharvests and
exclusion35. In many contexts, empowering communities to man-
age forests for restoration provides a reasonable and just approach
to address contextual uncertainty, incorporate traditional ecologi-
cal knowledge and assist forest proximate populations to receive the
opportunities they desire from global restoration28,36,37.
The potential synergies from prioritizing local communities
through FLR emphasize the importance of determining where for-
est restoration, human populations and development intersect. Our
analysis examines the overlap between opportunities for tropical
forest restoration, human populations, development and national
policies for community forest ownership to identify where focus-
ing forest restoration efforts might best benefit both people and the
planet. We focus on the tropics because of the synergies between car-
bon sequestration, biodiversity conservation and human well-being
benefits that FLR affords there5. We aggregate our data to present
country-level estimates because nation states remain primary actors
in setting carbon removal and landscape restoration targets2.
We find that 294.5 million people live in recently tree-covered
areas representing tropical forest restoration opportunities in the
Global South. Many more people live near these forest restoration
opportunities. One-third of the tropical population in our analysis
(~1.01 billion people) live within 8 km of land predicted to enable
forest restoration from 2020 to 2050, given a moderate carbon tax
incentive (US$20 tCO2−1). Supplementary Table 1 provides addi-
tional information on population estimates across different forest
restoration opportunities and methods.
Forest restoration opportunities, population and development
vary widely by country (Fig. 1). Brazil (BRA), the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (COD), India (IND) and Indonesia (IDN)
have the greatest number of people living in or near (<8 km)
forest restoration opportunity areas with the greatest potential
to remove carbon (Fig. 2a). Crafting global FLR strategies that
seek to deliver sustainable development benefits to the most local
people within the fewest countries would do well to focus on these
nations. However, FLR may generate greater population-level
benefits in nations where forest restoration opportunities, and
the people who depend on them, represent a substantial propor-
tion of their respective total. Political, market and civil society
actors in these same countries are likely to enhance international
activity and investment in FLR with national efforts, should restora-
tion provide well-being benefits. Countries with a greater propor-
tion of forest restoration opportunity area include COD, Tanzania
(TZA), the Central African Republic (CAF), and Mozambique
(MOZ) (Fig. 2b).
FLR investments hold the promise to improve the livelihood
and well-being of millions who are often underserved by standard
investments in infrastructure and development. Within low-income
countries, 12% of the population lives in forest restoration oppor-
tunity areas (Fig. 1c). Forest restoration opportunities exist out-
side the areas of greatest human pressure, and populations in these
areas often face greater infrastructural and developmental depriva-
tion. Nighttime light radiance indicates the extent and magnitude
of electrical infrastructure and usage, and it is strongly correlated
with a host of development indicators38–40. Areas in low-income
nations with the least nighttime light radiance and the greatest car-
bon removal potential indicate where FLR might best complement
sustainable development agendas. There are many opportunities in
Central, Eastern and Southern Africa to restore forests and provide
socioeconomic and infrastructure benefits to local people facing
many multidimensional deprivations (Fig. 2 and Supplementary
Fig. 1). However, concurrently improving infrastructure and restor-
ing forests does create additional risks, since forest cover loss and
degradation often follow infrastructure development41. Providing
indigenous people and local communities with the ability to partici-
pate in managing forest landscapes via resource rights can moderate
15° S
10° S
5° S
0°
5° N
10° N
15° N
20° N
LatitudeLatitudeLatitude
a
0
10
20
30
Increased
removals from FR (tCO2)
15° S
10° S
5° S
0°
5° N
10° N
15° N
20° N
b
0
100
100,000
Population
0
0.05
0.10
15° S
10° S
5° S
0°
5° N
10° N
15° N
20° N
100° W 50° W 0° 50° E
Longitude
100° E 150° E
c
Income level (WDI)
Lower income
Lower−middle income
Upper−middle income
Proportion
Fig. 1 | Forest restoration (FR) opportunity areas in the tropics. a, FR opportunity areas15 by estimated carbon removal from 2020 to 2050 given a
US$20 tCO2−1 scenario4. b, FR areas by population density (population per 5.55 km2)48. c, FR areas by country-level income categories50. Inset: the
proportion of people living in FR areas by income category. WDI, World Development Indicators.
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

Brief CommuniCation
Nature ecoloGy & evolutioN
the relationship between improved infrastructure, forest cover loss
and human well-being42.
Most forest restoration opportunity areas and their associated
populations exist in countries with legal foundations for community
forest ownership. Community forest ownership includes the follow-
ing rights afforded in perpetuity: forest access, resource withdrawal,
exclusion as well as due process and compensation43. As such, own-
ership represents a stronger set of resource rights than community
forest management or access alone. In this analysis, countries with
pre-existing legal frameworks and evidence of community forest
ownership (n = 22) contain two-thirds of forest restoration oppor-
tunity areas (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 2). Further, countries
that provide forest ownership rights to communities contain 70%
of people living in or near forest restoration opportunity areas
(Supplementary Table 2), representing a large proportion of their
total tropical population (Fig. 2a,b). A legal framework for commu-
nity forest rights and evidence of their recognition do not guarantee
faithful implementation of community forest ownership, but their
absence indicates that forest proximate communities are excluded
from making authorized decisions about the future of the forests on
which they depend. This implies a greater likelihood of exclusion
from forest areas, forest products and related benefits. Continued
efforts to expand community forest ownership are essential, and
they are of pressing national importance in countries with a sub-
stantial proportion of people living in forest restoration opportu-
nity areas, such as CAF, COD, Thailand (THA) and the Lao People’s
Democratic Republic (LAO) (Fig. 2b). To advance global restoration
while prioritizing forest proximate peoples through community
Tropical population
200,000,000
400,000,000
600,000,000
Income level (WDI)
Lower income
Lower−middle income
Upper−middle income
Community forest ownership
No
Yes
Nighttime radiance
(nW cm–2 sr–1 × 109)
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000 100,000,000
Population in forest restoration areas
Increased removals from forest restoration (tCO2)
a
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
b
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
100 10,000 1,000,000
Radiance in forest restoration areas
Increased removals from forest restoration (tCO2)
c
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
d
Total tropical radiance
Radiance in forest restoration areas
Total population
Population in forest restoration areas
AGO
BLZ
BOL
BRA
KHM
CMR
CAF
CHN
COL
CRI
COD
TLS
ECU
ETH
GAB
GMB
GTM
GUY
HND
IND
IDN
KEN
LAO
LBR MYS
MLI
MEX
MOZ
MMR
NGA
PNG
PER
PHL
COG
SEN
SSD
SDN
SUR
TZA
THA
TGO
UGA
VEN VNM
ZMB
AGO
BLZ
BOL
BRA
KHM
CMR
CAF
CHN
COL
CRI
COD
TLS
ECU
ETH
GAB
GMB
GTM
GUY
HND
IND
IDN
KEN
LAO
LBR
MYS
MLI
MEX MOZ
MMR
NGA
PNG
PER PHL
COG
SEN
SSD
SDN
SUR
TZA
THA
TGO
UGA
VEN
VNM
ZMB
AGO
BLZ
BOL
BRA
KHM
CMR
CAF
CHN
COL
CRI
COD
TLS
ECU
ETH
GAB
GMB
GTM
GUY HND
IND
IDN
KEN LAO
LBR
MYS
MLI
MEX
MOZ MMR
NGA
PNG PER PHL
COG
SEN
SSD
SDN
SUR
TZA
THA
TGO
UGA
VEN
VNM
ZMB
AGO
BLZ
BOL
BRA
KHM
CMR
CAF
CHN
COL
CRI
COD
TLS
ECU
ETH
GAB
GMB
GTM
GUY HND
IND IDN
KEN
LAO
LBR
MYS
MLI
MEX
MOZ
MMR
NGA
PNG
PER
PHL
COG
SEN
SSD
SDN
SUR
TZA
THA
TGO
UGA
VEN
VNM ZMB
Fig. 2 | Country-level population and nighttime light radiance by increased removals from reforestation. a, Countries plotted in reference to population48
in FR opportunity areas by increased removals from forest restoration in tCO2. b, The proportion of country population in FR areas by increased removals.
c, Total nighttime light radiance49 by increased removals. d, The proportion of nighttime light radiance in FR areas by total tropical nighttime light radiance.
Increased removals are predicted under a US$20 tCO2−1 scenario from 2020 to 2050. Nighttime light radiance is measured in nW cm−2 sr−1 × 109. All
panels visualize 45 countries that represent 90% of the total FLR opportunity area in the tropics. Supplementary Information contains plots with all
countries (n = 69). See Supplementary Table 3 for country codes.
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

Brief CommuniCation Nature ecoloGy & evolutioN
forest rights, FLR must emphasize the importance of locally man-
aged restoration.
FLR that prioritizes local communities represents a just mecha-
nism for global forest restoration. Recent research highlights the
importance of forest restoration to climate mitigation agendas, and
it advances the ability to locate forest restoration opportunities. It
remains essential to assess this information in relation to institu-
tional, social and political circumstances to determine how FLR
can best contribute to equitable and sustainable climate solutions.
Excluding local communities from global forest restoration limits
our ability to mitigate climate change, and it risks resistance, conflict
and perpetuating environmental injustices. Empowering local com-
munities to restore forests can provide human well-being benefits
to millions of the most deprived and marginalized people as well as
environmental benefits for all.
Methods
Forest restoration opportunity areas. We combine two datasets to identify areas
that represent opportunities for forest restoration. Combining data that classies
forest restoration opportunities using demographic, geographic and land-cover
data with estimates from a land-change model that predicts carbon removal from
forest restoration provides more conservative estimates of where, and to what
extent, forest restoration is likely to mitigate climate change.
We first define forest restoration opportunity areas as wide-scale and mosaic
restoration areas in the tropics identified in the ‘Global map of forest landscape
restoration opportunities’15. Wide-scale restoration areas have the potential to
support closed forest canopy and contain population densities of less than 10
people per km2. Mosaic restoration areas are similarly able to support closed forest
canopy but contain population densities of between 10 and 100 people per km2.
Forest restoration areas from the ‘Global map’ are identified by layering data.
Through this method, deductively determined cut-off points and population
densities applied to spatial biophysical and human pressure datasets identify
locations most amenable to forest restoration. Other studies of global forest
restoration opportunities and land-cover patterns employ this method of spatial
identification5,44. Among the global set of forest restoration opportunities, we
focus on opportunities in tropical countries, because of the potential these areas
have for removing atmospheric carbon, promoting biodiversity conservation and
contributing to the well-being of forest proximate people3,5.
We further define forest restoration opportunities using estimates of where,
and to what extent, atmospheric carbon removal from forest restoration would
occur given a moderate economic incentive. Estimates of carbon removal come
from a land-change model that calculates where a US$20 tCO2−1 carbon tax is likely
to incentivize forest restoration from 2020 to 2050, based on tree cover in 2000 and
2010, topographical variation as well as agricultural opportunity costs4. Though
the model estimates forest restoration and carbon removal using a US$20 tCO2−1
scenario, these data broadly represent where a moderate financial incentive equal
to or greater than the value generated by a carbon tax is likely to promote forest
restoration. Importantly, this approach improves upon many studies that identify
forest restoration opportunities through layering, because it explicitly models
carbon removal from forest restoration as a function of opportunity costs based on
prices of regional agricultural products.
The ‘Global map’ and carbon removal spatial datasets differed in extent and
resolution. We analyse forest restoration opportunities in the tropics from 23.4°
N to 15° S, because both datasets contain information across this spatial extent.
Within this extent, the ‘Global map’ data contain pixels measuring 30 arcsec
(~1 km), while the carbon removal dataset contains pixels measuring 3 arcmin
(~5.55 km). To identify forest restoration opportunities as the union of these
datasets, we calculated the percent of ‘Global map’ opportunity areas within each
pixel of carbon removal from forest restoration estimated by the land-change
model. Country-level aggregates for carbon removal by population, as well as
carbon removal by nighttime light radiance, vary in accordance with the ‘Global
map’ opportunity threshold (Supplementary Figs. 2–5). We present the 30%
threshold findings in the main text to mirror the standard of using 30% canopy
cover to categorize 30 m pixels as tree covered45. However, the findings we report
in the main text are largely robust to varying the threshold for ‘Global map’
opportunity areas between 30% and 50% (Supplementary Figs. 2–5).
Using mutually informative datasets improves the identification of forest
restoration areas and their potential for carbon removal. By combining the
‘Global map’ and carbon removal datasets, our findings draw from strengths of
both datasets, and avoid (what some have considered) overestimation of forest
restoration opportunities in high-population-density croplands (>100 people
per km2) and native grasslands46,47. We dropped all ‘Global map’ opportunity areas
with over 100 people per km2, and our analysis does not include areas without at
least 30% tree cover in 2000 or 20104. Thus, the forest restoration opportunity areas
in this research represent estimates of where forest restoration is most likely to
occur in regions that were tree covered in the twenty-first century. Future research
might apply the methods of this analysis to compare estimates across additional
datasets that identify additional forest restoration opportunities and global
tree-carrying capacities1,5.
Estimating population, nighttime light radiance and income categories in FLR
areas. We combine forest restoration opportunities with spatial data on population
and nighttime light radiance, as well as country-level data on income categories,
to provide demographic, infrastructural and economic insights concerning forest
restoration opportunities. The population48 and nighttime light radiance data49 have
the same spatial resolution as the data from the ‘Global map’. Thus, we aggregated
these data to match our forest restoration opportunity area data. The number of
people within restoration opportunity areas measuring 30 arcsec differed from the
number of people within areas measuring 3 arcmin that provide any carbon removal
additionality under a US$20 tCO2−1 carbon tax. We estimate that approximately
294.5 million people live directly within forest restoration opportunity areas
(30 arcsec), over two-thirds of the total tropical population (2.37 billion people)
in this analysis live within 8 km of any predicted carbon removal from forest
restoration between 2020 and 2050 given in a US$20 tCO2−1 incentive, and 1.01
billion people live in forest restoration opportunities identified in this study as a 3
arcmin area with any predicted carbon removed from forest restoration and covered
by at least 30% of mosaic or wide-scale restoration opportunities identified by the
‘Global map’ (Fig. 2). Supplementary Fig. 6 visualizes country-level information
for forest restoration opportunities defined as the union of the ‘Global map’ and
predicted carbon removal data, without imposing a minimum coverage threshold.
The income categories in this research follow the World Bank classification
scheme, which categorizes countries into low income, lower-middle income and
upper-middle income on the basis of gross national income (GNI) per capita.
Low-income countries have a GNI per capita of less than US$1,025; lower-middle
income countries, between US$1,026 and US$3,995; and upper-middle income
countries, US$3,996 and $12,37550. For pixel-level visualization, we overlaid
country boundaries with forest restoration opportunity areas to determine the
related income category per pixel. To calculate the proportion of people per income
category within forest restoration opportunity areas (Fig. 1c), we used the total
number of people per country, including people who live in areas outside the
extent of Fig. 1.
Community resource rights and tenure. This research considers community
tenure to be a bundle of resource rights that enable communities to manage land
areas for their own benefit51,52. Following the Rights and Resources Initiative, this
research divides community forest tenure into two categories43. The first category
is community ownership of forest areas. Community ownership of forest areas
provides the rights to access forests, withdraw forest resources, manage forest
resources and exclude others from using resources. Community forest ownership
is not limited by the need for renewal or oversight, and communities that own
forests have the right to due process and compensation. The second category of
community forest tenure refers to a bundle of rights that enable communities to
manage forests in perpetuity. Community forest management rights include all the
rights of community ownership, except for the right to due process and unlimited
duration of rights. Community forest management rights often coincide with
co-management governance strategies, where a governmental authority and a
group of local people work together to manage forest areas. We further distinguish
between countries that have a legal basis for community forest tenure (ownership
or designation) and countries for which there is evidence of communities that
legally hold tenure rights. We gather evidence from research conducted by the
Rights and Resources Initiative43,53.
Of the 106 low- and middle-income countries in the tropics within this dataset,
73 contained forest restoration opportunities as defined in this research. There
are 42 countries that have a legal basis for community forest tenure43,53. Of these
42 countries, 22 have a legal basis for community forest ownership and provide
some evidence of providing those rights. Supplementary Table 2 highlights these
42 countries, ordered by evidence and legal basis for community forest ownership,
evidence and legal basis for community forest designation, and the total amount of
FLR opportunity area. All World Bank country codes for countries in this analysis
are listed in Supplementary Table 3.
Reporting Summary. Further information on research design is available in the
Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
Data for and from this analysis are available at the Harvard Dataverse (https://doi.
org/10.7910/DVN/YUUXKU). The folder contains instructions for obtaining all
input and output data that it does not contain due to size or sharing limitations.
Code availability
Code for analysis is available at the Harvard Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.7910/
DVN/YUUXKU). The folder contains information on setting up the Docker
container to reproduce analysis as well as static versions of software dependencies
that are not part of the default Docker image.
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

Brief CommuniCation
Nature ecoloGy & evolutioN
Received: 20 January 2020; Accepted: 20 July 2020;
Published: xx xx xxxx
References
1. Bastin, J. F. et al. e global tree restoration potential. Science 364, 76–79 (2019).
2. Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. A. & Koch, A. Regenerate natural
forests to store carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).
3. Chazdon, R. L. & Brancalion, P. Restoring forests as a means to many ends.
Science 365, 24–25 (2019).
4. Busch, J. et al. Potential for low-cost carbon dioxide removal through tropical
reforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 463–466 (2019).
5. Brancalion, P. H. S. et al. Global restoration opportunities in tropical
rainforest landscapes. Sci. Adv. 5, eaav3223 (2019).
6. Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Strategic approaches to restoring ecosystems can
triple conservation gains and halve costs. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 62–70 (2019).
7. Friedlingstein, P., Allen, M., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P. & Seneviratne, S. I.
Comment on “e global tree restoration potential”. Science 366,
eaay8060 (2019).
8. Lewis, S. L. et al. Comment on “e global tree restoration potential”. Science
366, eaaz0388 (2019).
9. Veldman, J. W. et al. Comment on “e global tree restoration potential”.
Science 366, eaay7976 (2019).
10. Anderson, C. M. et al. Natural climate solutions are not enough. Science 363,
933–934 (2019).
11. Maron, M. et al. Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4,
46–49 (2019).
12. Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly aect over one
billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).
13. Mappin, B. et al. Restoration priorities to achieve the global protected area
target. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12646 (2019).
14. Pritchard, R. & Brockington, D. Forests: regrow with locals’ participation.
Nature 569, 630 (2019).
15. Potapov, P., Laestadius, L. & Minnemeyer, S. Global map of forest landscape
restoration opportunities. World Resources Institute https://www.wri.org/
applications/maps/r-atlas/#&init=y (2011).
16. Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E. & Evans, K. L. A global assessment
of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30,
133–141 (2016).
17. Agrawal, A. & Redford, K. Conservation and displacement: an overview.
Conservat. Soc. 7, 1–10 (2009).
18. Chazdon, R. L. Protecting intact forests requires holistic approaches.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 915 (2018).
19. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
(eds Field, C. B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
20. Lo, L. et al. Risks to REDD+: potential pitfalls for policy design and
implementation. Environ. Conserv. 44, 44–55 (2017).
21. Brancalion, P. H. S. & Chazdon, R. L. Beyond hectares: four principles to
guide reforestation in the context of tropical forest and landscape restoration.
Restor. Ecol. 25, 491–496 (2017).
22. Mansourian, S. in Forest Restoration in Landscapes: Beyond Planting Trees
(eds Mansourian, S., Vallauri, D. & Dudley, N.) 8–13 (Springer, 2005).
23. Sabogal, C., Besacier, C. & McGuire, D. Forest and landscape
restoration: concepts, approaches and challenges for implementation.
Unasylva 66, 3–10 (2015).
24. Stanturf, J. A. et al. Implementing forest landscape restoration under the
Bonn Challenge: a systematic approach. Ann. For. Sci. 76, 50 (2019).
25. Sayer, J. et al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling
agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 110, 8349–8356 (2013).
26. S, Mansourian. In the eye of the beholder: reconciling interpretations of
forest landscape restoration. Land. Degrad. Dev. 29, 2888–2898 (2018).
27. Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G. & Zahawi, R. A.
How feasible are global forest restoration commitments? Conserv. Lett. 13,
e12700 (2020).
28. Mansourian, S., Stanturf, J. A., Derkyi, M. A. A. & Engel, V. L. Forest
landscape restoration: increasing the positive impacts of forest restoration or
simply the area under tree cover? Restor. Ecol. 25, 178–183 (2017).
29. Mansourian, S. et al. Putting the pieces together: integration for forest
landscape restoration implementation. Land. Degrad. Dev. 31, 419–429 (2020).
30. Erbaugh, J. T. & Oldekop, J. A. Forest landscape restoration for livelihoods
and well-being. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 32, 76–83 (2018).
31. Mansourian, S. & Parrotta, J. Forest landscape restoration: integrated
approaches to support eective implementation (Routledge, 2018).
32. Adams, C., Rodrigues, S. T., Calmon, M. & Kumar, C. Impacts of large-scale
forest restoration on socioeconomic status and local livelihoods: what we
know and do not know. Biotropica 48, 731–744 (2016).
33. Fox, H. & Cundill, G. Towards increased community-engaged ecological
restoration: a review of current practice and future directions. Ecol. Restor. 36,
208–218 (2018).
34. Persha, L., Agrawal, A. & Chhatre, A. Social and ecological synergy: local
rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. Science 331,
1606–1608 (2011).
35. Brooks, J. S., Waylen, K. A. & Mulder, M. B. How national context, project
design, and local community characteristics inuence success in
community-based conservation projects. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109,
21265–21270 (2012).
36. Boedhihartono, A. K. & Sayer, J. in Forest Landscape Restoration Vol. 15
(eds Stanturf, J. et al.) 309–323 (Springer, 2012).
37. Chazdon, R. L. et al. A policy-driven knowledge agenda for global forest and
landscape restoration. Conserv. Lett. 10, 125–132 (2017).
38. Bennett, M. M. & Smith, L. C. Advances in using multitemporal night-time
lights satellite imagery to detect, estimate, and monitor socioeconomic
dynamics. Remote Sens. Environ. 192, 176–197 (2017).
39. Proville, J., Zavala-Araiza, D. & Wagner, G. Night-time lights: a global,
long term look at links to socio-economic trends. PLoS ONE 12,
e0174610 (2017).
40. Kyba, C. C. M. et al. Articially lit surface of Earth at night increasing in
radiance and extent. Sci. Adv. 3, e1701528 (2017).
41. Soares-Filho, B. S. et al. Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature
440, 520–523 (2006).
42. Oldekop, J. A., Sims, K. R. E., Karna, B. K., Whittingham, M. J. &
Agrawal, A. Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized
forest management in Nepal. Nat. Sustain. 2, 421–428 (2019).
43. At a Crossroads. Trends in Recognition of Community-Based Forest Tenure
from 2002–2017 (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2018).
44. Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human
pressure. Science 360, 788–791 (2018).
45. Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover
change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
46. Veldman, J. W. et al. Where tree planting and forest expansion are bad for
biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 65, 1011–1018 (2015).
47. Veldman, J. W. et al. Toward an old-growth concept for grasslands, savannas,
and woodlands. Front. Ecol. Environ. 13, 154–162 (2015).
48. Gridded Population of the World, version 4 (GPWv4): Population Count
Adjusted to Match 2015 Revision of UN WPP Country Totals, Revision 11
(CIESIN, 2018).
49. Version 1 VIIRS Day/Night Band Nighttime Lights (NOAA, 2019).
50. World Development Indicators (e World Bank, 2019).
51. Schlager, E. & Ostrom, E. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: a
conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 68, 249–262 (1992).
52. Sikor, T., He, J. U. N. & Lestrelin, G. Property rights regimes
and natural resources: a conceptual analysis revisited. World Dev. 93,
337–349 (2017).
53. Who Owns the World’s Land? A Global Baseline of Formally Recognized
Indigenous and Community Land Rights (Rights and Resources
Initiative, 2015).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Rights and Resources Initiative. J.T.E. undertook this
research while supported by the National Science Foundation (grant no. 1912001).
We thank J. Busch for providing comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and
A. Frechette, C. Ginsburg and D. Kroeker-Maus for their research assistance.
Author contributions
J.T.E., J.A., J.A.O. and A.C. designed the analyses. J.T.E., J.A. and N.P. compiled the data
and conducted the analyses. J.T.E., J.A.O., R.P., D.B., A.A. and A.C. wrote the paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41559-020-01282-2.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.T.E.
Peer review information Peer reviewer reports are available.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2020
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION | www.nature.com/natecolevol

1
nature research | reporting summary October 2018
Corresponding author(s): James T. Erbaugh
Last updated by author(s): 7/10/2020
Reporting Summary
Nature Research wishes to improve the reproducibility of the work that we publish. This form provides structure for consistency and transparency
in reporting. For further information on Nature Research policies, see Authors & Referees and the Editorial Policy Checklist.
Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed
The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement
A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly
The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one- or two-sided
Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested
A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons
A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient)
AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals)
For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted
Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.
For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes
Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated
Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.
Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code
Data collection All data is publicly available and cited within the research.
Data analysis All data was analyzed and visualized using R version 3.6.2 software. All script and primary data are publicly available.
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers.
We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.
Data
Policy information about availability of data
All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable:
- Accession codes, unique identifiers, or web links for publicly available datasets
- A list of figures that have associated raw data
- A description of any restrictions on data availability
All code for analysis, all figures, and most output data are available at the Harvard Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/YUUXKU). This folder includes
instructions for obtaining input data and output data not present, and setting up Docker container to reproduce analysis. The folder also contains static versions of
software dependencies that are not part of the default Docker image.

2
nature research | reporting summary October 2018
Field-specific reporting
Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.
Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf
Behavioural & social sciences study design
All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative.
Study description This study visualizes and describes how the potential for forest landscape restoration (FLR) intersects with socio-political variables. It uses
publicly available, quantitative spatial data on FLR opportunity areas, the amount of carbon dioxide predicted to be removed through
forest cover gain in the the tropics, gridded population data, and nighttime light data. These spatial data were resampled at 3 arcminute
pixels across the tropics. This research also incorporates national-level data for income category and the legal basis for community forest
rights.
Research sample This research examines all countries in the tropics, as defined and stated in the "Methods" section.
Sampling strategy This research includes all countries in the tropics, as defined and stated in the "Methods" section. All tropical countries with a 3
arcminute pixel of land with 30% or more of its area identified as an FLR opportunity area are included in visualizations within the Main
Text. Additional visualizations that use alternate cut-points are included in the "Supplemental Information" to investigate the robustness
of major findings.
Data collection Data in this research are publicly available.
Timing Data in this research were published or made available between 2011 and 2018.
Data exclusions No data was excluded from this study.
Non-participation This research did not use human subjects.
Randomization Observations were not divided into experimental groups or randomized.
Reporting for specific materials, systems and methods
We require information from authors about some types of materials, experimental systems and methods used in many studies. Here, indicate whether each material,
system or method listed is relevant to your study. If you are not sure if a list item applies to your research, read the appropriate section before selecting a response.
Materials & experimental systems
n/a Involved in the study
Antibodies
Eukaryotic cell lines
Palaeontology
Animals and other organisms
Human research participants
Clinical data
Methods
n/a Involved in the study
ChIP-seq
Flow cytometry
MRI-based neuroimaging