RESEARCH ARTICLE

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands in Central

Kalimantan, Indonesia
Dyah Puspitaloka1,2 , Yeon-Su Kim1,3 , Herry Purnomo2,4 , Peter Z. Fulé1

Indonesia declared an ambitious plan to restore its degraded and fire-prone peatlands, which have been a source of significant
greenhouse gas and haze. However, the progress has been slow and the plan cannot succeed without sustained social supports
and political will. Although many previous studies argued for the need to see ecological restoration in socio-economic contexts,
empirical assessments have been lacking for how restoration is operationalized on the ground. We interviewed 47 key
informants involved in four different projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, and assessed their definitions, goals, and
practices of peatland restoration. Most of the actors we interviewed defined peatland restoration primarily in an ecological
context following the global concept of ecological restoration. However, all four restoration projects were designed without
determining reference and trajectory conditions. Their intermediate goals and practices were more focused on engaging
local communities and developing sustainable livelihood options than improving the ecological conditions of peatlands. To
be internally consistent, peatland restoration needs to recognize a social dimension in its process, as well as in its goal. Setting
clear trajectory conditions is also important to clarify achievable goals and measurable intermediate outcomes. We propose
the following definition of peatland restoration: a process of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve
the appropriate trajectories defined through multi-stakeholder collaboration within social-ecological contexts. We hope to
generate healthy debates to further refine the definition that encompasses both social and ecological dimensions to generate
broader support for sustaining and expanding peatland restoration projects in Indonesia.
Key words: ecological restoration, Indonesia, peatland, peatland fires, peatland restoration, tropical developing country

(7 times) and subpolar (3.5 times) systems (Joosten & Couwen-

Conceptual Implications
berg 2008). Indonesia holds the second largest tropical peatlands
• This study provides on-the-ground evidence for the need in the world (22.5 million hectares) holding 28.1 Gt of carbon,
to see ecological restoration in socio-economic contexts. next to Brazil (31 million hectares) (Gumbricht et al. 2017; War-
• We propose a definition of peatland restoration in Indone- ren et al. 2017). Indonesia’s peatlands have undergone extensive
sia with acknowledgments of complexities and uncer- disturbances due to illegal mining (Dommain et al. 2016), over-
tainty of restoring severely damaged ecosystems under fishing (Hergoualc’h et al. 2017), and illegal and legal logging
developmental pressure and climate change. (Suyanto et al. 2009; Anshari et al. 2010; Dommain et al. 2016;
• Peatland restoration is a process of assisting the recovery Hergoualc’h et al. 2017). Some of these activities for subsis-
of degraded peatland ecosystems to achieve the appropri-
tence can be traced back many decades (Meijaard et al. 2013;
ate trajectories defined through multi-stakeholder collab-
Medrilzam et al. 2014). More recently, rapid expansion of com-
oration within social-ecological contexts.
mercial agriculture and industrial plantations created intense
• To accomplish its ambitious plan, the Indonesian govern-
pressures on Indonesia’s peatlands (Page et al. 2011). Draining
ment should define reference and trajectory conditions for
and clearing peatlands cause peat to dry out and become more
peatland restoration to clarify achievable goals and mea-
susceptible to fire (Turetsky et al. 2015; Miettinen et al. 2016;
surable intermediate outcomes.
• The new definition can help develop feasible and practical Osaki et al. 2016). After the severe fire season in 2015 emitting
guidelines for restoring Indonesia’s peatlands within its
social-ecological context. Author contributions: DP, Y-SK designed the research with inputs from HP, PZF; DP
collected and analyzed the and wrote the manuscript; DP, YSK, HP, PZF edited the
manuscript.

1 Schoolof Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, U.S.A.

Introduction 2 Centerfor International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, 16115, Indonesia
3 Address correspondence to Y.-S. Kim, email ysk@nau.edu
The peatland ecosystem is the world’s largest terrestrial car- 4 Department of Forest Management, Faculty of Forestry, IPB University (Bogor
bon pool and long-term carbon sink that contains 550 Giga- Agricultural University), Bogor, 16680, Indonesia
tons (Gt) of carbon (Joosten & Couwenberg 2008; Barthelmes
et al. 2015). Peatlands in tropics hold more carbon per hectare © 2020 Society for Ecological Restoration
(10 times compared to mineral soil) than peatlands in boreal doi: 10.1111/rec.13097

March 2020 Restoration Ecology Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 435–446 435
Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

1.5 billion mtCO (Field et al. 2016), the Indonesian govern- Globally, peatland restoration would be considered as a type
ment established the Peatland Restoration Agency and declared of “ecological restoration,” which is often defined without
the ambitious plan of restoring 2 million hectares of degraded explicit consideration of social dimensions. For example, some
peatlands within 5 years by 2020 (Presidential Decree 2016; of the most widely accepted definitions, such as one by the
Peatland Restoration Agency 2017). Although several peatland Society for Ecological Restoration (SER International Science
restoration projects have been initiated and are moving forward, and Policy Working Group 2004) and the United Nations Con-
the plan is severely underfunded (Hansson & Dargusch 2018) vention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2016), defined ecolog-
and has only achieved 5% of the target as of 2018 (Jong 2018). ical restoration as the “process of assisting the recovery of a
Restoration projects in tropical ecosystems, such as peat- degraded, damaged or destroyed ecosystem.” While the def-
lands, operate under ill-defined property rights, weak gover- inition helps us understand what ecological restoration does,
nance, and low economic development (Phelps et al. 2010; Putz it lacks social dimensions for clarifying why we should care
& Redford 2010; Larson 2011). International pressure and exter- (Martin 2017). Other definitions added a point on human
nal financial supports that initiated the projects are often insuf- well-being such as stating that restoration is “to fulfill society’s
ficient to sustain the efforts. For Indonesia’s ambitious plan to needs” (United Nation Environmental Programme 2019) and
succeed, it is essential to create an internally consistent shared to restore “vital ecological and social functions” (Global Part-
vision for peatland restoration among populations with diverse nership on Forest Landscape and Restoration 2018). Although
values. One of the major barriers for creating the shared vision is social dimensions were addressed as part of the restoration goals
the lack of a clear definition of peatland restoration (restorasi). in these definitions, they were not acknowledged for their role
The term is often used interchangeably with other terminolo- throughout the process of restoring an ecosystem.
gies even in the Ministerial regulations, such as rehabilitation Many have argued over the years for the need to see restora-
(rehabilitasi) and reclamation (reklamasi). Unlike restoration, tion in much larger, expanded socio-economic contexts and
rehabilitation is the process of restoring ecosystem functionality redefine ecological restoration by including human and social
without regards to the recovery of native biota in an appropri- dimensions (Higgs 1997; Hull & Gobster 2000; Clewell &
ate native reference ecosystem (McDonald et al. 2016a; Gann Aronson 2006; Temperton 2007; Gosnell & Kelly 2010; Kim
et al. 2019). Reclamation is returning and stabilizing the land & Hjerpe 2011; Hallett et al. 2013; Shackelford et al. 2013;
to assure public safety and improve the aesthetic for a useful Higgs et al. 2014; Suding et al. 2015; Martin 2017; Swart et al.
purpose (Society for Ecological Restoration [SER] International 2018). However, empirical assessments are lacking for how
Science and Policy Working Group 2004). The different terms the definition is operationalized and linked to goal setting in
used create confusion among restoration proponents and prac- on-the-ground restoration (Hallett et al. 2013). An ecosystem
titioners as to what their goals should be and how to design is comprised of “interacting, cross-scaled, coupled systems”
and implement projects at the local level and monitor their (Swart et al. 2018) with increasing human impacts and pres-
progress. sures (Temperton 2007; Wiens & Hobbs 2015; Swart et al.
Another barrier is lack of consideration for social dimen- 2018). Thus, ecological restoration should be redefined as
sions in defining restoration. Indonesia estimates that 13.5% social-ecological restoration with broader views accommodat-
(16.31 million) of the total population eligible for the state’s ing: (1) the cultural and social aspects reflecting interests and
poverty assistance benefit resides within and around forest areas, concerns of a diverse population; (2) the objective to gener-
including peatlands (Badan Pusat Statistik 2018). Forest and ate a healthier relationship between people and the ecosystem;
peatland restoration efforts in Indonesia cannot be success- (3) emphasis on the relationships among science, human, and
ful without addressing the livelihood needs of the marginal- nature (Higgs 1997; Temperton 2007; Gosnell & Kelly 2010;
ized populations. Another need to incorporate social dimension Martin 2017). Higgs et al. (2014) proposed a new generation of
arises from the uncertainty of what can be restored. Past anthro- restoration projects (Restoration v2.0) to acknowledge the com-
pogenic disturbances involved draining water out of peatlands plexity of ecological processes and multiple trajectories, while
by means of drainage canals, which dried out peat and affected recognizing the need for a pragmatic approach for addressing
the hydrological dynamics of the whole landscape (Andariesse human livelihood and cultural needs.
1988; Huat et al. 2014; Joosten et al. 2016). The disturbances To incorporate these broader views to focus on restoring
in water balance can alter the peat to become resistant to rewet- social-ecological systems, the global concept of restoration
ting and susceptible to fires indefinitely, perhaps permanently should be redefined and practiced within the social, economic,
(Turetsky et al. 2015). With worsening effects of climate change and political contexts of the restoration location. The proposed
and increasing anthropogenic pressures for land use change, process of this translation is shown in Figure 1.
restoring pre-disturbance conditions may not be possible. Peat- International principles and standards of ecological restora-
land restoration projects should be able to provide supporting tion have been identified by the Society for Ecological Restora-
conditions for fire prevention, as well as peat initiation and tion (SER International Science and Policy Working Group
accumulation (Page et al. 2004). Thus, what constitutes a prop- 2004, 2nd edition in Gann et al. 2019), which can serve as the
erly functioning ecosystem and the types of trajectories that starting point for Indonesia to define peatland restoration. One
would characterize the recovery of degraded ecosystems has to of the key principles defining ecological restoration is having
be defined within the socio-economic and political contexts, as a predetermined reference ecosystem for guiding activities of
well as the ecological one (Temperton 2007). restoring ecosystems. The reference ecosystem helps identify

436 Restoration Ecology March 2020

 Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Global concept of ecological restoration

Definition of ecological restoration

(SER 2004, CBD 2016)

Nine attributes of ecological restoration (SER 2004)

Ecological attributes (e.g. reference ecosystem, ecosystem function,
structure, resilience, health, integrity,
self-sustainability & persistence).

Added social dimensions

International standards for the best practices (McDonald et al. 2016a)

Principles containing ecological, social, & other aspects

International principles and standards (Gann et al. 2019)

Ecological (e.g. reference ecosystem, recovery process, attainable
outcomes, continuum of activity, upscaling) and social (e.g. local
engagement & knowledge) principles
Indicators of success combining both ecological and social Socio-ecological system (SES)
dimensions. at the landscape level
History of land use changes and
disturbances.
Operationalization of ecological restoration
at the landscape level Biophysical characteristics of
peatland.
Definition and principles of ecological restoration containing social
and ecological aspects.
Anthropogenic pressures,
influence, and role of human actors.
Goal-setting that highlights ecological & social aspects.
Defining multiple, appropriate local trajectory conditions.
Desired resilient ecosystem

Guidelines for ecological restoration practices

Local reference condition.

Practices focusing ecological & social aspects.

Restoration outputs and outcomes

Figure 1. The process of translating and operationalizing ecological restoration into a project at the landscape level. The current definition primarily focuses
on ecological fidelity and insufficiently accommodates social dimension. The project goal-setting and planning should consider the key elements of the
socio-ecological system (SES) at the landscape level. Redefining ecological restoration within the given SES is important to determine achievable
intermediate and long-term restoration goals.

native and non-native (exotic) species, as well as any missing thus reference conditions are more “tapestries of multiple and
ecological community group or ecological function. It is the successive states,” rather than a single snapshot frozen in
model or benchmark of restoration representing non-degraded time (Balaguer et al. 2014). Trajectory condition is “a course
ecosystem for planning and evaluating projects (SER Inter- or pathway of recovery or adaptation of an ecosystem over
national Science and Policy Working Group 2004; McDon- time” (McDonald et al. 2016b), and a “developmental path-
ald et al. 2016b). Ecosystems are dynamic and multilayered, way” towards desired ecosystem (SER International Science

March 2020 Restoration Ecology 437

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Figure 2. Map of Indonesia’s tropical peatland. Area with peat deposits indicated in black color. This study’s field visits and interview areas in Kalimantan
are marked with red dots.

and Policy Working Group 2004). Building a sustainable and more than 4,000 km of drainage and irrigation channels in
resilient ecosystem is the main focus of many restoration Central Kalimantan from 1996 to 1998 (Boehm & Siegert
projects, especially in the face of climate change. It is impor- 2001). While degraded peatlands created subsidence and greater
tant not only to understand the ecosystem functions in the fire frequency, drainage and canals also improved access to
past, but also a desired state in the future (Suding et al. 2015) previously inaccessible interior parts of forests and peatlands,
by embracing the dynamics within ecosystems, especially the for further disturbances, such as legal and illegal logging and
potential of native species and communities to recover, reassem- land clearing (Boehm & Siegert 2001).
ble, adapt, and evolve (Gann et al. 2019). The attributes of There are several ongoing peatland restoration projects
ecological restoration, as well as international principles and involving different actors in Central Kalimantan. We selected
standards, help set specific goals and evaluation parameters to the four largest peatland restoration projects managed by dif-
provide important metrics of success for restored ecosystem. ferent entities and assessed: (1) a national park partnered with
Location-specific contexts, such as land use history and bio- a non-governmental organization (NGO) (hereafter referred
physical conditions, as well as fine-scale reference conditions, as Project A); (2) a government agency partnered with a
should factor into operationalizing ecological restoration at the NGO (hereafter referred as Project B); (3) a private company
landscape level. We applied this framework in Figure 1 to assess partnered with a NGO (hereafter referred as Project C); and
four peatland restoration projects in Central Kalimantan. (4) a private company partnered with an university (hereafter
The research questions are: (1) How do current proponents referred as Project D) (see Fig. 2 for the study area location
and practitioners of peatland restoration define restoration? and and Table 1 for the project details). Although the drivers of
(2) How are the restoration goals articulated and translated into peatland degradation are similar for all four project sites, these
practice? Based on the findings, we propose a new definition four projects show a range of different restoration proponents in
of peatland restoration, which is meant to serve as a starting Indonesia from public agencies to private companies pursuing
point for public discourse to create a shared vision for peatland for-profit motives through carbon trading. They cover more
restoration in Indonesia. than 1 million hectares of peatlands across six districts in
Central Kalimantan Province, Indonesia.

Methods
Data Collection
Study Area We employed semi-structured interviews to assess shared under-
One-third of peatlands in Indonesia is located in the western standing among the main actors working on peatland restoration
and south-central regions of Kalimantan island (32%) with projects in Central Kalimantan. The selection of interviewees
thickness ranging from shallow (50–100 cm) to very deep (more was based on their familiarity with peatland restoration follow-
than 400 cm) (Osaki et al. 2016; Fig. 2). Central Kalimantan ing the purposive sampling methodology (Teddlie & Tashakkori
Province is a home to one of the largest contiguous peatland 2009). Our questions focused on the restoration projects and
areas in the world and the third largest in terms of its total management, so the key informants were limited to those who
land size and size of peatlands in Indonesia (Warren et al. held formal positions in restoration organizations with relevant
2017). Construction of drainage and irrigation channels, which knowledge and were willing to participate. Using the research
peaked with the 1996 mega-rice project, degraded most of questions as the guideline, we conducted interviews until the
the peatlands in Central Kalimantan (Joosten et al. 2016). The saturation point was reached. The saturation point is when there
mega-rice project to convert peatlands into rice fields created are no new insights gained by additional interviews (Glaser &

438 Restoration Ecology March 2020

 Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Table 1. Study area, consisting of four peatland restoration projects in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. *Under the Indonesian Agrarian Law (Law No. 5
of 1960) and Forestry Law (Law No. 41 of 1999), all land in Indonesia is classified as either “forest estate” (Kawasan Hutan) or “non-forest estate” (Area
Penggunaan Lain). Forest estate belongs to the government and can be allocated to private concessions for specific uses. For Projects C and D, Ecosystem
Restoration Concession licenses were issued to the companies. Non-forest estate land is managed by provincial government and can be converted into private
ownership as well as used for non-forestry purposes.

Project A Project B Project C Project D

Main actor NGO National government agency Private sector Private sector
Supporting actor National park NGO NGO University
Project area 568,700 ha 607,969 ha 149,800 ha 25,000 ha
Land class Forest estate Forest estate; non-forest estate Forest estate Forest estate
Project duration (planned) 30 yr 5 yr 60 yr 25 yr
Number of respondents 13 19 10 5

Table 2. Definition of peatland restoration based on the respondents’ perspective: percentage of respondents that stated some aspects of ecological and social
dimensions.

Definition of Peatland Project A (NGO and Project B (Government Project C (Private Project D (Private
Restoration National Park) and NGO) Company and NGO) Company and University)

Ecological dimension 92% 95% 100% 100%

Social dimension 8% 32% 10% 20%
Did not know 8% — — —

Strauss 1967) and the collected data has met the needs to address main driver of peatland degradation. The restoration projects
research questions without stretching too widely and affecting were designed to block these canals to bring the waterlogged
the coherence (Saunders et al. 2017). condition back before revegetating the peatlands. Although
Data collection was carried out in 2017. We interviewed restoration was defined as the process of bringing back former,
47 key informants from 20 different institutions totaling 39 presumably natural, ecosystems, it was acknowledged that irre-
hours of interviews. The informants were from restoration versible damage may have occurred.
and community forums (23%), a national park management Some offered a more pragmatic definition of restoration as a
(17%), NGOs (17%), private concessions (17%), local gov- process of improving ecological conditions, preventing further
ernments (13%), a national government agency (9%), a forest degradation and protecting the existing good peatlands from
management unit (2%), and one university (2%). We asked fires.
open-ended questions to allow the respondents to elaborate
Restoration? [it’s] restoring to its former condition
on their responses and identify additional issues, which would
[prior to the disturbance]. Well, we know there
not be possible in a close-ended question format (O’Cathain &
won’t be, we would never achieve precise former
Thomas 2004; Jamshed 2014). Audio-recorded interviews were
[peat] condition. But, it’s the only way to protect
transcribed using F5 Transcription PRO (Haselberger 2018). We
the peatland from further degradation.—Forest
constructed codebooks to define themes and sub-themes with
manager working for Project A
examples of responses that emerged in interviews (Lavrakas
2008), which we used to guide a coherent coding process. In an Definition of restoration, restoration—what
attempt to allow for new themes to emerge, the final codebooks we expected—is the locations [area or peat
were developed as well (Blair 2015). Using the codebooks forest] would return to the former [condition].
as a guidance, themes and sub-themes within the data were Restoring. But, we hope that it would be—at
identified then coded or grouped using NVivo for Mac version least—equal to [the characteristics of] sec-
11.4.2 (QSR International Pty. Ltd. 2017). The questions and ondary forest, comparable to the secondary forest
the data collection procedure were reviewed and approved by [in general].—University lecturer working for
the Internal Review Board for human subject research at the Project D
authors’ home institution.
Although a minority (8–32%), some respondents acknowl-
edged that social contexts cannot be ignored when defining
Results peatland restoration. Social aspects were highlighted by more
respondents (32%) working on the government-led project
Definitions of Peatland Restoration (Project B), although they tended to be narrowly focused on
The majority of actors we interviewed defined peatland restora- generating direct benefits to communities, such as the increased
tion primarily in ecological contexts (92–100%) (Table 2). The water level being useful in preventing fires, and revegetation
presence of drainage canals was commonly identified as the with commercial crops.

March 2020 Restoration Ecology 439

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Table 3. Ultimate and intermediate goals of peatland restoration: percentage of respondents that stated those goals. —: no or not enough information available.

Project A (NGO and Project B (Government Project C (Private Project D (Private

Goals of Peatland Restoration National Park) and NGO) Company and NGO) Company and University)

Ultimate goals (findings from the interviews)

Ecological goals 100% 79% 60% 60%
Social goals 38% 58% 70% 40%
Protection from threats 15% — — —
Lesson learned for others 8% — — —
Carbon trading — — 10% 40%
Reducing GHG emission — 11% 20% —
Intermediate goals (findings from the interviews)
Ecological goals 46% 16% 10% 40%
Social goals 15% 42% 10% 60%
Fire prevention 15% 32% 10% 60%
Infrastructure for restoration 31% 47% — 60%
Planning 15% — — —
Research 8% — — —
Funding 15% — — —
Stopping further degradation — — — 20%
Achieving target as planned — 11% 20% —
Creating best management practices — 5% — —
Law enforcement — 5% — —
Mainstreaming restoration — 11% — —
Reducing GHG emission — 5% — —
Reducing threats — — 10% —
Promoting other benefits of peat — — 10% —
Institutionalization — 5% — —
Did not know — 5% — —

We restore the peat to be beneficial [peat]lands hoped to achieve in the long run. Achieving these goals may be
… we replant the [peat] forest with crops like beyond the control of the project actors as they are affected by
rubber [Hevea braziliensis] that is potential to climate change and other global forces (Lavendel 2003). Inter-
improve the community’s welfare. If we improve mediate goals are those that the project actors can reasonably
the community welfare, the [peatland] area would expect to accomplish within the project duration. We examined
be maintained.—Forest manager working for ultimate and intermediate goals established by the project actors
Project B for their project areas (Table 3).
The majority of the respondents in all projects identified
Some respondents emphasized restoration in a more holistic both ecological and social goals as their ultimate goals, such
sense, e.g. the needs of “restoring” native ecosystem with native as restoring ecological/hydrologic functions of peatlands and
tree species that existed previously in peatlands and building enhancing community welfare and promoting their participation
community understanding to increase their participation, which in restoration projects. Although all respondents from Projects
highlighted diverse values among restoration actors and local C and D defined restoration primarily in ecological contexts,
communities. some identified their ultimate goals not as restoring ecological
[Restoration] is restoring [peat] its functions, but, conditions, but as carbon trading and reducing greenhouse gas
accompanied by understanding the level of com- (GHG) emission. This is understandable as these projects were
munity support [who lived] nearby. When there initiated by private companies with carbon trading goals. Only
were no supports from the community, [restora- in Project A initiated in a national park, did all respondents
tion] is non-sense, regardless of costs incurred, identify ecological goals as the ultimate goals.
supports, [and] policies … how the [community] Some of the intermediate goals common in all projects
engage, the knowledge transfer, [those are] all that were completion of physical restoration facilities such as canal
matters on restoration.—NGO officer working blocking to increase the water level in peatland areas and prevent
for Project A the recurring peat fires. Activities related to physical construc-
tion of facilities and fire prevention were two most important
and realistic intermediate goals that would allow the peat for-
Goals of Peatland Restoration est to recover or naturally regenerate. However, most of the
Peatland restoration is a long-term process beyond the plan- respondents agreed that just focusing on recovering biophysical
ning horizons of the projects. We defined ultimate goals as the properties of peatlands is not enough for restoration projects
end outcomes of peatland restoration that the restoration actors to succeed in Central Kalimantan. Building human capital and

440 Restoration Ecology March 2020

 Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

engaging communities towards peatland restoration were iden- tree planting work as a one-time contract work. The respon-
tified as critical intermediate goals across all projects. ders working on Project A stated that having the tree adop-
Although all projects identified engaging local communi- tion program helped achieve more efficient revegetation and
ties and gaining their support as their intermediate goals, their increased the community’s sense of responsibility. They also
specific goals vary by projects as participating actors and fun- plan to initiate a similar approach for canal blocking. To sus-
ders differ. For example, Project A is a partnership between tain their restoration efforts beyond the project duration, Project
a national park agency and NGO focusing on wildlife conserva- A established a trust fund to overcome funding constraints
tion. Their goals include returning the key species to their orig- and build more flexibility in budgeting and more sustainable
inal habitats. Frequently stated key species were “orangutan” financing.
(Pongo pigmaeus), which is a species of critically endan- In Project B, the main actor is the national government
gered great apes, and “ramin” (Gonystylus bancanus), which is agency, Peatland Restoration Agency, leading Indonesia’s peat-
a vulnerable hardwood species, and both are native to Indonesia land restoration. Their definition of peatland restoration also
(IUCN 2016). For the government-led project, actors working emphasized the ecological dimension more than the social
on Project B saw restoration as a potential means for meeting dimension. However, their articulated goals and practices under-
Indonesia’s commitment to reduce GHG emissions. For private lined social dimensions for building legal security and guide-
companies, such as Projects C and D, specific immediate goals lines to ensure community voluntary participation in the long
include accomplishing annual work plans for the board of man- run. They developed an indicative map of restoration and
agement and investors. brought together relevant laws and technical guidelines as
Indonesia’s peatland restoration standards. They include guide-
lines on “desa peduli gambut” (peat care village), rewetting
Innovations in Practices
infrastructure, revegetation, socialization/campaign, water level
Based on the literature (Kimball et al. 2015; Dohong 2016), monitoring, and building a social safety framework, as well as
we grouped restoration activities into two groups: pre- and relevant village’s regulations and laws. The actors in Project
main restoration (Table 4). The pre-restoration activities, such B formed many types of community groups or forums, that
as research and public consultation or socialization/campaign, is, Forum Hapakat Lestari, “desa peduli gambut” (peat care
would take place before restoration project implementation. The villages), and “masyarakat peduli tabat” (canal blocking care
main restoration activities are those for: (1) rewetting dried peat- community). These community-based groups work at different
land; (2) revegetation or replanting trees; and (3) revitalizing spatial scales (district and village level) and as a platform to dis-
existing livelihood options or developing more sustainable alter- cuss and implement the plans and activities. They also facilitated
natives. All projects we studied included activities to increase young/junior researchers to conduct research in order to gener-
community participation and engagement. The focus was on ate fresh ideas for the future of peatland restoration. Although
helping community members understand the importance of the goal is to facilitate academic research in at least 1,000 vil-
peatland restoration, and the needs to reduce the anthropogenic lages, the funding of the young researchers’ project is yet to be
pressure and human-caused fires on the peatlands. Increasing specified.
community engagement was identified as part of the exit strat- The respondents working on Project C also defined restora-
egy to maintain the restoration for the long run. Examples of the tion mostly in the ecological dimension but emphasized social
socialization/education activities were identifying and promot- aspects in their goal-setting and implementation. Project C
ing alternative livelihood options that do not involve draining activities include several innovative approaches to address
the peatland and land preparation techniques without using fire. anthropogenic pressures from local communities. For example,
While most of the approaches were relatively similar from one they developed sustainable livelihood options with communi-
project to another, each project had a unique strategy formulated ties bottom-up. The community members and project managers
specifically for addressing the challenges they faced. The main went through a baseline study together to assess current social
innovations are mostly to tackle social issues. and economic conditions of the communities, then determined
While the emphasis of Project A is on the ecological realm, their work plan based on the discussions. The project man-
especially biodiversity conservation in a national park, their agers assisted the communities to formulate and implement var-
innovations are primarily for addressing the social challenges. ious programs, such as microfinancing and coconut sugar pro-
They created innovative programs, such as tree adoption, canal duction. Each community and project managers developed an
blocking adoption (in planning), and a trust fund, to encour- agreement based on the community’s interests, which specified
age community participation. Tree adoption was a part of various programs to be implemented. They targeted illegal log-
revegetation efforts to increase local community involvement gers and low-income and unemployed community members to
in monitoring and maintaining planted trees. They selected participate in their programs. The project also initiated an agroe-
the species that can be beneficial for the community without cology school for farmers to operationalize ecological principles
being logged. For example, “jelutung” (Dyera polyphylla) pro- into farming practices. The agroecology school initially targeted
duces resin, which the local community can collect and sell 18 farmers from two districts with focus on knowledge transfer
without cutting the trees. The idea behind tree adoption is to on techniques for land clearing without using fires and control-
encourage local communities to recognize their responsibility ling weed without using herbicides. The curriculum included
for looking after growth of the plants, rather than perceiving the climate changes and building adaptive communities.

March 2020 Restoration Ecology 441

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Table 4. Pre-restoration and main restoration activities in restoring degraded tropical peatlands of Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. —: no or not enough
information available.

Project A (NGO and Project B (Government Project C (Private Project D (Private

Peatland Restoration Activities National Park) and NGO) Company and NGO) Company and University)

Pre-restoration activity (derived from the interviews)

√ √ √ √
Mapping √ √ √ √
Survey √ √
Obtaining permit/ business license —
√ —
√ √ √
Agreement √ √ √ √
Planning √ √ √ √
Socialization/campaign √ √ √ √
Research
Main restoration activity (derived from the interviews)
√ √ √ √
Rewetting √ √ √ √
Revegetation √
Tree adoption √ —
√ —
√ —
√
Revitalization of livelihood √ √ √ √
Monitoring and patrol √ √ √ √
Research √
Young researchers program — — —
√
Living classroom —
√ —
√ —
√ √
Socialization/campaign √
Agroecology school — —
√ √ —
√
Advocacy to government —
√ √
Supporting infrastructure √ —
√ —
√ √
Fire prevention √ √ √ √
Planning √ √ √ √
Forming community group √
Initiating trust fund — — —

Project D shared similar views with other restoration projects ecological/hydrological functions of peatlands to the “con-
in defining the restoration. A significant proportion of their ditions prior to the disturbances.” However, the respondents
goals (40% in Table 2) was to address social dimensions. Their also acknowledged multiple disturbances have occurred in the
practices were primarily designed to transfer knowledge and peatland ecosystem over many decades and they do not have
empower people. The project partnered with a local univer- a clear understanding of what the reference condition should
sity to encourage college students to study degraded peatland be. As found in government policy documents, respondents
ecosystem under the “Living Classroom” program. This pro- used the term restoration (restorasi) interchangeably with other
gram enabled the students to apply lessons they learned in terms, such as rehabilitation (rehabilitasi) and reclamation
classrooms to on-ground practices. Under the partnership, local (reklamasi). Ecological restoration emphasizes re-establishing
university lecturers and students conducted routine field visits a reference ecosystem condition with respect to its species com-
to the restoration concession area. The students directly partici- position and community structure, unlike in rehabilitation and
pated in the research and restoration efforts, such as biodiversity reclamation (SER International Science and Policy Working
inventory, camera trap, and assisting community programs. Group 2004). For peatland restoration to be ecological restora-
tion, it is important to define one or more reference ecosystems
Discussion for planning purposes to design a trajectory for restoration
projects. A simple comparison of pre- and post-disturbance
We have assessed four on-going peatland restoration projects in would unlikely to meet the needs to build a resilient, desired
Central Kalimantan to understand how restoration proponents ecosystem (Balaguer et al. 2014). A selected reference condi-
and managers define the concept of ecological restoration and tion, therefore, may reflect one among many potential states
connect their goal-setting to practices. We have summarized our within the historic range of a certain ecosystem and may reflect
major findings and their implications below. a combination of stochastic events during the development of
the ecosystem (SER International Science and Policy Working
Need for Determining Reference and Trajectory Conditions Group 2004; Balaguer et al. 2014). SER International Science
Most respondents we interviewed defined peatland and Policy Working Group (2004) argued that projects can
restoration primarily in an ecological context, restoring be categorized as restorative if the activities serve to improve

442 Restoration Ecology March 2020

 Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

environmental conditions of an ecosystem—with values and communities in passive and active restoration. In active restora-
principles inspired by ecological restoration—and move to tion, the community members are employed as paid-workers
broaden ecological recovery of the system. (full time and part time) to plant trees and construct restoration
Peatland-specific regulation, that is, Government Ordinance facilities. Passive restoration is stopping anthropogenic activi-
No. 71 Year 2014 and No. 57 Year 2016 and MoEF Decree No. ties as restoration efforts. The interview results confirmed the
16/2017 (MoEF Indonesia 2016, 2017), affirmed that the goal prevalence of anthropogenic activities, such as fishing, hunting,
of restoration is to return the nature and functions of peatland illegal logging, illegal settlement, and grazing within and nearby
ecosystems through natural succession, hydrology restoration, restoration area. Canal blocking, which is a restorative activity,
vegetation rehabilitation, or other appropriate methods. While can be destroyed after construction not only because blocked
these regulations describe the methods, they do not specify the canals might inhibit local community’s livelihood activities, but
reference and trajectory conditions for goal-setting and program also because the community members do not understand their
monitoring and evaluation. In other parts of the world, the point purpose. To overcome these challenges, the project actors are
of major anthropogenic disturbances was used to set the refer- trying to share their knowledge and technology to change com-
ence condition. For example, in the dry conifer forests of the munity perception and practices. They assist communities to
western United States, the forest condition before major disrup- improve their land clearing techniques and seek sustainable
tions associated with 19th century Euro-American settlement alternative livelihood options. These strategies to recognize
is widely considered as the reference condition (Abella et al. social demands in the restoration approach can reduce the pres-
2007). While the recent land use changes for commercial agri- sures from anthropogenic activities. Recognizing the social
culture and industrial plantation since the 1970s can serve as the dimension within restoration enabled the restoration actors in
point of major anthropogenic disturbances in Indonesia’s peat- Central Kalimantan to have broader multiple goals and objec-
lands, it is hard to characterize the prior ecological conditions. tives, as suggested by Martin (2017). It can also help define more
Defining trajectory conditions for peatlands in Indonesia is also clear roles and responsibilities with the communities.
challenging due to acute development pressures and climate
change. Without developing alternative livelihood options, land
Setting Measurable Goals for Peatland Restoration
use conversion will continue. Previous attempts to curb land use
change, such as the logging moratorium policy, have not been For the intermediate goals, actors we interviewed identified
effective to reduce forest conversion because monoculture plan- both ecological and social goals, such as preventing recurring
tation is too lucrative for private companies and smallholders to fires, constructing infrastructure, maintaining the forest, and
give up the practices (Suwarno et al. 2018). Thus, determining achieving target as planned in their annual work plans. These
trajectory conditions will have to consider the feasibility of the goals primarily focused on setting reasonable targets that can be
pathways to peatland restoration that can generate political will accomplished within the short term or during the project dura-
and multi-stakeholder participation in the long run. Our results tion. However, they also acknowledged uncertainties regard-
confirmed that there is no clear or shared understanding of the ing the time frame to accomplish restored peatlands and even
reference and trajectory conditions among the restoration actors expressed their pessimism. Once exposed to intensive drying
that we interviewed. There is an urgent need to define an appro- and the sun, peat resists rewetting (Page et al. 2004). Damages
priate native reference ecosystem and native biota. Without a occurred in peatlands may be irreversible and restoration efforts
clear reference condition, it would be hard for the current efforts may not be able to generate “pristine” peatland conditions
to move beyond rehabilitation (SER International Science and (Andariesse 1988; Huat et al. 2014). However, all projects we
Policy Working Group 2004). studied focused on implementing rewetting treatments without
long-term assessments of their effectiveness. Even if the restora-
tion treatments do not restore degraded peatlands, they may
Peatland Restoration as Social Endeavors assist the process of creating favorable condition to allow for
While the previous definitions of ecological restoration primar- organic materials to accumulate and form new peat. However,
ily embraced ecological fidelity (SER International Science and peat accumulation and formation processes, which depend on
Policy Working Group 2004; CBD 2016), current scientific and particular environmental conditions, may take over 2,500 years
social trends require redefining ecological restoration (Gosnell to accumulate 3.5 m of peat (Page et al. 2004). Obliged to iden-
& Kelly 2010; Higgs et al. 2014; Martin 2017). Our results tify measurable targets, the actors established reasonable and
show that while only some actors recognized social dimen- measurable goals to achieve within the duration of a project,
sions in defining restoration on Indonesia’s peatlands, most of such as the numbers of canal blocking facilities built, numbers
them emphasized local community engagement in their goals of villages assisted, and hectares of trees replanted. However, we
and practices. The respondents emphasized the importance of found that they do not have specific ideas about how to link these
understanding and securing support from local communities intermediate goals to long-term effectiveness of the restoration
to increase voluntary participation in reducing anthropogenic project. To meet its national commitment to restore peatlands,
pressure. All four projects incorporated both ecological and it is important for the Indonesian government to develop con-
social aspects in their ultimate and intermediate goals. They sistent guidelines for monitoring and reporting the progress
are expected to increase community awareness for the ecolog- of peatland restoration by linking intermediate and ultimate
ical and cultural importance of peatlands by involving local goals.

March 2020 Restoration Ecology 443

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Innovations in Practices restoration projects; and (3) promote better understanding of

Despite of the different ecological, socio-economic, and politi- the socio-ecological system encompassing peatland systems
cal complexities that they face, the project actors translated their and drivers of changes.
concepts and goals into similar main activities: rewetting, reveg-
etation, and revitalization of livelihood. They formulated dis-
tinct approaches to address specific challenges that they faced.
Acknowledgments
Some of the breakthroughs are tree adoption, farmers’ school in
agroecology, trust fund, young researchers’ fellowship, and liv- This research is funded by a fellowship from the United States
ing (outdoor) classroom. Most of these innovations are designed Agency for International Development–Center for International
to address social aspects, especially fostering knowledge trans- Forestry Research (USAID-CIFOR) fellowship program. We
fer for sustainable peatland management as well as encour- thank many local partners and key-informants in the four
aging broader participation from the communities, academic restoration projects across Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, who
researchers, and other related parties, such as NGOs, gov- made this study possible.
ernment agencies, and private companies. These practices of
community engagement address several key social goals that LITERATURE CITED
have been discussed in literature as critical for restoration suc-
Abella SR, Covington WW, Fulé PZ, Lentile LB, Sánchez Meador AJ, Morgan P
cess, such as reconnecting communities with nature (Shack- (2007) Past, present, and future old growth in frequent-fire conifer forests
elford et al. 2013) and increasing public awareness for ben- of the western united states. Ecology and Society 12:16
efits of healthy ecosystem, thus the importance of restoring Andariesse JP (1988) FAO Soils Bulletin 59: nature and management of tropical
degraded ecosystems (Suding et al. 2015) as well as their role in peat soils. FAO, Rome, Italy
goal-setting (Shackelford et al. 2013). We found that these inno- Anshari GZ, Afifudin M, Nuriman M, Gusmayanti E, Arianie L, Susana R,
vations are crucial investments to reduce anthropogenic pres- Nusantara RW, Sugardjito J, Rafiastanto A (2010) Drainage and land use
impacts on changes in selected peat properties and peat degradation in West
sures and help ensure that the restoration efforts can be sustained
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biogeosciences 7:3403–3419
in the long run. These earlier lessons should be shared broadly Badan Pusat Statistik (2018) Statistik Indonesia. Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta,
to promote peatland restoration in Indonesia. Indonesia
Balaguer L, Escudero A, Martín-Duque JF, Mola I, Aronson J (2014) The his-
torical reference in restoration ecology: re-defining a cornerstone concept.
Definition of Peatland Restoration in Indonesia
Biological Conservation 176:12–20
Incorporating human dimensions in defining and practicing eco- Barthelmes A, Couwenberg J, Risager M, Tegetmeyer C, Joosten H (2015)
logical restoration has been advocated before (Shackelford et al. Peatlands and climate in a Ramsar context. Nordic Council of Ministers,
2013; Higgs et al. 2014; Suding et al. 2015; Martin 2017). Many Copenhagen, Denmark
Blair E (2015) A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques.
projects reported in the Global Restoration Network include
Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences 6:14–29
some social values in their goals, such as education, economic Boehm HDV, Siegert F (2001) Ecological impact of the one million hectare rice
benefits, community engagement, governance, and cultural val- project in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, using remote sensing and GIS.
ues (Hallett et al. 2013). In response to the growing recognition In: Proceedings of the 22nd Asian Conference on Remote Sensing (Vol. 9)
for human elements of ecological restoration, the recent revi- CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (2016) Ecosystem restoration:
sions of international standards and principles accommodated short-term action plan. CBD/COP/DEC/XIII/5, 10 December
social aspects and emphasized public engagement (McDonald Clewell AF, Aronson J (2006) Motivations for the restoration of ecosystems.
Conservation Biology 20:420–428
et al. 2016a; Gann et al. 2019). However, ecological restoration
Dohong A (2016) An assessment of the restoration efforts of degraded peatland
is yet to be redefined despite the growing body of literature argu- in Central Kalimantan Indonesia. University of Queensland, Brisbane,
ing for redefinition (Higgs et al. 2014; Martin 2017). Australia
Based on the on-the-ground experiences from peatland Dommain R, Dittrich I, Giessen W, Joosten H, Rais DS, Silvius M, Wibisono
restoration projects in Central Kalimantan, we propose the fol- IT (2016) Ecosystem services, degradation and restoration of peat swamps
lowing definition for peatland restoration in Indonesia: a process in the South East Asian tropics. Pages 253–288. In: Bonn A, Allott T,
of assisting the recovery of degraded peatland ecosystems to Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R (eds) Peatland restoration and ecosystem
services. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
achieve the appropriate trajectories that are defined through
Field RD, Van Der Werf Guido R, Fanin T, Fetzer EJ, Fuller R, Jethva H,
multi-stakeholder collaboration within social-ecological con- et al. (2016) Indonesian fire activity and smoke pollution in 2015 show
texts. This new definition acknowledges the social dimension persistent nonlinear sensitivity to El Niño-induced drought. Proceedings
in the process of restoration, as well as its goals, and also of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
recognizes the importance of a collaborative process in setting 113:9204–9209
ecologically desirable and socially feasible trajectory condi- Gann GD, McDonald T, Walder B, Aronson J, Nelson CR, Jonson J, et al.
tions. The proposed definition is meant to be a starting point (2019) International principles and standards for the practice of ecological
restoration. Restoration Ecology 27:S3–S46
for academic and public discourse to create a shared vision
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for
for peatland restoration in Indonesia. More research based qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois
on long-term monitoring is needed to (1) develop potential Global Partnership on Forest Landscape and Restoration (2018) What is forest
trajectory conditions that promote the resilience of peat ecosys- and landscape restoration (FLR)? http://www.forestlandscaperestoration
tems; (2) link intermediate goals to long-term effectiveness of .org/what-forest-and-landscape-restoration-flr (accessed 18 Aug 2019)

444 Restoration Ecology March 2020

 Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

Gosnell H, Kelly EC (2010) Peace on the river? Social-ecological restoration McDonald T, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016b) National standards for the prac-
and large dam removal in the Klamath basin, USA. Water Alternatives tice of ecological restoration in Australia. Restoration Ecology 24:
3:361–383 S4–S32
Gumbricht T, Roman-Cuesta RM, Verchot L, Herold M, Wittmann F, House- Medrilzam M, Dargusch P, Herbohn J, Smith C (2014) The socio-ecological
holder E, Herold N, Murdiyarso D (2017) An expert system model for drivers of forest degradation in part of the tropical peatlands of Central
mapping tropical wetlands and peatlands reveals South America as the Kalimantan, Indonesia. Forestry 87:335–345
largest contributor. Global Change Biology 23:3581–3599 Meijaard E, Abram NK, Wells JA, Pellier A-S, Ancrenaz M, et al. (2013) People’s
Hallett LM, Diver S, Eitzel MV, Olson JJ, Ramage BS, Sardinas H, perceptions about the importance of forests on Borneo. PLoS One 8:
Statman-Weil Z, Suding KN (2013) Do we practice what we preach? e73008
Goal setting for ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology 21: Miettinen J, Shi C, Liew SC (2016) Land cover distribution in the peatlands
312–319 of Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Borneo in 2015 with changes since
Hansson A, Dargusch P (2018) An estimate of the financial cost of peat- 1990. Global Ecology and Conservation 6:67–78
MoEF (Ministry of Environmental and Forestry) Indonesia (2016) Peraturan
land restoration in Indonesia. Case Studies in the Environment 2:
menteri lingkungan hidup dan kehutanan Republik Indonesia Nomor P.
1–8
83/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM. 1/10/2016 tentang perhutanan sosial
Haselberger D (2018) F5 Transcription PRO version 3.5 (350)
MoEF (Ministry of Environmental and Forestry) Indonesia (2017) Peraturan
Hergoualc’h K, Hendry D, Murdiyarso D, Verchot L (2017) Total and
menteri lingkungan hidup dan kehutanan Republik Indonesia Nomor P.
heterotrophic soil respiration in a swamp forest and oil palm planta-
16/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM. 1/2/2017 tentang pedoman teknis pemuli-
tions on peat in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Biogeochemistry 135:
han fungsi ekosistem gambut
203–220
O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ (2004) “Any other comments?” Open questions on
Higgs ES (1997) What is good ecological restoration? Conservation Biology
questionnaires—a bane or a bonus to research? BMC Medical Research
11:338–348 Methodology 4:25
Higgs E, Falk AD, Guerrini A, Hall M, Harris J, Hoobs RJ, Jackson ST, Osaki M, Nursyamsi D, Noor M, Wahyunto SH (2016) Peatland in Indonesia.
Rhemtulla JM, Throop W (2014) The changing role of history in restoration Pages 49–58. In: Osaki M, Tsuji N (eds) Tropical peatland ecosystem.
ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:499–506 Springer Japan, Tokyo
Huat BBK, Prasad A, Asadi A, Kazemian S (2014) Geotechnics of Organic Soils Page SE, Wüst RAJ, Weiss D, Rieley JO, Shotyk W, Limin SH (2004) A record
and Peat. CRC Press, London, United Kingdom of late Pleistocene and Holocene carbon accumulation and climate change
Hull BR, Gobster PH (2000) Restoring forest ecosystems: the human dimension. from an equatorial peat bog (Kalimantan, Indonesia): implications for
Journal of Forestry 98:32–36 past, present and future carbon dynamics. Journal of Quaternary Science
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (2016) Pongo pig- 19:625–635
maeus (Bornean Orangutan). http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/17975/0 Page SE, Rieley JO, BanksC J (2011) Global and regional importance of the
(accessed 18 Aug 2019) tropical peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology 17:798–818
Jamshed S (2014) Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation. Peatland Restoration Agency (2017) Peraturan kepala badan restorasi gambut
Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacy 5:87 Nomor P.1/BRG-KB/2017 tentang petunjuk teknis penyaluran bantuan
Jong HN (2018) Study: Indonesia’s ambitious peat restoration initiative severely pemerintah kepada pemerintahan daerah atau masyarakat lingkup badan
underfunded. https://news.mongabay.com/2018/03/study-indonesias- restorasi gambut
ambitious-peat-restoration-initiative-severely-underfunded/ (accessed 18 Phelps J, Webb EL, Koh LP (2010) Risky business: an uncertain future for
Aug 2019) biodiversity conservation finance through REDD+. Conservation Letters
Joosten H, Couwenberg J (2008) Peatlands and carbon. In: Parish F, Sirin A, 4:88–94
Charman D, Joosten H, Minayeva T, Silvius M, Stringer L (eds) Assess- Presidental Decree (2016) Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 1
ment on peatlands, biodiversity and climate change: main report. Global Tahun 2016 tentang Badan Restorasi Gambut. Republic of Indonesia
Environment Centre and Wetlands International, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Putz FE, Redford KH (2010) The importance of defining ‘forest’: tropical forest
and Wageningen, the Netherlands degradation, deforestation, long-term phase shifts, and further transitions.
Joosten H, Couwenberg J, von Unger M (2016) International carbon policies as a Biotropica 42:10–20
new driver for peatland restoration. Pages 291–313. In: Bonn A, Allott T, QSR International Pty. Ltd. (2017) NVivo for Mac (version 11.4.3)
Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Shula B, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Bur-
Evans M, Joosten H, Stoneman R (eds) Peatland restoration and ecosystem
roughs H, Jinks C (2017) Saturation in qualitative research: explor-
services. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
ing its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity 52:
Kim YS, Hjerpe EE (2011) Merging economics and ecology in ecological
1893–1907
restoration. Pages 191–206. In: Egan D, Hjerpe E, Abrams J (eds) Human
Shackelford N, Hobbs RJ, Burgar JM, Erickson TE, Fontaine JB, Laliberté E,
dimensions of ecological restoration. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Ramalho CE, Perring MP, Standish RJ (2013) Primed for change: devel-
Kimball S, Lulow M, Sorenson Q, Balazs K, Fang Y, Davis SJ, O’Connell M,
oping ecological restoration for the 21st century. Restoration Ecology
Huxman TE (2015) Cost-effective ecological restoration. Restoration Ecol-
21:297–304
ogy 23:800–810
Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Science and Policy Work-
Larson A (2011) Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: lessons for ing Group (2004) The SER international primer on ecological restora-
REDD+. Global Environmental Change 21:540–549 tion. Society for Ecological Restoration International, Tucson, Arizona
Lavendel B (2003) Ecological restoration in the face of global climate change: www.ser.org
obstacles and initiatives. Ecological Restoration 21:199–203 Suding K, Higgs E, Palmer M, Callicott JB, Anderson CB, Matthew B, et al.
Lavrakas PJ (2008) Codebook in: encyclopedia of survey research methods. (2015) Committing to ecological restoration, efforts around the globe need
http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research- legal and policy clarification. Science 348:638–640
methods/n69.xml (accessed 18 Aug 2019) Suwarno A, van Noordwijk M, Weikard H, Suyamto D (2018) Indonesia’s forest
Martin DM (2017) Ecological restoration should be redefined for the twenty-first conversion moratorium assessed with an agent-based model of Land-Use
century. Restoration Ecology 25:668–673 Change and Ecosystem Services (LUCES). Mitigation and Adaptation
McDonald T, Gann GD, Jonson J, Dixon KW (2016a) International standards Strategies for Global Change 23:211–229
for the practice of ecological restoration—including principles and key Suyanto KN, Sardi I, Buana Y, van Noordwijk M,(2009) Analysis of local
concepts. Society for Ecological Restoration, Washington D.C. livelihoods from past to present in the Central Kalimantan ex-mega

March 2020 Restoration Ecology 445

Defining ecological restoration of peatlands

rice project area. Working paper 94. World Agroforestry Centre, Bogor, United Nation Environmental Programme (2019) New UN decade on ecosystem
Indonesia restoration offers unparalleled opportunity for job creation, food security
Swart JAA, Zevenberg J, Ho P, Cortina J, Reed M, Derak M, Vella S, Zhao H, and addressing climate change https://www.unep-wcmc.org/news/new-
van der Windt HJ (2018) Involving society in restoration and conservation. un-decade-on-ecosystem-restoration-offers-unparalleled-opportunity-for-
Restoration Ecology 26:S3–S6 job-creation-food-security-and-addressing-climate-change (accessed 18
Teddlie C, Tashakkori A (2009) The foundations of mixed methods research: Aug 2019)
integrating quantitative and qualitative techniques in the social and behav- Warren M, Hergoualc’h K, Kauffman JB, Murdiyarso D, Kolka R (2017) An
ioral sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California appraisal of Indonesia’s immense peat carbon stock using national peatland
Temperton VM (2007) The recent double paradigm shift in restoration ecology. maps: uncertainties and potential losses from conversion. Carbon Balance
Restoration Ecology 15:344–347 and Management 12:12
Turetsky MR, Benscoter B, Page S, Rein G, van der Werf GR, Watts A (2015) Wiens JA, Hobbs RJ (2015) Integrating conservation and restoration in a chang-
Global vulnerability of peatlands to fire and carbon loss. Nature Geoscience ing world. BioScience 65:302–312
8:11

Coordinating Editor: James Aronson Received: 28 August, 2019; First decision: 12 October, 2019; Revised: 24
October, 2019; Accepted: 7 December, 2019; First published online: 12 January,
2020

446 Restoration Ecology March 2020