A quick recap: Why do we need grassland restoration?

Not only are extensively managed grasslands often species-rich and provide a wide range of different ecosystem functions, from which we humans benefit as well, but grasslands have been overlooked and overexploited compared to other habitat types (Kan et al. 2026). They are endangered worldwide due to destruction through land use change as well as degradation; in large parts of Europe they are among the most threatened types of habitat. Alarmingly, 75 % of grasslands protected under EU law are experiencing a decline in biodiversity, with species that are specifically adapted to open ecosystems such as grasslands being lost. To bend the curve of biodiversity loss upwards again and to meet international commitments like the EU Nature Restoration Law, we need to step up our game in scaling up ecological restoration across all dimensions.

Restoration success is social-ecological – not just ecological

Thereby, the social dimension is not just a “nice to have” but an important determinant of the outcomes of the restoration efforts. Wildflower meadows are threatened by conversion to cropland, afforestation as part of a drive to mitigate climate change as well as urban development. We know that the extent to which people consider species-rich natural habitats important or worthy of restoration or conservation often depends on how familiar or connected people are to these habitats. In addition, within the Grassworks project, transdisciplinary research on values people have related to grasslands and their restoration showed an increase in relational values (often linked to motivation) over time, as actors engaged in group discussions and exchanges about different ecological and social facets of the grasslands. After a process of co-creation of live restoration measures in a real-world lab setting (more on that later), intrinsic values related to grasslands were less emphasised and relational ones gained in importance for the actors. Such relational values are often closely connected to how motivated actors or stakeholders are to take action within conservation settings but are usually not considered in research or practice.

The Grassworks research approach

The project was based on the hypothesis that a successful restoration can only be achieved when both ecological complexity and stakeholder engagement are high. To investigate this, the researchers compared already restored areas to positive and negative reference sites in three different regions from Northern to Southern Germany, using a natural landscape experiment approach. Within each region they developed a post hoc assessment to analyse the main factors influencing the restoration success.  In addition, to this, in real world laboratory settings, live restoration with local stakeholders was co-designed and implemented across the three regions.

What was measured?

To understand what truly drives restoration success, the researchers collected a broad range of data: ecological variables, landscape-related, economic as well as social-ecological dimensions. From an ecological perspective, researchers assessed plant diversity, vegetation structure, soil characteristics as well as the occurrence of butterflies and wild bees. As restoration never happens in isolation, how each site was embedded in the surrounding landscape – its diversity, configuration and land-use context – was also assessed. Economic factors such as restoration costs, funding instruments and management were assessed through questionnaires. And last but definitely not least, the Grassworks team explored the stakeholders’ perceptions and values regarding the restoration approaches.  

What role do Real-World Laboratories play in restoration success?

In the Grassworks project, Real-World Laboratories – short RLWs – became the places where the co-creation of restoration efforts was put into action. At the heart of the projects’ social-ecological dimension, RWLs bring scientists, practitioners and local communities together in open spaces to foster shared learning in an experimental way. Each of the three regions had its own RWL aligned with local conditions – ranging from participatory workshops in the north of Germany, to citizen science programs and participatory pilot actions in the centre, to the creation of an online forum in the south. These spaces show that grassland restoration is not just about the ecological dimension, but also about the trust and communication between all stakeholders. RWLs build social connections as well as shared goals and understandings that lead to a higher acceptance of restoration measures.

What happens behind the scenes of Grassworks?

What’s special about this publication of Temperton et al. is that the researchers included reflections about different steps of the process to make the research more transferable. For instance, they reflect on the process of selecting the restored sites, whereby they quickly realized that grasslands differ strongly between regions in Germany. The team aimed for a balanced collection of sites but had to work with what the different areas offered. Surprisingly, finding suitable reference sites was even more challenging than expected. The initial aim was to compare each restored site to a positive and a negative reference, but this proved unattainable as species-rich reference sites seem to have become rather rare in Germany. However, finding degraded sites was even harder as landowners interestingly hesitated to provide the researchers with low diversity grasslands. These realizations remind us why socially accepted large-scale restoration efforts are urgently needed.

Implications for Practice: What’s the take-home message?  

Most importantly: we need larger-scale standardised projects like Grassworks that assess a wide range of factors across many sites, so that we can conclude more confidently about what leads to success in restoration. Additionally, restoration is not just about planting seeds or implementing the changes to biophysical components or biodiversity– it’s about trust, connection, motivation and people working together. To establish that, the most effective way is collaborative, locally adapted and critically reflecting the power dynamics between all actors. Yes, a socio-ecological approach like that of the Grassworks project requires a high level of openness, exchange and time, but in the end it’s all worth it. Acknowledging the social and political dimensions of restoration in a transdisciplinary way is critical for scaling up restoration efforts. The RWLs show us how a co-creation of the process can lead to a more accepted and longer-lasting restoration and exactly that is what we need if we want to maximize restoration success.

Stay tuned – Grassworks is still in the works

 A number of key Grassworks publications are about to be published in scientific journals over the next weeks, including a key one on the effects of the different restoration methods on vegetation outcomes, or a paper on the values people place on grasslands in landscape, elicited through a photo-voice method.  Stay tuned – and check out the Grassworks website for publication updates. In the meantime, if you want to find out more about the approach and the researchers’ reflections of the process you can read the paper of Temperton et al. (2025) here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.70109

Literature:
Kan et al. (2026) Overlooked and overexploited: Extensive conversion of grasslands and wetlands driven by global food, feed, and bioenergy demand. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2521183123

If you don’t want to miss any new articles of this blog, then scroll all the way to the end of this site, where you’ll find a subscription tool. Subscribe if you’d like to receive email notifications when there’s a new article posted.