, 2012). Public programs are generally implemented such that all restoration expenses must be incurred within a short time (1 or 2 years) even though later intervention (e.g., weed control) may be needed to ensure success (e.g., Stanturf et al., 2004). Efficient use of resources
requires prioritizing where on the landscape to focus efforts. In simple terms this requires balancing the cost of activities against the expected benefits from the restored ecosystem. In practice it is difficult to fully estimate benefits and the balancing becomes less tractable if costs are borne by one group and most benefits accrue to others, or society Selleck 3-deazaneplanocin A at large (Mercer, 2005). On private land, economic return to the landowner is one way to prioritize and answer the question of where and how much to Duvelisib in vivo restore (Lamb et al., 2012 and Wilson et al., 2012). Goldstein et al. (2008) looked specifically at how to pay for restoration on private land using return on investment.
Mueller et al. (2013) used ex-post estimates of restoration values to assess willingness to pay by downstream water users (irrigators) for restoration of watershed services by upstream landowners. New funding sources from carbon mitigation and payments for other ecosystem services, added to financial returns from market goods such as timber, may augment or replace taxation-derived public funding for restoration (Pejchar and Press, 2006, Newton et al., 2012 and Townsend et al., 2012). Allocating, or prioritizing, resources can be done in many ways (Shinneman et al., 2010, Orsi et al., 2011 and Wilson
et al., 2011). Allocation methods include geospatial approaches ranging from relatively informal techniques to considerable, formal planning (Klimas et al., 2009, Pullar and Lamb, 2012 and Wimberly et al., 2012). The idea behind any prioritization approach is to maximize benefits gained from use of limited resources. For example, Hyman and Leibowitz (2000) presented a linear modeling approach to prioritize wetland restoration based on an analysis that projects benefits for unit of effort. In contrast, Palik Celecoxib et al. (2000) used a fairly informal GIS approach that prioritized ecosystems for restoration based on combined rankings of degree of deviation from a reference condition (as an index of cost to restore) and rarity in the historical and contemporary landscapes. Pullar and Lamb (2012) present an approach that combines quantitative and qualitative metrics that describe benefits to various attributes of the landscape (e.g., biodiversity, watershed protection) and stakeholder assessments of different scenarios with a goal of consensus building for a particular scenario.