Outcomes from restoration projects are often difficult for policymakers and stakeholders to assess, but this information is fundamental for scaling up ecological restoration actions. We evaluated technical aspects of the interventions, results (ecological and socio-economic) and monitoring practices in 75 restoration projects in Mexico using a digital survey composed of 137 questions. We found that restoration projects in terrestrial ecosystems generally relied on actions included in minimal (97%) and maximal (86%) intervention, while in wetlands, the preferred restoration strategies were intermediate (75%) and minimal intervention (63%). Only a third of the projects (38%) relied on collective learning as a source of knowledge to generate techniques (traditional management). In most of the projects (73%), multiple criteria (>2) were considered when selecting plant species for plantings; the most frequently used criterion was that plant species were found within the restoration area, native or naturalized (i.e., a circa situm criterion; 88%). In 48% of the projects, the biological material required for restoration (e.g., seeds and seedlings) were gathered or propagated by project implementers rather than purchased commercially. Only a few projects (between 33 and 34%) reached a high level of biodiversity recovery (>75%). Most of the projects (between 69 to71%) recovered less than 50% of the ecological services. Most of the projects (82%) led to improved individual relationships. The analysis revealed a need to implement strategies that are cost-effective, the application of traditional ecological knowledge and the inclusion of indigenous people and local communities in restoration programs at all stages—from planning to implementation, through monitoring. We also identified the need to expand research to develop effective tools to assess ecosystems’ regeneration potential and develop theoretical frameworks to move beyond short-term markers to set and achieve medium- and long-term goals. Cautious and comprehensive planning of national strategies must consider the abovementioned identified gaps.

Background: A deep discussion of the phases of planning by all stakeholders will help to identify the challenges faced by countries that are embarking on large-scale restoration actions to comply with international agreements. Question: Was the planning phase of restoration projects done according to international guidance? We evaluated six of the eight aspects of the international guidance for the planning phase of restoration projects carried out in Mexico between 1979 and 2016. Methods: The information about the restoration projects was compiled using a digital survey composed of 137 questions. Results: Seventy-five projects with a total area of 1,556,840 hectares were analyzed, mainly in temperate, humid, and deciduous forest. More projects measured the baseline with biotic than with abiotic variables, and social variables were seldom evaluated. Most projects aimed to recover biodiversity or ecosystem services, and they identified a reference ecosystem. Planned budgets included mainly field work. Conclusions: To promote the integration of ecological, social, and economic priorities, landscape restoration is suggested, since it is done at a scale which maximizes the benefits for nature and people. The inclusion of only field work in the budgets may decrease the total cost, but it may jeopardize project success due to poor planning. Careful and detailed planning of a national strategy constructed by all stakeholders that includes restoration of original ecosystems, agroforestry systems (which facilitate social participation and increase land productivity) and patches under natural succession, and investing in highly trained human resources will allow successful compliance with international restoration commitments.

In Mexico, dry forests are one of the ecosystems in major need of restoration intervention. Here, we explored the ecological and social limitations on the restoration of Mexican dry forests from the perspective of restoration practitioners and researchers. We included three data sources: (i) projects included in a national evaluation (1979–2016), (ii) a systematic review of scientific literature (1979–2021), and (iii) restoration projects included in two governmental programs. The national evaluation and the systematic review coincided in identifying the establishment of plantings as the most important ecological limitation and low social participation as the most important social limitation. There were three times more publications addressing ecological limitations than those addressing social limitations. We did not find research to resolve the problems faced by practitioners related to invasive species, unpredictable climate, and poor soil quality. Governmental programs promoting the restoration of ecosystems need to include measurable indicators to document the socioecological limitations faced by local practitioners to restore Mexican dry forests.