evidoria

Browse practices

Topic: Biodiversity & restoration clear · back to the knowledge map

This selection at a glance

205
matching practices
7%
strong evidence, of 231 assessed

Evidence mix

Quasi-experimental 17
Observational / pre–post 145
Descriptive / self-reported 69

-26 practices not yet assessed for evidence strength.

Most practices in: United States of America (13) · Australia (8) · United Kingdom (7)

Results

205 result(s) Download CSV Get alerts for this search Cards List
SelectTitleEvidenceStandingTypeLocationScale
UK Peatland Code Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 1% 93/100 Good practice Edinburgh, United Kingdom —
Green Belt Movement — Women-Led Reforestation and Environmental Governance, Kenya (1977–present) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 17% 89/100 Good practice Nairobi, Kenya —
Belarus National Peatland Rewetting Programme — 89,400 ha Restored (2007–2030) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 1% 87/100 Good practice Minsk, Belarus —
Mpingo Conservation & Development Initiative (Tanzania) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 1% 87/100 Good practice Kilwa Masoko, Tanzania —
Katingan Mentaya REDD+ Peatland Conservation Project (Indonesia) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 1% 87/100 Good practice Palangkaraya, Indonesia —
Working for Water (South Africa) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 1% 87/100 Good practice Cape Town, South Africa —
Moscow Region Peatland Rewetting Programme (Russia) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 2% 80/100 Good practice Shatura, Russia —
Delta Blue Carbon — Indus Delta Mangrove Restoration (Pakistan) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 2% 80/100 Good practice Thatta, Pakistan —
LIFE for MIRES — Trans-boundary Peatland Restoration in Šumava & Bavarian Forest (Czech Republic–Germany) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Vimperk, Czechia —
U Minh Thượng Integrated Water & Fire Management — Peat Swamp Forest Protection (Vietnam) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice U Minh Thượng, Vietnam —
Moss Layer Transfer Technique — Canadian Peatland Restoration Standard Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Québec City, Canada —
LIFE Mires Estonia — National Peatland Rewetting Programme Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Tartu, Estonia —
Peatland ACTION (Scotland) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Edinburgh, United Kingdom —
Humbo Ethiopia Assisted Natural Regeneration Project Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Humbo, Ethiopia —
New Zealand National Wilding Conifer Control Programme Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Wellington, New Zealand —
Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Programme (GCFRP) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Kumasi, Ghana —
Trees for Global Benefits (Plan Vivo, Uganda) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 4% 73/100 Good practice Mbarara, Uganda —
Women-Led Mercury-Free Gold Mining and Reforestation in Peru's Madre de Dios Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 45% 70/100 Good practice Puerto Maldonado, Peru —
Kopuatai Peat Dome Ramsar Wetland Management (Waikato, New Zealand) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Paeroa, New Zealand —
United Utilities Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP) — Peatland & Farm Restoration for Drinking Water (Peak District & Forest of Bowland, UK) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Glossop, United Kingdom —
LIFE Tourbières du Jura — Peatland Rehabilitation Programme (France) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Frasne, France —
EthioTrees Dryland Restoration Project (Tigray, Ethiopia) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Dogu'a Tembien, Ethiopia —
Denver Water — From Forests to Faucets Watershed Protection Partnership (USA) Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Denver, United States of America —
LIFE Peat Restore — Fen Rewetting in Słowiński National Park (Poland) Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 7% 67/100 Good practice Smołdzino, Poland —