Restoring Farmland for Prosperity: How Ecology Can Power Economic Growth

Redacción HC
01/07/2025

For decades, intensive agriculture has fueled economic expansion—but at a high cost. Biodiversity loss, declining soil quality, and compromised water systems are just a few of the ecological prices paid for higher crop yields. While these “hidden costs” have long been acknowledged by environmentalists, they’ve often been ignored in economic planning. A groundbreaking study published in PLOS ONE now challenges that mindset, showing that ecological restoration of farmland can deliver real, measurable gains in employment and economic productivity—when nature’s services are included in the equation.

Can Greener Farms Mean Stronger Economies?

For policymakers and economists, the question isn’t whether nature has value—it’s how to quantify it. This study, conducted by researchers from Bournemouth University and the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, set out to do just that. Using a detailed case study in Southwest England, the team simulated multiple land-use scenarios on agricultural landscapes and evaluated both environmental and economic outcomes.

At the heart of their inquiry: What happens when you integrate ecosystem services—like pollination, carbon sequestration, and water filtration—into traditional economic models? Could landscapes rich in biodiversity become more valuable than fields packed with monocultures?

A Bold Methodology for a Complex Landscape

To answer these questions, the researchers designed four restoration scenarios with varying degrees of intervention—from minimal ecological tweaks to high-intensity habitat recovery. These were compared against a baseline “Business as Usual” model reflecting typical post-Brexit agricultural practices.

The assessment was twofold:

• Environmental modeling: Using the InVEST software suite, the team modeled potential changes in carbon storage, water purification, and pollination across each scenario.
• Economic modeling: A traditional input-output economic model was used to calculate Gross Value Added (GVA) and job creation, both with and without the value of ecosystem services (ES).

This combined approach allowed for a more complete picture of economic activity—one that reflected not just crop revenue, but also the long-term productivity gains from a healthy, biodiverse landscape.

Key Findings: Nature’s Hidden Economic Power

1. Traditional Models Underestimate Rural Economies

When evaluated without ecosystem services, restoration scenarios appeared to reduce GVA and employment. But once ES values were integrated, a new picture emerged. Scenarios with high ecological restoration (HIGB) saw employment rise by up to 6.7%, while agriculturally focused approaches led to net job losses of up to 5.6%.

This reversal highlights a critical blind spot in current planning: “By failing to account for nature’s contributions, we systematically undervalue restoration as a development strategy,” the authors conclude.

2. Bigger Restoration = Bigger Payoff

Among all scenarios, HIGB produced the strongest gains—both in job creation and economic output. The reason? It leveraged multiple ecosystem services simultaneously: carbon capture, pollination for nearby crops, and tourism opportunities stemming from more attractive landscapes.

3. Rewriting Economic Rankings

Including ecosystem services fundamentally altered the rankings of economic scenarios. What once appeared to be the least profitable (restoration-heavy approaches) became the most advantageous—proving that investing in nature can outperform conventional agriculture in economic terms, when full costs and benefits are considered.

4. Landscape-Level Changes Matter

Restoration didn’t just create jobs—it also transformed spatial dynamics, enhancing habitat connectivity, increasing patch diversity, and improving ecological indicators across the region. These changes make ecosystems more resilient and communities better equipped to face climate uncertainty.

5. Private Sector Gains

Restoration isn’t just about public goods. The private sector—especially rural businesses in tourism, sustainable forestry, and eco-products—stands to benefit directly from more biodiverse landscapes. That means economic diversity for rural regions long dependent on commodity farming.

Why This Matters: From Research to Rural Policy

A. For Policymakers

The findings offer robust support for:

• Funding ecological restoration under rural development programs.
• Redesigning subsidies and incentives to reward ecosystem services.
• Expanding Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes across Europe and beyond.

In an era of post-Brexit uncertainty and climate-driven disruptions, investing in landscape restoration provides tangible economic returns and a path toward sustainable rural development.

B. For Rural Communities

Restoration enables rural diversification through:

• Eco-tourism
• Agroforestry
• Pollinator-dependent farming
• Recreation-based businesses

These sectors can stabilize income, create jobs, and reduce dependency on volatile commodity markets—making communities more resilient.

C. For Long-Term Planning

The authors recommend:

• Expanding research to include different cultural contexts and time horizons.
• Embedding ecosystem service values in national economic indicators.
• Developing dynamic models that reflect market evolution and ecosystem feedback loops.

Conclusion: Reframing Restoration as Economic Development

This study is a wake-up call for planners, economists, and land managers: restoring nature is not a luxury—it’s a smart investment. By integrating ecosystem services into economic models, we can unlock new opportunities for growth, resilience, and well-being in rural areas worldwide.

It’s time we rethink what “productive land” really means. Farmland that nurtures nature can also nourish economies.

Topics of interest

Biodiversity