Diverse discourses in ecological, ecosystem, and forest landscape restoration literature

Abstract Introduction Restoration has emerged as a key strategy to address biodiversity loss. However, restoration is marked by a diversity of discourses, often running in parallel under three major restoration framings: ecological restoration, ecosystem restoration, and forest landscape restoration. These framings are often applied in different but partly overlapping ways. Objectives This paper therefore explores these key framings with respect to their relative emphasis on ecological, social, economic, political, and cultural aspects of restoration. Methods We used a structured literature review to identify and characterize the dominant discourses in restoration literature published between 2005 and 2024. Results Two main branches of literature were identified: a social‐institutional and a practical‐ecological branch. Within these, the “social‐institutional branch” included clusters focusing on “Forest Restoration and Policy” and “Integrative Restoration Concepts.” The “practical‐ecological branch” included clusters on “Restoration Techniques and Practices,” “Farmland Restoration for Climate Action,” and “Classical Ecological Restoration.” The term “forest landscape restoration” was used most prominently within the “social‐institutional branch”; “ecological restoration” was used especially in the “practical‐ecological branch”; while “ecosystem restoration” was used in both branches. Conclusions Our findings reveal that while these discourses share common goals, they differ in terminology, scale, values, level of stakeholder engagement, and whether they focus on theory or practice. “Restoration” thus has become a diverse field that incorporates different, often implicit biases toward either people and their livelihoods or toward natural ecosystems. Awareness of this diversity of understandings to date will be vital to further advance integrated, social‐ecological approaches to restoration.