3.4 EU citizens’ views on restoration

Through our scientific work, surveys and analysis of public perceptions in SUPERB’s 12 large-scale restoration areas, we found out that forest restoration is broadly supported by EU citizens, though perceptions and familiarity vary across countries and regions. Across Europe, the public is generally aware of a wide range of restoration strategies, with high recognition for practices such as deadwood retention, replanting of mixed tree species, and improving access for recreation. Regional responses, however, reveal greater specificity. In areas such as Queen Elisabeth Forest Park (Scotland) and Castilla y León (Spain), respondents demonstrate not only familiarity with relevant strategies but also a clear understanding of what is being implemented in their areas – and why. For example, in Spain, where wildfires are a major concern, fire breaks and related fire control measures are widely recognised. In contrast, respondents in Scotland and Sweden, where fire is not a pressing issue, accurately identified such measures as not applicable. This indicates a high level of awareness rooted in local restoration priorities. 

Perceptions of the benefits of forest restoration vary significantly across Europe. Citizens in Eastern and Southern countries – particularly Romania, Serbia, Croatia, and Spain – tend to associate restoration with stronger positive impacts, especially regarding aesthetics, habitat provision, and opportunities for outdoor recreation. In contrast, views in some Western and Northern countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, and Sweden, are more neutral or mixed. At the regional level, this pattern continues: respondents in areas such as Queen Elisabeth Forest Park and Castilla y León generally report enhanced benefits from restoration, while those in Västerbotten (Sweden) and along the Serbia/Croatia border express more cautious views, particularly regarding cultural and recreational aspects. These findings point to the influence of local environmental conditions and restoration histories on shaping public opinion. 

Further distinctions emerge when comparing national, professional, and regional respondents. National respondents consistently express the most optimistic views, often rating restoration impacts as moderately to significantly beneficial. Professional respondents also view restoration favourably, albeit with more measured responses informed by practical experience. Regional respondents, however, tend to be more reserved, particularly concerning provisioning services such as hunting and fishing, and to a lesser extent, cultural and regulating services like recreation. These lower scores may reflect greater exposure to local implementation contexts and a more grounded understanding of how restoration plays out in practice. 

Together, our findings suggest that although forest restoration enjoys general support across Europe, acceptance may be at risk – particularly in Northern and Central countries – if the perceived benefits are not clearly communicated and matched with regional priorities. Effective policy will therefore require not only technical planning but also transparent engagement with public expectations around the impacts of forest restoration.   

Our findings are based on over 12,000 online panel survey responses from nationally representative samples across 12 countries, 422 household interviews conducted in selected SUPERB upscaling regions and in Germany, and 86 individual surveys completed by professionals across Europe. The survey instruments were developed through an iterative process involving expert consultation, key informant interviews, and a review of relevant literature, as part of the EU-funded SUPERB project. 

Forest restoration policy should be specific and reflect local realities. Public understanding and support are strongest when strategies align with regional priorities and lived experience.