Carbon Neutrality Pathways Through Ecological Restoration: Synergies Between Climate Change Mitigation and Degradation Control

ABSTRACT Land degradation and climate change represent interconnected global challenges that threaten ecological stability, ecosystem productivity, and long‐term carbon sequestration capacity, particularly in countries with extensive degraded landscapes such as China. This study aims to identify and prioritize ecological restoration pathways that can simultaneously support national carbon‐neutrality goals and advance land degradation neutrality. Despite large‐scale restoration initiatives, uncertainty remains regarding which intervention pathways most effectively generate synergistic benefits for climate mitigation and degradation control, thereby motivating the development of a structured decision‐support framework. We hypothesize that hydrological and soil–vegetation–carbon interactions exert greater influence on restoration‐based carbon neutrality outcomes than purely governance‐oriented measures. To address the inherent uncertainty and multidimensionality of restoration assessment, an integrated Pythagorean fuzzy multi‐criteria decision‐making framework was developed by combining PF‐SWARA and PF‐COPRAS to evaluate multiple criteria and policy support alternatives. The PF‐SWARA results highlight precipitation adequacy, soil moisture retention, soil organic carbon, vegetation recovery, and ecosystem productivity as the most influential determinants of restoration effectiveness, indicating that water availability and soil–vegetation–carbon interactions underpin long‐term restoration outcomes. Using these weighted criteria, the PF‐COPRAS analysis ranked climate‐adaptive restoration planning, enhanced soil carbon management, and wetland and riparian restoration as the most effective pathways for achieving high carbon sequestration and robust degradation control. Grassland rehabilitation and afforestation received moderate utility scores, reflecting their region‐specific performance and hydrological trade‐offs, while governance and finance‐oriented strategies emerged as indirect but essential enabling mechanisms.