One cannot have it all: Trading-off ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles in landscape connectivity restoration

Countering the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on ecosystems requires complementing conservation areas with Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures within landscapes to promote biodiversity and multiple ecosystem services (ES). However, critical knowledge gaps persist in where and how natural elements should be restored to improve landscape connectivity to simultaneously support, and reduce trade-offs between biodiversity and ES. In virtual landscape experiments that allow exploring the effects of spatial patterns systematically, we generated alternative landscape restoration scenarios aimed at fostering ecological connectivity. Scenarios varied in the location and size of restored areas complementing existing natural areas. We analysed the impact of these scenarios on four bundles representing distinct priorities of target ES and biodiversity-related values. As expected, all bundles were favoured by increasing restored area in the landscape, but they were promoted by different spatial configurations. Restoration scenarios that fostered high aggregation of natural habitats promoted biodiversity and cultural value -related bundles, while smaller natural elements dispersed throughout the landscape were more beneficial for the sustainable production and climate adaptation bundles. These contrasts were most pronounced at low restoration targets, where landscape configuration had greatest impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Effective spatial planning of restoration initiatives within landscapes should consider these trade-offs, along with context-specific constraints, when prioritizing areas for restoration or conservation. Our findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how protected and restored areas can be integrated within landscapes to jointly support connectivity for both biodiversity and people. • Virtual landscape restoration options effects on four ecosystem services and biodiversity bundles. • High aggregation of restored elements promoted biodiversity and cultural value. • Low aggregation promoted sustainable production and climate adaptation. • These contrasts were most important at low restoration targets. • These results highlight the importance of configuration trade-offs in restoration planning.