Data for: Evaluating how restoration frameworks bridge social and ecological dimensions: A mixed methods literature review

Data for : Evaluating how restoration frameworks bridge social and ecological dimensions: A mixed methods literature review Table S4. Articles from literature search: Without-Social dataset Table S5. Articles from literature search: With-Social dataset Table S6. Screened articles: The screened dataset of 392 articles selected by coauthors that were most relevant to restoration frameworks (with the Social block). The selection was carried out in Rayyan, which allowed us to double-check each co-authors selection. The table also indicates the citationrank for each paper. Table S7. Keyword list: Long list of the 2,593 unique keywords from the 392 screened articles dataset. Count refers to the number of articles the keyword appears in. Table S8. Word database: The original categories of the SER's ecological and social recovery wheels (Gann et al. 2019), including the 18 attribute and 36 subattribute categories, and the words placed in each category. The 2184 words not placed in any category are in the last row. Table S9. Wordrank trends: This table contains the counts in how many papers in the Social block dataset with social block mention the word at least once, in the earlier (2010-2014) and later (2020-2024) five-year periods (Figure 4 in main manuscript). RankFirstfive and RankLastfive is the rank of that word from most to least frequent, and Ranktrend is the change in rank between the two time periods. Table S10. In-depth analysis of 17 selected restoration frameworks out of the 50 top cited publications (citation by year rank)