Next Article in Journal
Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Carbon Storage in Rapidly Urbanizing Shenzhen, China: Insights and Predictions
Previous Article in Journal
From Solo to Cluster Governance: An Empirical Study of Transforming Rural Management in Guiyang, China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/land13101565
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on the Evaluation System for Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration Projects Based on Nature-Based Solutions

by
Chenbo Wei
1,
Yueqi Song
1,
Longhao Liu
1,
Huihui Zheng
1,
Yishan Wang
1,
Meng Mao
1,* and
Yan Xu
1,2,*
1
College of Land Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
Key Laboratory of Agricultural Land Quality and Monitoring of Nature Resource, Beijing 100193, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(10), 1565; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101565
Submission received: 19 August 2024 / Revised: 14 September 2024 / Accepted: 20 September 2024 / Published: 26 September 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Traditional agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration measures can address the challenges faced by agricultural land in the short term, but they often overlook the ecological benefits of the land and human well-being. Here, while emphasizing foreseeable project outcomes, we define a conceptual framework of Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration through Nature-based Solutions (ALC&ER-NbS) from three dimensions: ecological sustainability, economic viability, and human well-being, integrating the NbS concept with engineering project evaluation. Our study establishes 8 guidelines and 27 indicators, including scientific restoration, ecological connectivity, biodiversity enrichment, economic feasibility, public participation, benefit coordination, dynamic monitoring, and the promotion of successful cases. This results in an evaluation checklist covering 63 engineering and management details throughout the entire project design life cycle. By using a self-assessment tool for quantifying compatibility, the aim is to quickly verify the project’s degree of adaptation. This study is significant as it introduces a comprehensive evaluation system that not only addresses ecological and economic challenges but also prioritizes human well-being, distinguishing it from previous research. The innovative integration of NbS into agricultural land consolidation ensures sustainable development and offers a new approach for enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services.

1. Introduction

Agricultural land is not only the cornerstone of ensuring human food security but also plays a crucial role in maintaining ecological security [1,2,3]. However, the current degradation of agricultural land and the unsustainable use of land resources have become significant constraints on human survival and development. Agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects are essential for protecting and utilizing agricultural land and restoring degraded ecosystems. For example, in the United States, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has successfully restored millions of acres of marginal farmland to grassland, improving soil health and providing habitats for wildlife [4,5,6,7]. In Africa, large-scale land restoration projects, such as the Great Green Wall initiative, are combating desertification and enhancing agricultural productivity across the Sahel region [8,9,10]. In Europe, countries like Spain and Italy have implemented extensive soil conservation programs to address soil erosion and land degradation [11,12]. Similarly, in Australia, sustainable land management practices have been adopted to combat salinization and improve water use efficiency in agricultural regions [13]. However, the current degradation of agricultural land and the unsustainable use of land resources remain significant constraints on human survival and development across these and other regions. Globally, agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects are crucial for protecting and utilizing agricultural land and restoring degraded ecosystems.
In response to the issues faced by agricultural land, scholars at home and abroad have proposed various consolidation and restoration measures, mainly focusing on soil and water conservation, land improvement, vegetation restoration, and comprehensive management. Soil and water conservation is key to agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration. By constructing level ditches, water harvesting projects, and reservoirs, soil erosion can be effectively reduced, and soil water storage capacity can be increased. For example, in the Loess Plateau region, the construction of level ditches and reservoirs has significantly reduced soil erosion and improved soil moisture conditions [14]. In Israel, the use of advanced rainwater harvesting systems and drip irrigation technology has achieved efficient water resource utilization, addressing drought and water scarcity. Land improvement is a core method to enhance soil quality [15]. Techniques such as the application of organic fertilizers, straw mulching, and deep plowing can significantly improve soil structure and fertility. For instance, in semi-arid sandy areas of China, the promotion of straw mulching technology has increased soil organic matter content and improved soil water and nutrient retention capacity [16,17,18,19,20]. Additionally, in areas with arsenic sandstone, the method of adding sediment to press sand has effectively reduced the harm of arsenic sandstone and improved land quality. Vegetation restoration plays an important role in preventing wind erosion and desertification and stabilizing soil structure. By artificially planting windbreaks and sand-fixing plants and restoring natural vegetation, the ecological functions of agricultural land can be protected and restored. For example, in the Horqin Sandy Land and Mu Us Sandy Land, planting drought-resistant plants such as Caragana and sand willow has formed windbreak and sand-fixing forest belts, effectively curbing land desertification trends. Comprehensive management emphasizes the integrated application of various technologies to enhance restoration effects. For example, China’s “Comprehensive Management Project” widely implemented in semi-arid sandy areas integrates soil and water conservation, land improvement, and vegetation restoration technologies, achieving significant ecological and economic benefits [21,22,23]. Similar international projects, such as the United Nations’ dryland restoration program, have also achieved good results through the integration of various management measures.
However, traditional agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration often pursue short-term economic benefits [24,25], separating the resolution of agricultural land challenges from increasing biodiversity and human well-being [26]. This not only weakens the long-term sustainability of agricultural production but also exacerbates global food security challenges (SDG 2) [27]. Moreover, current agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects lack consideration of long-term ecological processes and socio-economic factors during implementation, leading to rapid degradation after project completion and failure to achieve sustainable ecological and social benefits [28,29,30].
Based on this, our study introduces the NbS concept into the entire life cycle of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects [31,32,33]. To address the challenges faced by agricultural land use, we adopt a series of consolidation and ecological restoration measures that mimic or draw from natural ecosystems, aiming to solve the challenges of agricultural land without adding new environmental pressures, with economic feasibility, ultimately enhancing biodiversity benefits and human well-being [34,35]. We have formulated 8 guidelines and 27 corresponding indicators in line with ALC&ER-NbS based on the application of NbS in agricultural land. To quickly identify deficiencies in project implementation and promptly formulate corrective plans, we have developed a checklist of corresponding engineering and management details within the framework of guidelines and indicators. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive and convenient evaluation system, offering an empirical research foundation to support the application of NbS in agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration, filling the gap in traditional agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects that overlook biodiversity and human well-being in the design and implementation process. This study addresses these shortcomings by integrating the NbS concept throughout the entire lifecycle of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. In doing so, it presents a novel approach that balances ecological sustainability, economic viability, and human well-being, setting it apart from previous research. The evaluation system we propose will provide practical guidance for achieving long-term sustainability in agricultural projects.

2. Methods

2.1. Core Concept

The definition of NbS for agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration can be summarized as a series of practices and measures aimed at mimicking or drawing from natural ecosystems [36,37]. These measures include, but are not limited to, restoring soil health, improving the water-use efficiency of the land, utilizing biodiversity to promote pest control, maintaining and restoring natural habitats, and establishing ecological corridors. The goal of these measures is to address the ecological, economic, and social challenges faced by agricultural land without adding new environmental pressures [38,39,40].
From an ecological perspective, NbS consolidation and restoration measures need to emphasize the importance of ecosystem services [41]. This means that, alongside agricultural production, the multi-functionality of ecosystems should be considered, such as their roles in climate regulation, nutrient cycling, and providing biodiversity [42]. For example, planting cover crops and perennial plants can not only prevent soil erosion but also increase soil organic matter content and promote biodiversity [43]. Secondly, economic sustainability is also a crucial component of NbS. This requires that agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration not only provide long-term ecological benefits but also enhance economic benefits, such as by reducing the use of inputs, increasing the diversity and value of agricultural products, and diversifying income sources through ecotourism [44,45]. Additionally, NbS measures should promote human well-being, including improving farmers’ livelihoods, increasing employment opportunities, providing food security and nutrition, and enhancing community resilience to climate change and other environmental pressures. Through community participation and capacity building, the acceptance and effectiveness of projects can be improved, ensuring that agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration measures receive support from local residents.
This paper defines agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration under NbS (ALC&ER-NbS) as follows: a series of consolidation and ecological restoration measures that mimic or draw from natural ecosystems to address the challenges faced by agricultural land use, aiming to solve these challenges without adding new environmental pressures, while maintaining economic feasibility, ultimately enhancing biodiversity benefits and improving human well-being.

2.2. ALC&ER-NbS Evaluation Model

Based on the self-assessment tool developed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), this paper has redefined the relevant guidelines and indicators for ALC&ER-NbS, constructing a new evaluation model (Figure 1). This evaluation method ensures equal weighting for each guideline during the assessment process and calculates the overall consistency percentage after standardization. The consistency score guides the project team in understanding the extent to which the engineering interventions comply with the ALC&ER-NbS standards. If a particular guideline is entirely non-compliant, it can be considered a significant opportunity for improvement in the project’s adherence to the ALC&ER-NbS standards. Although this standard provides a robust assessment framework for the design of interventions, other operational standards, tools, and methods may need to be integrated during project implementation. This approach ensures that the projects not only meet the ALC&ER-NbS qualification requirements in design but also consistently maintain these standards throughout execution.

3. Results

3.1. ALC&ER-NbS Guidelines and Indicators

To determine whether a project fully complies with the global standards for Nature-based Solutions (NbS), it is necessary to join the “IUCN Global Standard User Group” by completing a questionnaire. Within the framework of the global standards and usage guidelines for NbS, this paper constructs an evaluation model for Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration through Nature-based Solutions (hereinafter referred to as ALC&ER-NbS) (Figure 2). The model comprises eight guidelines, each associated with a set of indicators (a total of 27), which will be detailed later.
The application of ALC&ER-NbS introduces a mindset distinct from traditional land consolidation and ecological restoration. This approach aims to develop strategies that enhance human well-being and biodiversity benefits by mimicking and drawing from natural ecosystems. In practice, the design of solutions must be based on an in-depth understanding of local ecological and socio-economic conditions to ensure their effectiveness and adaptability. It is required to monitor the quality and functionality of ecosystem services throughout the project lifecycle to track restoration progress and support decision-making adjustments. Biodiversity serves as a key indicator in this process, reflecting the health status of ecosystems and representing ecological complexity and resilience. Thus, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity become critical measures of ALC&ER-NbS success.
Community participation holds a central position in ALC&ER-NbS. The knowledge, needs, and involvement of community residents provide valuable inputs for the planning and implementation of NbS. Respecting traditional land-use practices and local livelihood strategies can lead to higher social acceptance and better implementation outcomes for NbS. The economic dimension is also an indispensable consideration. Evaluating the economic benefits of NbS, such as cost savings, increased employment opportunities, and enhanced outputs, ensures the sustainability and economic feasibility of the projects. Additionally, considering long-term impacts and potential risks of ecosystem service loss helps accurately quantify the comprehensive value of NbS.
In a constantly changing environment, ALC&ER-NbS adopts a more dynamic management approach, supporting adaptive management strategies through continuous monitoring and evaluation. The core of this approach is to promote harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, achieving ecosystem restoration and maintenance while meeting reasonable human resource demands.

3.2. Implementation Details of the Criteria and Indicators of ALC&ER-NbS

(1) Criterion 1: Effectively Consolidate Agricultural Land and Improve the Ecological Environment
In the evaluation system for agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects based on Nature-based Solutions (NbS), Criterion 1 involves three indicators: addressing agricultural land challenges (C 1-1), investigating land degradation, setting restoration targets (C 1-2), and evaluating the effectiveness of consolidation (C 1-3).
Effectively addressing agricultural land challenges (C 1-1) requires identifying and resolving issues such as soil degradation, poor water resource management, and biodiversity loss. Specific measures include implementing crop rotation and cover cropping to maintain soil nutrients and structure, adopting water-saving irrigation systems and rainwater harvesting technologies to optimize water resource use, and creating biodiversity hot spots by setting up flower borders and hedgerows to provide wildlife habitats. Conducting land degradation surveys and setting restoration targets (C 1-2) involves a comprehensive assessment of the current agricultural land conditions, including soil quality testing, water resource sustainability assessment, and biodiversity status surveys. Based on these survey results, specific restoration targets can be set, such as increasing soil organic matter content, enhancing groundwater recharge capacity, and promoting the return or growth of specific species. Evaluating the achievement of set targets (C 1-3) will be realized through regular monitoring of soil, water resources, and biodiversity indicators, which include tracking improvements in soil nutrition and structure, assessing the effectiveness of water resource management measures, and monitoring changes in biodiversity indicators. Based on these evaluation results, consolidation measures can be adjusted and optimized to ensure they adhere to natural ecological principles and achieve the expected restoration goals.
Through these measures, Criterion 1 aims to effectively address the challenges faced by agricultural land by mimicking or drawing from natural ecosystems, promoting the restoration and enhancement of soil, water resources, and biodiversity, thereby achieving sustainable use of agricultural land and overall improvement of the ecological environment.
(2) Criterion 2: Consider Regional Ecological Patterns and Connectivity
Criterion 2 focuses on the importance of regional ecological patterns and connectivity. Restoration and consolidation projects should not only focus on the ecological improvement of a single plot but also consider the integrity and interaction of the entire regional ecosystem. This approach ensures that agricultural land consolidation is not an isolated activity but is coordinated with the surrounding ecological environment and community, achieving broader ecological and social benefits.
Measures to improve ecological connectivity (C 2-1) include creating ecological corridors and protected areas to facilitate the migration and gene flow of wildlife. For example, planting native shrubs and trees between farmlands, establishing ecological buffers, or restoring riparian vegetation helps build a coherent ecological network that supports biodiversity conservation and restoration. Such measures not only enhance the ecological value of individual farmlands but also strengthen the ecological integrity of the entire region. Collaboration with neighboring land consolidation efforts (C 2-2) is key to achieving regional ecological patterns and connectivity. This requires effective communication and coordination with adjacent land managers and stakeholders during the planning and implementation of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. For example, by sharing resources, exchanging information, and joint planning, broader regional ecological goals, such as water resource sharing, biodiversity protection, and the establishment of ecological corridors, can be achieved. Targeted measures to address ecological risks (C 2-3) should be reflected in the project design. Restoration and consolidation projects need to assess potential ecological risks, such as biological invasions, pest outbreaks, or natural disasters, and develop corresponding strategies. For example, introducing disease-resistant native plant species or establishing flood control measures to protect restoration areas from flood damage.
Criterion 2 not only improves the ecological conditions of individual agricultural lands but also contributes to the health and stability of the entire regional ecosystem. This cross-regional restoration effort complements the land consolidation activities in Criterion 1, collectively promoting the formation of a broader ecological network, enhancing regional biodiversity, and increasing the resilience of ecosystems while providing greater ecological and economic benefits to communities.
(3) Criterion 3: Enhance Regional Biodiversity
Criterion 3 focuses on the importance of enhancing regional biodiversity in agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. Implementing this criterion not only helps restore and protect biodiversity but also strengthens the ecological health and productivity of agricultural land, thereby enhancing ecosystem services and human well-being.
The key to enhancing regional biodiversity lies in understanding and protecting the existing biodiversity baseline. Conducting a local biodiversity baseline survey (C 3-1) is the starting point of this process. This involves a comprehensive assessment of local wildlife species, habitat types, and ecosystem services. Based on this information, key areas and species of biodiversity can be identified, providing scientific support for subsequent conservation and restoration efforts. Biodiversity indicator assessment (C 3-2) is an important means of ensuring the effectiveness of restoration measures. This includes monitoring the quantity and distribution of specific species, the structure and health status of biological communities, and the contribution of biodiversity to ecosystem services. The evaluation results can help adjust and optimize consolidation measures to ensure they effectively restore and enhance biodiversity. Establishing biodiversity monitoring mechanisms and assessing negative impacts (C 3-3) are crucial for the timely identification and mitigation of potential negative impacts. This requires continuous monitoring of biodiversity indicators throughout the project cycle, assessing the potential impacts of agricultural activities, land changes, or other human factors on biodiversity, and taking appropriate measures to mitigate these impacts. Biodiversity network and habitat maintenance (C 3-4) emphasize the importance of establishing and maintaining continuous biodiversity networks across the region. This includes creating biodiversity hot spots at farmland boundaries, protecting and restoring natural habitats, and promoting the formation of ecological corridors. These measures not only enhance the biodiversity of individual areas but also support the improvement of regional biodiversity and the restoration of ecosystem services.
By enhancing regional biodiversity, agricultural land can more effectively address challenges and improve ecological connectivity (objectives of Criteria 1 and 2), while also enhancing the overall health and stability of ecosystems. This comprehensive approach not only helps protect and restore biodiversity but also promotes sustainable management and ecological restoration of agricultural land, bringing long-term benefits to communities and the entire ecosystem.
(4) Criterion 4: Ensure Economic Benefits
Criterion 4 ensures that these activities are not only ecologically sustainable but also economically feasible. This means that when adopting ALC&ER-NbS, it is necessary to assess and optimize economic benefits to ensure the long-term viability of the project. Implementing this criterion ensures that agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects enhance ecological value while also bringing economic benefits to local communities, thereby achieving dual ecological and economic goals.
Recording costs and benefits (C 4-1) is the basis for evaluating the economic feasibility of a project. This involves detailed documentation of all related costs, including direct costs (such as expenses for vegetation restoration, water body restoration, and soil improvement) and indirect costs (such as project management and monitoring expenses). At the same time, the direct and indirect benefits brought by the project should also be estimated, such as increased crop yields, ecotourism income, and the long-term value of ecosystem services (such as water purification and carbon storage). Comparing economic feasibility with traditional models (C 4-2) is key to ensuring the economic competitiveness of ALC&ER-NbS measures. This requires comparing the cost-effectiveness of ALC&ER-NbS with traditional agricultural land management or ecological restoration methods, including long-term maintenance costs, potential ecological service benefits, and impacts on the regional economy and community well-being. Through this comparison, the economic advantages of ALC&ER-NbS can be demonstrated, attracting more investors and stakeholders to participate. Identifying and assessing additional economic benefits generated by ecological environments (C 4-3) is also crucial. These additional economic benefits may include the positive impact of increased biodiversity on agricultural production, the benefits of improved ecosystem services on public health, and the attractiveness of enhanced natural landscapes to tourism. Evaluating these economic benefits helps demonstrate the comprehensive value of ALC&ER-NbS projects to decision-makers and communities, thereby gaining broader support and funding. Identifying funding sources (C 4-4) is key to ensuring project sustainability. This involves exploring diverse funding sources such as government subsidies, private investments, international aid, and revenue through ecosystem service markets (e.g., carbon trading).
Implementing Criterion 4 not only strengthens the economic foundation of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects but also, in conjunction with Criteria 1, 2, and 3, builds a restoration model that is both ecologically friendly and economically feasible. By achieving this ecological and economic balance, ALC&ER-NbS projects can more effectively promote the sustainable development of agricultural land while bringing tangible economic benefits to local communities.
(5) Criterion 5: Broadly Seek Opinions
Criterion 5 emphasizes the importance of broadly seeking and integrating various opinions. To ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of ALC&ER-NbS, the planning and implementation of the project need to consider and reflect the perspectives and needs of different stakeholders.
Ensuring stakeholder participation in the decision-making process (C 5-1) is key to effective project management. This includes farmers, local community members, environmental experts, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations. At each stage of the project, from planning to implementation to monitoring, the opinions and suggestions of stakeholders should be seriously considered and integrated. For example, organizing community meetings, workshops, and public consultations can collect and discuss different viewpoints on land use, ecological restoration strategies, and expected outcomes. Information transparency and accountability (C 5-2) require the project management team to provide the public with detailed project information, including planning goals, expected impacts, progress updates, and any adjustments. At the same time, clearly defining the responsibilities and roles of all parties is crucial for ensuring effective project management and resolving potential conflicts. Full participation of stakeholders (C 5-3) ensures inclusiveness and representativeness in the decision-making process. This means seeking opinions not only at the project initiation stage but also maintaining continuous communication and feedback throughout the project cycle. Regular update meetings and feedback loops ensure the project adapts to regional changes and community needs. Documenting decision-making and conflict resolution (C 5-4) involves transparently recording the decision-making process and how challenges and conflicts encountered in the project are handled.
By implementing Criterion 5, agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects are optimized not only technically but also socially. Broad stakeholder participation increases the social capital of the project, improving the quality and acceptance of project execution. This increased participation and transparency, along with the previously discussed criteria, promote the formation of a more comprehensive and sustainable agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration strategy.
(6) Criterion 6: Balance Multiple Interests
Implementing agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration involves multiple stakeholders, including local communities, farmers, government agencies, environmental organizations, and the private sector. These stakeholders may have different goals and needs, so ensuring these diverse interests are properly balanced and reconciled is key to the project’s success.
Establishing a mechanism for interest demands and benefit distribution (C 6-1) is the first step in balancing multiple interests. This means identifying and understanding the expectations and goals of each stakeholder. For example, local communities may be more concerned about the impact of ecological restoration projects on their daily lives, such as water source protection and biodiversity enhancement, while farmers may be more focused on land output and economic benefits. Through comprehensive stakeholder analysis, the main concerns and priorities of each party can be identified. Collecting and evaluating feedback on land resource use from all parties (C 6-2) is an important means of measuring the balance of multiple interests. This includes predicting and monitoring the potential impacts of the project, such as soil quality, water resource availability, and biodiversity indicators. Collecting these data can help project managers understand the impact of different action plans on all parties and make more balanced and fair decisions accordingly. Establishing a stakeholder consultation mechanism (C 6-3) involves creating transparent and fair dialogue and decision-making platforms where all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in discussions and decision-making processes. This mechanism can take various forms, such as regular consultation meetings, working groups, or online forums. In this way, stakeholders can exchange views on key issues, seek ways to resolve conflicts, and share project outcomes.
Throughout agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects, balancing multiple interests is a continuous challenge. Project managers need to focus not only on ecological and technical issues but also fully consider socio-economic factors, establishing inclusive, participatory, and transparent decision-making processes. This enhances the social acceptance and implementation effectiveness of the project, ensuring its long-term sustainability.
(7) Criterion 7: Establish Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanisms
Criterion 7 emphasizes the necessity of establishing a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation mechanism. The purpose of this mechanism is to ensure that all stages of the project are continuously tracked and evaluated, thereby effectively achieving and optimizing project goals.
Regularly monitoring and evaluating the entire process (C 7-1) provides a real-time understanding of progress and potential deviations by continuously monitoring all stages of the project from initiation to execution. For example, monitoring soil quality, water resource status, and biodiversity indicators can assess the effectiveness of ecological restoration measures. Cross-disciplinary monitoring and evaluation (C 7-2) requires considering socio-economic factors in addition to ecological and environmental factors. For example, assessing the project’s impact on the local community economy, changes in agricultural production, and the quality of life of community residents are important evaluation contents. Establishing an adaptive adjustment mechanism (C 7-3) requires the project team to flexibly adjust strategies and plans based on monitoring and evaluation results. For example, if certain ecological restoration methods are found to be ineffective in specific environments, timely adjustments or alternative solutions should be sought.
Through such a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation mechanism, the project team can ensure that each step of execution aligns with established goals and can promptly identify and resolve issues, ensuring the project’s long-term success and sustainability.
(8) Criterion 8: Actively Explore and Promote Application and Replication
Criterion 8 encourages the project team to not only focus on the current project implementation but also consider its broader application potential and the possibility of replicating these practices in different environments and contexts.
Projects should actively integrate typical cases and innovative methods (C 8-1) and explore the applicability of these practices in other similar agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. For example, once successful soil improvement techniques or water resource management strategies prove effective, they should be documented and shared with other project teams. This knowledge sharing not only promotes the exchange of best practices within the industry but also inspires new innovative ideas. Improving and promoting relevant policies (C 8-2) is also crucial. An effective policy framework can provide necessary guidance and support for agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. Therefore, the project team should collaborate with policymakers to propose policy recommendations based on project experience to promote broader implementation of ecological restoration and sustainable agriculture. The project team needs to focus on the completion of agricultural and environmental goals (C 8-3) and actively explore how to apply these outcomes to a broader scope. This means not only evaluating the success of the project itself but also considering its contribution to the larger system. For example, a successful ecological restoration project can not only improve the ecological condition of a specific area but also serve as a model case to inspire and guide similar efforts in other regions (Table 1).
In summary, Criterion 8 emphasizes the importance of focusing not only on the effectiveness of individual projects but also on actively promoting the broader application and replication of these successful experiences. By doing so, the project’s impact can be maximized, promoting the widespread adoption of sustainable agriculture and ecological restoration practices, thereby achieving enhanced ecological, social, and economic benefits on a larger scale.

3.3. ALC&ER-NbS Evaluation Checklist

The purpose of the ALC&ER-NbS evaluation checklist is to provide a clear and actionable framework for evaluating and quantifying the extent to which a project adheres to the ALC&ER-NbS principles. By doing so, project teams can identify specific aspects of project implementation that align with or deviate from NbS guidelines, allowing for targeted improvements and optimizations (Figure 3).
When using the ALC&ER-NbS evaluation checklist, evaluators need to verify each activity or outcome related to ALC&ER-NbS. Each checkpoint corresponds to specific implementation details of the project, such as ecological environment improvement, socio-economic impact assessment, and the degree of stakeholder participation. Evaluators assess these details qualitatively or quantitatively based on the actual situation of the project, assigning scores such as “Fully compliant (3 points)”, “Mostly compliant (2 points)”, “Partially compliant (1 point)”, or “Non-compliant (0 points).” The individual indicator compliance score is calculated by summing the scores of the respective indicators. Similarly, criterion compliance scores and overall project compliance scores are derived from the total scores of the indicators and criteria.
The ALC&ER-NbS evaluation checklist helps address key issues such as project compliance assessment, decision support, continuous improvement, and standardized evaluation. The checklist can visually display the overall performance of the project in adhering to ALC&ER-NbS standards, helping project teams identify strengths and weaknesses. It provides an empirical basis to support project managers in making more informed decisions, particularly in project adjustments and resource allocation. By identifying specific areas that do not comply with ALC&ER-NbS principles, project teams can make targeted improvements to enhance the overall quality and effectiveness of the project. Additionally, it offers a standardized evaluation method, facilitating cross-project comparisons and experience sharing, thus promoting knowledge accumulation and technological advancement in the field of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration.

4. Application of the ALC&ER-NbS Evaluation System

The arable sandy land project in Kezuohou Banner is located in Horqin Left Wing Rear Banner, Tongliao City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, between 121°30′ to 123°43′ E longitude and 42°45′20″ to 43°41′30″ N latitude (Figure 4). The project area borders Shuangliao City in Jilin Province and Changtu County in Liaoning Province, covering a total area of 180.21 hectares. The average annual precipitation ranges from 358 to 483 mm, and the average annual temperature is between 5.3 and 5.9 °C. The topography of the project area is primarily composed of ridge-shaped sand dunes and flat sandy land, with dune heights less than 2 m. The area’s transportation infrastructure is poor, with existing field roads being dirt roads, limited in number, unclassified, unplanned, unevenly distributed, and poorly accessible. Drainage and irrigation systems are lacking, and water resource development and utilization rates are low. While there are few power facilities, substations near villages can supply power for production needs. The farmland protection infrastructure is weak, with disordered and unmanaged shelterbelts, resulting in severe tree mortality and gaps, unable to effectively combat wind and sand hazards (Figure 5).
The project aims to improve the agricultural productivity of the sandy land and achieve sustainable land use and ecological protection through measures such as land leveling, irrigation system construction, road reconstruction, and shelterbelt establishment. Based on the ALC&ER-NbS evaluation system developed in this study, the project is evaluated as follows (Figure 6):
Criterion 1: During the project implementation, soil fertility was enhanced primarily through land leveling and soil improvement, with specific measures including the application of organic fertilizers and biological amendments. The land leveling adopted the “minor leveling, major retention” approach to preserve large dunes as natural windbreaks. The “inorganic-to-organic” fertilization method was employed to improve soil texture and fertility, promoting crop growth. Additionally, an information system was established to monitor soil quality and water resource utilization, ensuring soil improvement effects and biodiversity protection.
Criterion 2: The project established ecological corridors in the farmland protection and ecological conservation works. Trees and shrubs were planted on the south and west sides of field roads to form mixed ecological corridors, reducing wind and sand damage to farmland and providing habitats for local wildlife, thereby enhancing biodiversity.
Criterion 3: The ecological conservation works included recording and monitoring plant and animal species within the project area. These records covered vegetation coverage, wildlife species, and their habitat distribution. Data visualization through the information system created habitat distribution maps of the farmland and surrounding areas, guiding subsequent ecological protection efforts.
Criterion 4: The project utilized an information system to detail the design, construction, and management processes, including land leveling, soil improvement, irrigation system construction, and shelterbelt planting. These detailed records allowed for a comprehensive evaluation of each phase’s effectiveness, facilitating project management adjustments and optimizations.
Criterion 5: During planning and implementation, the project extensively sought input from local governments, villagers, and other stakeholders. Specific measures included regular meetings and establishing information exchange platforms to ensure all parties were informed and involved in decision-making. The project also implemented a benefit compensation mechanism to protect stakeholders’ legitimate rights and promote smooth project implementation.
Criterion 6: During the design phase, the project conducted in-depth research on local farming practices and needs, incorporating them into the project design. A feedback mechanism regularly collected and analyzed opinions on land use and ecological protection, ensuring the project met various needs. The project also assessed the long-term impact of land consolidation and ecological protection on stakeholders, ensuring fairness and sustainability.
Criterion 7: The project established a comprehensive monitoring mechanism through the information system, with measures including real-time monitoring of land use, irrigation systems, soil quality, and ecological environment. Demonstration sites were established to evaluate the effectiveness of different measures through scientific trials and data collection, with regular publication of monitoring reports to ensure project objectives and long-term benefits.
Criterion 8: The project adopted new technologies such as “minor leveling” of sandy land and water-saving irrigation, significantly enhancing biodiversity benefits and water resource utilization efficiency. The design and layout of farmland shelterbelts used innovative ecological protection methods to effectively reduce wind and sand damage. The construction of information demonstration sites facilitated technology promotion and training, increasing farmers’ acceptance and application of new technologies, setting a new model for agricultural projects, and enhancing the project’s innovation.
Land 13 01565 g006
Figure 6. Project Checklist Results.
Figure 6. Project Checklist Results.
Land 13 01565 g006

5. Discussion

This study introduces the Nature-based Solutions (NbS) concept to evaluate agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration, proposing an evaluation system that encompasses ecological, economic, and social dimensions. This approach not only enhances agricultural productivity and ecosystem service functions but also plays a significant role in food security, ecological security, and farmland sustainability. By mimicking natural ecosystem processes, such as constructing ecological corridors, restoring vegetation, and optimizing water resource management, we can significantly improve soil quality and water resource utilization efficiency, thereby enhancing agricultural productivity. These measures help address global food security issues while increasing the ecological carrying capacity and resilience of the land, ensuring long-term stability and efficiency in agricultural production.
Additionally, we explored the ecological relationships between cropland, forestland, and grassland, and their complementary roles within ecosystems. Cropland, forestland, and grassland each have unique ecological functions, but their interactions and coordinated management can significantly enhance overall ecosystem health and functionality. Cropland is primarily used for food production, but its productivity and sustainability depend on good soil quality and water resource management. Forestland provides ecological corridors and windbreaks, protecting cropland from wind and sand damage and maintaining soil structure and moisture. Grassland supports biodiversity and provides forage, enhancing the resilience and stability of ecosystems. Reasonable allocation and management of cropland, forestland, and grassland can maximize ecosystem services and promote sustainable agricultural development.
It is worth noting that our research methodology differs in certain aspects when compared to projects in other countries globally. For instance, in European farmland ecological restoration projects, there is a greater emphasis on promoting eco-friendly agricultural practices through agricultural policy tools, such as subsidies. These projects typically combine strict policy frameworks with financial support to ensure that farmers can maintain economic benefits while engaging in ecological restoration. In contrast, our research relies more on technical approaches, such as the construction of ecological corridors and optimization of water resource management, to enhance agricultural productivity and ecosystem service functions. Moreover, sustainable agriculture projects in the United States emphasize the holistic management of farmland and surrounding natural ecosystems. These projects often include large-scale ecological reserves aimed at protecting key species habitats and supporting agricultural production through extensive biodiversity conservation programs. In our study, however, we focus primarily on improving ecological benefits by optimizing land-use configuration within existing agricultural land, highlighting the balance between agricultural production and ecological protection on limited land resources. From a practical perspective, China’s farmland consolidation projects share some similarities with our study, particularly in terms of intensive land use and water resource management. However, Chinese projects are more influenced by policy direction and government-led initiatives, emphasizing large-scale engineering measures such as terracing and unified management of irrigation projects. Our study, on the other hand, places greater emphasis on adapting to local conditions, integrating nature-based solutions to achieve sustainable land management in accordance with local ecological characteristics and socio-economic conditions.
However, this study also faces challenges that may arise during its application. One of the primary challenges is the need for comprehensive and accurate data collection, which can be particularly difficult in regions with significant ecological and socio-economic variability. To overcome this challenge, future research should focus on developing more adaptable data collection methods and technologies that can be customized to different regional contexts. Additionally, integrating local knowledge and stakeholder input into the data collection process can enhance the accuracy and relevance of the data. Another challenge is the substantial funding and policy support required for the successful implementation of the evaluation system. Addressing this challenge will require collaboration with government bodies, non-governmental organizations, and international institutions to secure financial resources and policy backing. Future research should explore innovative funding mechanisms and advocate for policy reforms that prioritize sustainable agricultural practices. Finally, further research is needed to refine the evaluation system and expand its applicability. This includes adding new guidelines and indicators that reflect the latest advancements in nature-based solutions and ecological restoration practices. Moreover, case studies in different ecological and socio-economic settings should be conducted to validate the effectiveness and adaptability of the evaluation system. Strengthening international cooperation and learning from the experiences of other countries will be crucial for advancing the field and ensuring the widespread adoption of the proposed evaluation system.
In addition, we recognize that there are certain limitations at the current stage of our research. Firstly, the study is currently focused on the development of the theoretical framework, and has not yet involved specific data collection and quantitative analysis. Although we have used the “IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions” as an authoritative reference and developed preliminary evaluation criteria and indicators based on this standard, these criteria and indicators have not yet been fully quantified and validated. This limitation means that the current evaluation system relies more on theoretical assumptions and lacks data support. Future research will aim to overcome these limitations. We plan to quantify the established criteria and indicators in the subsequent research process, and by collecting and analyzing field data, we intend to construct a more detailed and comprehensive evaluation system. This evaluation system will not only enable qualitative analysis of the project but will also have the capability for quantitative assessment, thereby providing a more solid scientific basis for the practical application of protective development and nature-based solutions. Additionally, as the research progresses, we will explore the application of statistical methods to enhance the scientific rigor and credibility of the evaluation results. These future research efforts will contribute to further refining the evaluation system, making it highly valuable in both theoretical and practical contexts.

6. Conclusions

In summary, our study successfully integrates the NbS concept into agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. By comprehensively considering biodiversity enhancement, ecosystem service restoration, and economic feasibility, we have developed an integrated evaluation system that effectively improves the sustainability and environmental benefits of these projects.
The comprehensive evaluation system we developed aims to guide the implementation of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects to achieve biodiversity benefits and human well-being. We established 8 guidelines and 27 indicators, including scientific restoration, ecological connectivity, biodiversity enrichment, economic feasibility, public participation, interest coordination, dynamic monitoring, and the promotion of successful cases. Additionally, we detailed 63 specific engineering and management measures based on these indicators, creating an evaluation checklist that enables the rapid identification of deficiencies in projects and the timely formulation of corrective actions. Moreover, we conducted an empirical project evaluation using the Horqin Left Wing Rear Banner as a case study.
Our research provides essential theoretical support and practical guidance for agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. By incorporating the NbS concept into the comprehensive evaluation system, we emphasize the importance of biodiversity benefits and human well-being, greatly enriching the original evaluation system’s content and helping to improve the projects’ environmental benefits and sustainability.
We hope that the current research results will provide a significant reference for future studies. Future work can further refine the evaluation system, including the addition of new guidelines and indicators to more comprehensively consider the environmental benefits and sustainability of agricultural land consolidation and ecological restoration projects. Additionally, the evaluation checklist can further quantify the engineering and management details to enhance the credibility and persuasiveness of the evaluation results. Furthermore, the NbS concept can be applied to more specific scales, focusing on detailed aspects of engineering and management. Finally, strengthening international exchange and cooperation, and learning from the experiences of other countries and regions, can collectively advance the field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.W., Y.S., L.L., H.Z. and Y.W.; Methodology, C.W., Y.S., L.L., H.Z. and Y.W.; Software, C.W., Y.S., L.L., H.Z. and Y.W.; Validation, Y.S. and H.Z.; Investigation, C.W.; Resources, M.M. and Y.X.; Writing—original draft, C.W.; Writing—review & editing, C.W.; Visualization, C.W.; Supervision, M.M. and Y.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42471300).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mori, A.S.; Dee, L.E.; Gonzalez, A.; Ohashi, H.; Cowles, J.; Wright, A.J.; Loreau, M.; Hautier, Y.; Newbold, T.; Reich, P.B.; et al. Biodiversity–productivity relationships are key to nature-based climate solutions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cooper, C.; Cunningham, N.; Bracken, L.J. Exploring different framings of nature-based solutions with respect to governance, and citizen participation, beneficiaries, and quality of life outcomes. Environ. Sci. Policy 2023, 150, 103592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Li, C.; Fu, B.; Wang, S.; Stringer, L.C.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, W. Drivers and impacts of changes in China’s drylands. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 858–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chaigneau, T.; Coulthard, S.; Daw, T.M.; Szaboova, L.; Camfield, L.; Chapin, F.S.; Gasper, D.; Gurney, G.G.; Hicks, C.C.; Ibrahim, M.; et al. Reconciling well-being and resilience for sustainable development. Nat. Sustain. 2022, 5, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hart, D.E.; Yeo, S.; Almaraz, M.; Beillouin, D.; Cardinael, R.; Garcia, E.; Kay, S.; Lovell, S.T.; Rosenstock, T.S.; Sprenkle-Hyppolite, S.; et al. Priority science can accelerate agroforestry as a nature climate solution. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 1179–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dupuits, E.; Garcés, A.; Llambí, L.D.; Bustamante, M. Strategies for monitoring and evaluation of climate change adaptation: Localizing global approaches into Andean realities. npj Clim. Action 2024, 3, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Blanco-Canqui, H. Assessing the potential of nature-based solutions for restoring soil ecosystem services in croplands. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 921, 170854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vasil, I.K. Agriculture: Biotechnology and food security for the 21st century: A real-world perspective. Nat. Biotechnol. 1998, 16, 399–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Duan, J.; Ren, C.; Wang, S.; Zhang, X.; Reis, S.; Xu, J.; Gu, B. Consolidation of agricultural land can contribute to agricultural sustainability in China. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, J.; Dou, Y.; Chen, H. Stepwise Ecological Restoration: A framework for improving restoration outcomes. Geogr. Sustain. 2024, 5, 160–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Meckling, J.; Allan, B.B. The evolution of ideas in global climate policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2020, 10, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Guo, K.; Pyšek, P.; van Kleunen, M.; Kinlock, N.L.; Lučanová, M.; Leitch, I.J.; Pierce, S.; Dawson, W.; Essl, F.; Kreft, H.; et al. Plant invasion and naturalization are influenced by genome size, ecology and economic use globally. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Brauman, K.A.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Polasky, S.; Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Brancalion, P.H.S.; DeClerck, F.; Jacob, U.; Mastrangelo, M.E.; Nkongolo, N.V.; Palang, H.; et al. Global trends in nature’s contributions to people. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 32799–32805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Luo, M.; Cai, J.; Zeng, Z.; Zheng, Y.; Lin, T. Development and practices of nature-based solutions in China. Nat.-Based Solut. 2024, 5, 100109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Quintero-Angel, M.; Cerón-Hernández, V.A.; Ospina-Salazar, D.I. Applications and perspectives for land restoration through nature-based solutions. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2023, 36, 100518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Faivre, N.; Fritz, M.; Freitas, T.; de Boissezon, B.; Vandewoestijne, S. Nature-Based Solutions in the EU: Innovating with nature to address social, economic and environmental challenges. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Saddaf, N.; Sultana, R.; Anjum, B. Vulnerability and effectiveness of nature-based solutions (NbS) in the farming communities of coastal Bangladesh. Environ. Chall. 2024, 14, 100863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shackelford, N.; Paterno, G.B.; Winkler, D.E.; Erickson, T.E.; Leger, E.A.; Svejcar, L.N.; Breed, M.F.; Faist, A.M.; Harrison, P.A.; Curran, M.F.; et al. Drivers of seedling establishment success in dryland restoration efforts. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 1283–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bogdanov, B. Nature Conservation and Ecology. Nature 1944, 153, 568–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zheng, Q.; Ha, T.; Prishchepov, A.V.; Zeng, Y.; Yin, H.; Koh, L.P. The neglected role of abandoned cropland in supporting both food security and climate change mitigation. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fujimori, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Krey, V.; Riahi, K.; Bertram, C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Bosetti, V.; Callen, J.; Després, J.; Doelman, J.; et al. A multi-model assessment of food security implications of climate change mitigation. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Debele, S.E.; Leo, L.S.; Kumar, P.; Sahani, J.; Ommer, J.; Bucchignani, E.; Vranić, S.; Kalas, M.; Amirzada, Z.; Pavlova, I.; et al. Nature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 902, 165824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jackson, S.T.; Hobbs, R.J. Ecological Restoration in the Light of Ecological History. Science 2009, 325, 567–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dunlop, T.; Khojasteh, D.; Cohen-Shacham, E.; Glamore, W.; Haghani, M.; Bosch, M.v.D.; Rizzi, D.; Greve, P.; Felder, S. The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges. Commun. Earth Environ. 2024, 5, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hasegawa, T.; Havlík, P.; Frank, S.; Palazzo, A.; Valin, H. Tackling food consumption inequality to fight hunger without pressuring the environment. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lü, Y.; Zhang, L.; Feng, X.; Zeng, Y.; Fu, B.; Yao, X.; Li, J.; Wu, B. Recent ecological transitions in China: Greening, browning and influential factors. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 8732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lu, Y. Benefits of China’s land consolidation. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 926–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dabala, A.; Dahdouh-Guebas, F.; Dunn, D.C.; Everett, J.D.; Lovelock, C.E.; Hanson, J.O.; Buenafe, K.C.; Neubert, S.; Richardson, A.J. Priority areas to protect mangroves and maximise ecosystem services. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 5863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Murillas-Maza, A.; Broszeit, S.; Pouso, S.; Bueno-Pardo, J.; Ruiz-Frau, A.; Terrados, J.; Jernberg, S.; Iriondo, A.; Dolbeth, M.; Katsanevakis, S.; et al. Ecosystem indicators to measure the effectiveness of marine nature-based solutions on society and biodiversity under climate change. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sidun, X.; Lian, T.A.O. Restoration of Polders Through Nature-Based Solutions—Landscape Practice in the Start-up Area of Jianyang Lake Wetland Park. Landsc. Archit. Front. 2021, 9, 92–105. [Google Scholar]
  31. Xu, K.; Chen, J.; Feng, Y.; Wang, J.; Bai, Z. How are nature-based solutions contributing to the improvement of ecosystem quality in China: A systematic review. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 155, 110985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Xu, Y.; Zhao, W.; Zhang, Z. The practice of nature-based solutions in China: Ecosystem product value realization. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Health 2023, 36, 100514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bianciardi, A.; Becattini, N.; Cascini, G. How would nature design and implement nature-based solutions? Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Garmendia, J.M.; Rodríguez, J.G.; Borja, Á.; Pouso, S.; del Campo, A.; Galparsoro, I.; Fernandes-Salvador, J.A. Restoring seagrass meadows in Basque estuaries: Nature-based solution for successful management. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Herrmann-Pillath, C.; Hiedanpää, J.; Soini, K. The co-evolutionary approach to nature-based solutions: A conceptual framework. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Herrmann-Pillath, C.; Sarkki, S.; Maran, T.; Soini, K.; Hiedanpää, J. Nature-based solutions as more-than-human art: Co-evolutionary and co-creative design approaches. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Higuera Roa, O.; Cotti, D.; Aste, N.; Bustillos-Ardaya, A.; Schneiderbauer, S.; Tourino Soto, I.; Román-Dañobeytia, F.; Walz, Y. Deriving targeted intervention packages of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction: A geospatial multi-criteria approach for building resilience in the Puna region, Peru. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Janzen, S.; Balzer, J.; Merk, F.; Eberle, C.; Chabi, A.; Walz, Y. Moving towards a comprehensive evaluation of ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction: The example of agroforestry for flood risk reduction. Nat.-Based Solut. 2024, 5, 100104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kowarik, I. Uncovering historical roots of nature-based solutions: Christian Ludwig Krause’s approaches to restoring degraded land in an 18th-century European landscape. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kumar, B.M.; Kunhamu, T.K. Nature-based solutions in agriculture: A review of the coconut (Cocos nucifera L.)-based farming systems in Kerala, “the Land of Coconut Trees”. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Martín-Dato, A.; Pérez, J.; López-Cózar, J.M.; Rubial-Fernández, M.J.; Valderrama, F.; Martín, M.; Díaz, D.; Velasco-Posada, A.; Sabater, M.; Gismero, E.; et al. Treatment wetlands in Embera indigenous communities (Colombia), are they Nature-based Solutions? Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 4, 100074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Norman, C.; Hunter, R.G.; Day, J.W.; Clark, H.C.; Sanner, C.; Kemp, G.P.; Fucile-Sanchez, E.B.; Hodder, J.H. A review of issues related to formation, deterioration and restoration of the Chenier Plain, Mississippi River Delta, LA-Combining nature based and engineered approaches. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sowińska-Świerkosz, B.; García, J. What are Nature-based solutions (NBS)? Setting core ideas for concept clarification. Nat.-Based Solut. 2022, 2, 100009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Telwala, Y. Unlocking the potential of agroforestry as a nature-based solution for localizing sustainable development goals: A case study from a drought-prone region in rural India. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wagner, M.; Waterton, C.; Norton, L.R. Mob grazing: A nature-based solution for British farms producing pasture-fed livestock. Nat.-Based Solut. 2023, 3, 100054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 13 01565 g001
Figure 1. ALC&ER-NbS Assessment Model.
Figure 1. ALC&ER-NbS Assessment Model.
Land 13 01565 g001
Land 13 01565 g002
Figure 2. The Interrelationship between the Concept and Criteria of ALC&ER-NbS.
Figure 2. The Interrelationship between the Concept and Criteria of ALC&ER-NbS.
Land 13 01565 g002
Land 13 01565 g003
Figure 3. ALC&ER-NbS Evaluation Checklist.
Figure 3. ALC&ER-NbS Evaluation Checklist.
Land 13 01565 g003
Land 13 01565 g004
Figure 4. The overview of the study area.
Figure 4. The overview of the study area.
Land 13 01565 g004
Land 13 01565 g005
Figure 5. The Aerial View of the Engineering Design and Technical Demonstration Area for the Protective Development of Arable Sandy Land in Kezuohouqi, Inner Mongolia.
Figure 5. The Aerial View of the Engineering Design and Technical Demonstration Area for the Protective Development of Arable Sandy Land in Kezuohouqi, Inner Mongolia.
Land 13 01565 g005
Table 1. ALC&ER-NbS Criteria Indicators.
Table 1. ALC&ER-NbS Criteria Indicators.
Criterion NumberCriterion DescriptionIndicator NumberIndicator Overview
Criterion 1Effectively consolidate agricultural land and improve the ecological environmentC 1-1Effectively addressing agricultural land challenges
C 1-2Conducting land degradation surveys and setting restoration targets
C 1-3Evaluating the achievement of set targets
Criterion 2Consider regional ecological patterns and connectivityC 2-1Improvement of ecological connectivity measures
C 2-2Collaboration with neighboring land consolidation efforts
C 2-3Targeted measures to address ecological risks
Criterion 3Enhance regional biodiversityC 3-1Local biodiversity baseline survey
C 3-2Biodiversity indicator assessment
C 3-3Biodiversity monitoring mechanisms and negative impact assessments
C 3-4Maintenance of biodiversity networks and habitats
Criterion 4Ensure economic benefitsC 4-1Recording costs and benefits
C 4-2Comparing economic feasibility with traditional models
C 4-3Additional economic benefits generated by ecological environments
C 4-4Identifying funding sources
Criterion 5Broadly seek opinionsC 5-1Degree of stakeholder participation in decision-making
C 5-2Information transparency and accountability
C 5-3Full participation of stakeholders
C 5-4Documenting decision-making and conflict resolution
Criterion 6Balance multiple interestsC 6-1Mechanism for interest demands and benefit distribution
C 6-2Feedback on land resource use from all parties
C 6-3Establishing stakeholder consultation mechanisms
Criterion 7Establish monitoring and evaluation mechanismsC 7-1Regular monitoring and evaluation of the entire process
C 7-2Cross-disciplinary monitoring and evaluation
C 7-3Establishing an adaptive adjustment mechanism
Criterion 8Actively explore and promote application and replicationC 8-1Integration of typical cases and innovative methods
C 8-2Improvement and promotion of relevant policies
C 8-3Completion of agricultural and environmental goals
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wei, C.; Song, Y.; Liu, L.; Zheng, H.; Wang, Y.; Mao, M.; Xu, Y. Research on the Evaluation System for Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration Projects Based on Nature-Based Solutions. Land 2024, 13, 1565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101565

AMA Style

Wei C, Song Y, Liu L, Zheng H, Wang Y, Mao M, Xu Y. Research on the Evaluation System for Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration Projects Based on Nature-Based Solutions. Land. 2024; 13(10):1565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101565

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wei, Chenbo, Yueqi Song, Longhao Liu, Huihui Zheng, Yishan Wang, Meng Mao, and Yan Xu. 2024. "Research on the Evaluation System for Agricultural Land Consolidation and Ecological Restoration Projects Based on Nature-Based Solutions" Land 13, no. 10: 1565. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13101565

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop