Ecological restoration of agricultural land can improve its contribution to economic development

What this paper is about

Modern farming produces a lot of food, but it also harms the environment and reduces wildlife. One way to address this is to restore some farmland back to more natural habitats. Scientists already know that restoration helps plants and animals, but much less is known about how it affects local economies and jobs.

This study looked at that question in Dorset, a rural county in southern England. The researchers created several possible futures for the region: two where farming expands, two where large areas are restored to natural habitats, and one where nothing changes. They then estimated how each future would affect natural benefits like clean water, carbon storage, flood protection, recreation, and pollination. They also used an economic model to see how changes in nature would affect local businesses and employment.

What the researchers found

When the model ignored nature entirely, all scenarios showed only tiny economic differences. The conventional view, that farming drives rural economic performance, appeared to be confirmed.

But when the model included the value of nature, the picture changed dramatically. Restoring land increased economic output by up to 5.4 percent and increased jobs by up to 6.7 percent. In contrast, expanding agriculture reduced economic output by as much as 4.5 percent and reduced jobs by up to 5.6 percent.

Key findings

• Restoring farmland at scale can strengthen rural economies by boosting the natural systems that many local businesses depend on.
• Agriculture expansion did not improve economic outcomes when the full costs to natural systems were included in the model.
• Ecosystem services are the missing variable in most rural land use economic assessments. Including them reverses many standard conclusions.
• The findings apply particularly to marginal agricultural land where farming is less productive and natural habitat restoration delivers the greatest relative benefit.

Why this matters for rewilding

This paper provides some of the clearest economic evidence to date that rewilding and large-scale habitat restoration are not simply a cost to rural economies. When natural systems are properly valued, restoration can deliver more jobs and more economic output than continued farming on land that was never highly productive to begin with. It is a finding with direct relevance to land use policy, agricultural subsidy reform, and the political case for rewilding at landscape scale.

Limitations and caveats

• The study is based on a single county in southern England. Results may not translate directly to other regions with different agricultural systems, land values, or ecosystem service baselines.
• The economic modelling relies on valuations of ecosystem services that are themselves contested and subject to methodological debate.
• The scenarios are modelled projections rather than observed outcomes. Real-world results would depend heavily on implementation, land management, and market conditions.