Wildfires, exacerbated by climate change and human activities, threaten global ecosystems and societies. Urgent soil restoration strategies are needed to combat the resulting land degradation. Nature-based solutions (NBS) are emerging as sustainable methods to revitalize fire-affected soils and improve ecosystem recovery and resilience. Herein we provide an overview of key NBS strategies, namely microbial soil remediation, biochar application, mulching, seeding, and erosion control. Challenges in scaling and standardizing NBS remain and require robust evaluation frameworks. Further research should quantify the effectiveness of NBS, facilitate its integration into policy and mitigation strategies, and promote public and scientific acceptance. NBS offers a proactive approach to address escalating wildfire risks and harness nature’s resilience to restore fire-affected landscapes and maintain the delicate balance between communities and ecosystems in the face of growing environmental challenges.
NbS Approach: NbS in General
Nature-based solutions in general
Improving the effectiveness of conservation practice requires better use of evidence.
Since 2004, researchers from the Conservation Evidence group (University of Cambridge) have engaged with over 1100 named practitioners, policymakers, funders and other academics from across the world to identify needs and develop a range of principles, tools and resources to embed evidence in decision making. The goal of this engagement (the Conservation Evidence Programme) was to deliver improved conservation practice leading to benefits for nature and society. Together, we developed a theory of change with five key strategies for delivering change, alongside a freely available Evidence Toolkit to support decision makers in achieving that change.
The authors describe the toolkit, a collection of freely available tools and resources developed by the collaborative programme, and how co-design, employing different levels of partner engagement, enabled its development.
Reflecting on our experiences highlighted a number of insights and recommendations, including the need to identify where deep engagement is a necessary condition for success; the importance of collective agreement of the roles of different partners; the need to consider how to facilitate uptake of new tools or practices, particularly where that requires changes to organisational practices or culture; and the importance of establishing processes/channels for ongoing engagement with stakeholders, with a willingness to be flexible and open to incorporating new suggestions and perspectives as needed.
The Conservation Evidence Programme has enabled practitioners, funders and policymakers to become part of a network of forward-thinking organisations that is working collaboratively to help drive more effective conservation practice through improved evidence use.
On the one hand the Special Issue provides a diagnosis of the justice implications embedded in recent efforts to renature cities. Placed in the breadth of existing scholarship, it aims to explore the type of socio-environmental contradictions and contestations emerging through the deployment of nature-based solutions in a range of geographies. On the other hand, this Special Issue works towards shaping a prognosis, or a potential future for the governance of nature-based solutions, that brings social justice, indigenous knowledge and more-than-human thinking into the design and execution of projects on nature-based solutions. More generally, this Special Issue contributes to the growing literature in critical urban geography, planning and ecology on how different types of ‘natures’ are deployed and instrumentalized to defend dominant economic representations. Yet, for nature-based solutions to truly stand up to their promise, the logic and apparatus of urban development need to be decoupled from the ‘growth-at-all-costs’ mental cage by exploring degrowth narratives, for example as only then can environmental justice in its various manifestations be sought, defended and unfolded.
Two factors have elevated recent academic and policy interest in tropical deforestation: first, the realization that it is a major contributor to climate change; and second, a revolution in satellite-based measurement that has revealed that it is proceeding at a rapid rate. We begin by reviewing the methodological advances that have enabled measurement of forest loss at a fine spatial resolution across the globe. We then develop a simple benchmark model of deforestation based on classic models of natural resource extraction. Extending this approach to incorporate features that characterize deforestation in developing countries—pressure for land use change, significant local and global externalities, weak property rights, and political economy constraints—provides us with a framework for reviewing the fast-growing empirical literature on the economics of deforestation in the tropics. This combination of theory and empirics provides insights not only into the economic drivers and impacts of tropical deforestation but also into policies that may affect its progression. We conclude by identifying areas where more work is needed in this important body of research.
The world is warming at an unprecedented pace and humaninduced climate change has already caused widespread adverse impacts on people and nature (IPCC, 2022e). There are already observed increases in frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes in every inhabited region of the world, including heat waves, heavy precipitation events that cause flooding, drought and fire and this is expected to intensify (IPCC, 2022e). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals has been inhibited and the most vulnerable people are disproportionately affected (IPCC, 2022e). This is only the beginning as global temperatures will continue to rise until at least the middle of the 21st century in all currently possible emission scenarios. If deep emission cuts do not occur, the temperature will rise at least 2.1°C to 3.5°C or even up to 5.7°C by the end of the century (IPCC, 2021).
In light of the critical role of tropical forests in stabilizing the global climate system through both carbon and noncarbon pathways, maintaining and increasing incentives for large-scale forest conservation is an essential component of climate action. Demand for carbon credits, one of the most promising mechanisms for funding large-scale forest conservation, has grown rapidly in recent years, with the voluntary carbon market seeing transactions worth almost US$2 billion in 2021. In 2022, however, the volume of transactions leveled off, at least in part due to concerns about reputational risk from corporate buyers afraid of greenwashing accusations.
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
Nature-Based Solutions can be considered one of the best answers to the various consequences and problems caused by climate change, poor urbanisation and population growth. They are used not only as measures for the protection, sustainable management and restoration of natural and modified ecosystems but also as measures to mitigate certain natural disasters such as erosion, flooding, drought, storm surge and landslide. The benefit is for both biodiversity and human well-being. This paper reviews articles about optimising the selection and placement of Nature-Based Solutions. It presents several Operations Research approaches used in the context of climate adaptation. The analysis provided in this paper focuses on various case studies, state-of-the-art on Nature-Based Solutions, Operations Research algorithms, dissertations, and other papers dealing with infrastructure placement approaches in the context of climate adaptation.
Twenty-five years since foundational publications on valuing ecosystem services for human well-being1,2, addressing the global biodiversity crisis3 still implies confronting barriers to incorporating nature’s diverse values into decision-making. These barriers include powerful interests supported by current norms and legal rules such as property rights, which determine whose values and which values of nature are acted on. A better understanding of how and why nature is (under)valued is more urgent than ever4. Notwithstanding agreements to incorporate nature’s values into actions, including the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)5 and the UN Sustainable Development Goals6, predominant environmental and development policies still prioritize a subset of values, particularly those linked to markets, and ignore other ways people relate to and benefit from nature7. Arguably, a ‘values crisis’ underpins the intertwined crises of biodiversity loss and climate change8, pandemic emergence9 and socio-environmental injustices10. On the basis of more than 50,000 scientific publications, policy documents and Indigenous and local knowledge sources, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessed knowledge on nature’s diverse values and valuation methods to gain insights into their role in policymaking and fuller integration into decisions7,11. Applying this evidence, combinations of values-centred approaches are proposed to improve valuation and address barriers to uptake, ultimately leveraging transformative changes towards more just (that is, fair treatment of people and nature, including inter- and intragenerational equity) and sustainable futures.
There is potential for nature-based solutions (NbS) to contribute to climate-resilient development (CRD) due to their integrated approach to mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development. However, despite alignment between NbS and CRD’s objectives, realization of this potential is not guaranteed. A CRD pathways (CRDP) approach helps to analyze the complexities of the relationship between CRD and NbS, and a climate justice lens enables the identification of the multiple ways that NbS can support or undermine CRD by foregrounding the politics inherent in deciding between NbS trade-offs. We use stylized vignettes of potential NbS to examine how the dimensions of climate justice reveal the potential of NbS to contribute to CRDP. We consider tensions in NbS projects between local and global climate objectives, and the potential for NbS framing to reinforce inequalities or unsustainable practices. Ultimately, we present a framework that combines climate justice and CRDP in an analytical tool for understanding the potential for a NbS to support CRD in specific places.
The review aims to present the effects of climate change on biodiversity and its remedial measures using Nature based solution (Nbs). At least 40% of the world’s economy, and 80% of the economy of less industrialized nations, is derived directly from biological resources as a function of ecosystem service. Climate change is a key driver for mass extinction, latitudinal and altitudinal shifts of species location, change in species richness and composition, change in phenology, decline in ecosystem services and outbreak of plant and animal disease. The most important notable drivers behind the current loss of biodiversity are habitat modification, overexploitation, climate change, invasive alien species, and chains of extinction. Loss in biodiversity has been attributed primarily to changes in the intensity by which the land and sea are used (34% contribution to losses over the past century) and direct exploitation of species (23%), followed by climate change and pollution (14% each). The impact of climate change is projected to surpass other threats during the twenty-first century both through direct effects and intensifying interactions with other drivers. Under a global warming scenario of 1.5 °C warming, 6% of insects, 8% of plants and 4% of vertebrates are projected to lose over half of their climatically determined geographic range. For global warming of 2 °C, the comparable fractions are 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates. Future warming of 3.2 °C above preindustrial levels is projected to lead to loss of more than half of the historical geographic range in 49% of insects, 44% of plants, and 26% of vertebrates. Nature based solutions such as protection of intact ecosystems, managing working lands and restoring native cover are some of the important measures for climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, although it will be difficult to achieve without the reduction fossil fuel emissions.
This technical report provides a set of recommendations to help plan, design, and implement nature-based solutions (NbS) for adaptation that enhances biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. It responds to a critical knowledge gap in designing, operationalizing, and monitoring “biodiversity-positive” NbS.
This report aims to help civil society organizations and actors who are managing or otherwise supporting climate change adaptation and development projects, including “nature positive” projects under Global Affairs Canada’s Partnering for Climate program.
The report is part of a compendium of resources developed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) for the Nature for Climate Adaptation Initiative (NCAI), which is supported by Global Affairs Canada.
Nature-based solutions (NBS) have been central to the European Union’s drive to address climate change, ecological degradation, and promote urban prosperity. Via an examination of the Horizon 2020-funded URBAN GreenUP project in Liverpool, this paper explores mainstreaming NBS in city planning. It uses evidence from pre- and post-intervention surveys with Liverpool residents and interviews with local business, environmental, government, and community sector experts to illustrate how a complex interplay of scale, location, focus, and visibility of NBS influences perceptions of the added value of NBS. This paper highlights the requirement that NBS interventions be bespoke and responsive to the overarching needs of residents and other stakeholders. Moreover, we underscore the importance of expert input into the design, location, and maintenance of NBS and call for these key drivers of successful delivery to be better integrated into work programs. This paper also notes that the type and size of NBS interventions impact perceptions of their value, with smaller projects being viewed as less socially and ecologically valuable compared to larger investments. We conclude that while small-scale NBS can support climatic, health, or ecological improvements in specific instances, strategic, larger-scale, and more visible investments are required to accrue substantive benefits and gain acceptance of NBS as a legitimate and effective planning tool.
This paper aims to better understand the role of rural women in Nature-based Solutions (NbS) and to provide insights on how to support them. The gender dimension remains underexplored in the literature on NbS. Most studies focus on the biophysical and technical aspects of NbS and their global and transboundary scales of impact. The studies that do investigate the social aspects, such as opportunity costs and poverty impacts, tend to treat households as a congruent unit, bypassing intrahousehold and gender dynamics. Research shows that the success of NbS hinges on the inclusion of critical stakeholders, including women.
This paper explores four NbS approaches—natural climate solutions (NCS), forest landscape restoration (FLR), ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA), and payments for ecosystem services (PES)—using a gender lens. Complementing the general review of NbS approaches, the paper conducts three deep dives on PES projects from around the world, highlighting in both cases the different factors that enable or bar rural women from effectively participating and benefiting from interventions. The paper then provides high-level recommendations for enabling conditions and practices for a more gender-responsive approach to NbS necessary for climate-resilient, sustainable agroecosystems.
The primary outcome sought by this research is to support the donor community, development practitioners, and policymakers in designing and implementing NbS policies and programs that promote rural women’s agency as key stakeholders in NbS.
The process of urbanization can alter the local climate to the point that it threatens citizens’ well-being by creating heat-related hazards. The construction of Blue-Green Infrastructure (BGI) can improve the regulation of surface energy exchange processes and address this problem. However, the time needed for a BGI to deliver a stable cooling performance, referred to here as the Cooling Establishment Time (CET), is poorly understood and quantified in the literature and dependent on environmental, design and maintenance factors. Here, we analyze the feasibility of using satellite data to derive the CET for different BGIs across the city of Zurich, Switzerland. Results showed that remote sensing can quantify the land surface temperature impact of BGIs and assist in estimating their CET. BGI with trees or climbing plants required a longer CET (seven to ten years) before any notable shift in surface temperatures were visible, while grasses or artificial irrigated systems led to shorter CETs (one to three years). These results allow us to better account for BGI cooling establishment when planning for areas that need urgent action under warming climates. This work supports evidence-based urban greenery planning and design towards cooling our increasingly warming cities in a timely manner.
The Handbook aims to provide decision-makers with a comprehensive NBS impact assessment framework, and a robust set of indicators and methodologies to assess impacts of nature-based solutions across 12 societal challenge areas: Climate Resilience; Water Management; Natural and Climate Hazards; Green Space Management; Biodiversity; Air Quality; Place Regeneration; Knowledge and Social Capacity Building for Sustainable Urban Transformation; Participatory Planning and Governance; Social Justice and Social Cohesion; Health and Well-being; New Economic Opportunities and Green Jobs. Indicators have been developed collaboratively by representatives of 17 individual EU-funded NBS projects and collaborating institutions such as the EEA and JRC, as part of the European Taskforce for NBS Impact Assessment, with the four-fold objective of: serving as a reference for relevant EU policies and activities; orient urban practitioners in developing robust impact evaluation frameworks for nature-based solutions at different scales; expand upon the pioneering work of the EKLIPSE framework by providing a comprehensive set of indicators and methodologies; and build the European evidence base regarding NBS impacts. They reflect the state of the art in current scientific research on impacts of nature-based solutions and valid and standardized methods of assessment, as well as the state of play in urban implementation of evaluation frameworks.
Many cities around the world are experimenting with nature-based solutions (NbS) to address the interconnected climate-, biodiversity- and society-related challenges they are facing (referred to as the climate–biodiversity–society, or CBS, nexus), by restoring, protecting and more sustainably managing urban ecosystems. Although the application of urban NbS is flourishing, there is little synthesized evidence clarifying the contribution of NbS in addressing the intertwined CBS challenges and their capacity to encourage transformational change in urban systems worldwide. We map and analyse NbS approaches specifically for climate change adaptation across 216 urban interventions and 130 cities worldwide. Results suggest that current NbS practices are limited in how they may comprehensively address CBS challenges, particularly by accounting for multidimensional forms of climate vulnerability, social justice, the potential for collaboration between public and private sectors and diverse cobenefits. Data suggest that knowledge and practice are biased towards the Global North, under-representing key CBS challenges in the Global South, particularly in terms of climate hazards and urban ecosystems involved. Our results also point out that further research and practice are required to leverage the transformative potential of urban NbS. We provide recommendations for each of these areas to advance the practice of NbS for transformative urban adaptation within the CBS nexus.
Although highly climate vulnerable, Bangladesh in South Asia is known as a pioneer of climate change adaptation. Recent national policies have recognised the vital importance of community-based and locally led adaptation (LLA). Where LLA interventions have been used by international and national nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), they have proven to be both effective and widely accepted by local communities. Yet major gaps remain in implementing LLA nationally due to legislative, administrative and conceptual limitations.
Meeting Bangladesh’s ambitious national targets will require better coordination within government and with NGOs, so that each can benefit from the other. Building on recent examples, this briefing showcases existing interventions that are replicable and scalable and presents three key action areas requiring further government support. The lessons are also relevant to LLA practitioners in Bangladesh and other least developed countries.
The stability and resilience of the Earth system and human well-being are inseparably linked yet their interdependencies are generally under-recognized; consequently, they are often treated independently. Here, we use modelling and literature assessment to quantify safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for climate, the biosphere, water and nutrient cycles, and aerosols at global and subglobal scales. We propose ESBs for maintaining the resilience and stability of the Earth system (safe ESBs) and minimizing exposure to significant harm to humans from Earth system change (a necessary but not sufficient condition for justice). The stricter of the safe or just boundaries sets the integrated safe and just ESB. Our findings show that justice considerations constrain the integrated ESBs more than safety considerations for climate and atmospheric aerosol loading. Seven of eight globally quantified safe and just ESBs and at least two regional safe and just ESBs in over half of global land area are already exceeded. We propose that our assessment provides a quantitative foundation for safeguarding the global commons for all people now and into the future.
Global biodiversity loss has been disproportionately driven by consumption of people in rich nations. The concept of ‘loss and damage’ — familiar from international agreements on climate change — should be considered for the effects of biodiversity loss in countries of the Global South.
There is potential for nature-based solutions (NbS) to contribute to climate-resilient development (CRD) due to their integrated approach to mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development. However, despite alignment between NbS and CRD’s objectives, realization of this potential is not guaranteed. A CRD pathways (CRDP) approach helps to analyze the complexities of the relationship between CRD and NbS, and a climate justice lens enables the identification of the multiple ways that NbS can support or undermine CRD by foregrounding the politics inherent in deciding between NbS trade-offs. We use stylized vignettes of potential NbS to examine how the dimensions of climate justice reveal the potential of NbS to contribute to CRDP. We consider tensions in NbS projects between local and global climate objectives, and the potential for NbS framing to reinforce inequalities or unsustainable practices. Ultimately, we present a framework that combines climate justice and CRDP in an analytical tool for understanding the potential for a NbS to support CRD in specific places.
Nature-based solutions (NbS) have been gradually valued by various countries because they have great potential for contributing to the Paris Agreement goals and carbon neutrality and meanwhile render synergies in various dimensions. Currently, the evaluation of NbS policies in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) is still quite lacking. Based on the NDCs documents of 190 countries and the initial subcategories of related researches, this paper proposes a NbS analysis framework covering targets, pathways, policies, and synergies. Then examining the characteristics of NbS policies and actions of 190 Parties by ecosystems, including forests, farmlands, grasslands, coastal zones & wetlands, urban ecosystems, and other ecosystems with the framework. The results show that: 1) NbS has not yet become the mainstream measure worldwide to combat climate change while developing countries pay more attention to NbS than developed countries; 2) Current NbS targets set by 131 countries(about 69 %) are qualitative and 59 countries(about 31 %) for quantitative. There is no robust and accurate quantitative indicator system for NbS; 3) NbS pathways mentioned by 156 countries (about 82 %) are unevenly distributed in ecosystems and concentrated in forest and farmland ecosystems; 4) Just over a third of the 190 countries (about 35 %) don’t apply any NbS pathways with scientific foundations and only 27 parties (about 14 %) announce strengthening the related research of NbS pathways in supporting policies in the future. The scientific foundations of NbS are undervalued and more NbS pathways with reliable scientific foundations should be implemented; 5) A variety of policies, predominantly planning and law, have been adopted by 130 countries (about 68 %) to ensure NbS actions. Other types of policies still need to be further improved, covering financing, information system &research, and capacity building; 6) Funding needs are unclear and financing mechanisms are imperfect for NbS actions. Only about 1/6 of the countries have suggested estimated funding needs of NbS actions; 7) Only 18 countries (about 9.5 %) have recognized the synergistic benefits of NbS in economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and there are relatively limited methodologies for the assessment of NbS synergies. At last, suggestions are put forward to further promote NbS contributions to tackling climate change.
Humankind faces a Triple Challenge: averting dangerous climate change, reversing biodiversity loss, and supporting the wellbeing of a growing population. Action to address each of these issues is inherently dependent on action to address the others. Local, national, and international policy goals on climate change, biological diversity, and human wellbeing have been set. Current implementation measures are insufficient to meet these goals, but the Triple Challenge can still be met if governments, corporations, and other stakeholders take a holistic perspective on management of land and waters. To inform this effort, we identify a set of priority policy responses drawn from recent international assessments that, whilst not being the only potential solutions, can form the core of such a holistic approach. We do this through an iterative process using three methodological approaches: (i) structured literature review; (ii) deliberative expert analysis; and (iii) wider consultation, before synthesizing into this paper. Context-appropriate implementation of responses will be needed to capitalize on potential policy synergies and to ensure that unavoidable trade-offs between management of land and waters for climate mitigation, biodiversity restoration, and human wellbeing outcomes are made explicit. We also set out four approaches to managing trade-offs that can promote fair and just transitions: (1) social and economic policy pivoting towards ‘inclusive wealth’; (2) more integrated policymaking across the three areas; (3) ‘Triple Challenge dialogues’ among state and non-state actors; and (4) a new research portfolio to underpin (1), (2), and (3).
This paper investigates the documentation produced by 21 Horizon 2020 (H2020) projects for the use of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) for climate change adaptation (NBaS). Accordingly, an updated state-of-the-art on current knowledge and its limits is presented. Findings are then capitalized on for highlighting research needs. The main objective of this study is to inform future orientations on NBaS research. Accordingly, it can be considered as an effort to complement the 2021 European strategy for climate change adaptation, under which NBaS is listed as one of the three cross-cutting priorities. The obtained results reflect actual outcomes from completed projects, while ongoing projects provided a substantial amount of relevant knowledge. From the exhaustive knowledge-research need inventory, one of the most significant identified gaps was the need for developing further the fundamental scientific basis behind these solutions, as the concept favors its practical nature and places less emphasis on its scientific counterpart.
Positive effects of habitat patch size on biodiversity are often extrapolated to infer negative effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity at landscape scales. However, such cross-scale extrapolations typically fail. A recent, landmark, patch-scale analysis (Chase et al., 2020, Nature 584, 238–243) demonstrates positive patch size effects on biodiversity, that is, ‘ecosystem decay’ in small patches. Other authors have already extrapolated this result to infer negative fragmentation effects, that is, higher biodiversity in a few large than many small patches of the same cumulative habitat area. We test whether this extrapolation is valid. We find that landscape-scale patterns are opposite to their analogous patch-scale patterns: for sets of patches with equal total habitat area, species richness and evenness decrease with increasing mean size of the patches comprising that area, even when considering only species of conservation concern. Preserving small habitat patches will, therefore, be key to sustain biodiversity amidst ongoing environmental crises.