Farmers are facing a volatile and uncertain future. From changes to the Common
Agriculture Policy, post Brexit, to the impacts of climate change and a nature crisis,
let alone the turbulent geopolitics affecting global food markets – all of these are
having a substantial impact on the farming operating context.
The introduction of ELMs in England and [their own sustainable land management
schemes] in Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland is having far reaching
effects on many farmers’ balance sheets. The shift towards payments for
the provision and management of ‘public goods’ – those ecosystem services
that are not normally paid for in the marketplace – have the potential to make
a positive impact on the climate and nature crisis. But these environmental
land management schemes do not fill the gap left by CAP; and it is no surprise
therefore that farmers are now starting to look closely at the emerging
‘natural capital’ markets.
The role of nature restoration in mitigating the impacts of climate change is receiving increasing attention, yet the mitigation potential is often assessed in terms of carbon removal rather than the ability to meet temperature goals, such as those outlined in the Paris Agreement. Here, we estimate the global removal potential from nature restoration constrained by a “responsible development” framework and the contribution this would make to a 1.5°C temperature limit. Our constrained restoration options result in a median of 103 GtC (5%–95% range of −91 to 196 GtC) in cumulative removals between 2020 and 2100. When combined with deep-decarbonization scenarios, our restoration scenario briefly exceeds 1.5°C before declining to between 1.25°C and 1.5°C by 2100 (median, 50% probability). We conclude that additional carbon sequestration via nature restoration is unlikely to be done quickly enough to notably reduce the global peak temperatures expected in the next few decades. Land restoration is an important option for tackling climate change but cannot compensate for delays in reducing fossil fuel emissions.
Wildlife translocations are increasingly used to combat declining biodiversity worldwide. Successful translocation often hinges on coexistence between humans and wildlife, yet not all translocation efforts explicitly include human dimensions (e.g., economic incentives, education programs, and conflict reduction assistance). To evaluate the prevalence and associated outcomes of including human dimensions as objectives when planning translocations, we analyze 305 case studies from the IUCN’s Global Re-Introduction Perspectives Series. We find that fewer than half of all projects included human dimension objectives (42%), but that projects including human dimension objectives were associated with improved wildlife population outcomes (i.e., higher probability of survival, reproduction, or population growth). Translocation efforts were more likely to include human dimension objectives if they involved mammals, species with a history of local human conflict, and local stakeholders. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating objectives related to human dimensions in translocation planning efforts to improve conservation success.
Humanity is facing major social and ecological impacts from climate change and biodiversity loss. These two crises are intertwined, with common causes and effects on one another. Pörtner et al. review the results of a joint meeting of members of the International Panels on Climate Change and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. They discuss the connections between biodiversity loss and climate change and propose potential solutions for addressing them as interconnected problems. Drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, protection of multiuse landscapes and seascapes, and policies for providing equitable access to natural resources can help to ensure future ecological function and human well-being. —BEL
Despite worldwide prevalence, post-agricultural landscapes remain one of the least constrained human-induced land carbon sinks. To appraise their role in rebuilding the planet’s natural carbon stocks through ecosystem restoration, we need to better understand their spatial and temporal legacies.
In provisioning human civilization with food, fuel, and fiber for millennia, agriculture has drastically depleted terrestrial carbon stocks at the expense of natural ecosystems. Our challenge today is to use more sustainable practices to recapture some of the 116 Pg of soil organic carbon (SOC) lost since agriculture began, while simultaneously ensuring global food security1,2. That being said, the cessation of agriculture altogether is still the most efficient way to increase carbon stocks and restore ecosystems in tandem and at large scales.
Consider the vast expanses of forests that regrew over the 60 Mha of cropland abandoned following the collapse of the Soviet Union3. It has been called the world’s largest human-made carbon sink attributed to a single event;4 a title challenged by the climatic consequences of the ‘Great Dying in the Americas’ and its 56 Mha abandoned following the arrival of Europeans5. At more practical scales, intentional efforts to restore agricultural land such as the Grain-for-Green program in China and the Conservation Reserve Program in the USA have demonstrated that carbon sequestration is far from being the only advantage6,7. Ecological co-benefits include reduced soil erosion and water run-off, reduced flooding and drought, and improved soil health, water quality, and biodiversity indicators.
These post-agricultural landscapes (PALs) often signify the return of ecosystem properties, such as carbon, towards pre-disturbance states or new equilibria through secondary succession. Whether planned or unplanned, they appear in every agricultural region of the world and they can drawdown carbon with or without human involvement. If commitments to halt gross forest area loss by 2030 succeed, recarbonizing PALs will play a key role in reversing global land use change from being a net carbon source to a net sink8.
Unfortunately, PALs are insufficiently represented in terrestrial carbon models, both spatially (as a poorly mapped land cover class) and temporally (as uncertain carbon sinks). This hinders our ability to monitor, quantify, and leverage them strategically. We discuss here some of the reasons behind these issues and what can be done to address them so that we can properly evaluate the role of PALs.
Trait evolution is shaped by carbon economics at the organismal level. Here, we expand this idea to the ecosystem level and show how the trait diversity of ecological communities influences the carbon cycle. Systematic shifts in trait diversity will likely trigger changes in the carbon cycle.
Soil-disturbing animals are common globally and play important roles in creating and maintaining healthy functional soils and landscapes. Yet many of these animals are threatened or locally extinct due to habitat loss, predation by non-native animals or poaching and poisoning. Some reintroduction and rewilding programmes have as their core aims to increase animal populations and reinstate processes that have been lost due to their extirpation. Here we use a meta-analytical approach to review the effects of soil-disturbing vertebrates on ecosystem processes, and advance the argument that they can be used to rehabilitate degraded ecosystems by altering mainly composition and function, but with fewer positive effects on structure. We describe four examples where the loss or reintroduction of soil-disturbing vertebrates leads to ecosystem state changes and highlight the role of spatial scale, covarying management changes, and species co-occurrence in modulating their effects. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using soil-disturbing vertebrates over mechanized engineering approaches such as pitting and furrowing, considering some advantages to include more self-sustainable and heterogeneous disturbances, creation of new habitats and added recreational values. Finally, we identify key knowledge gaps in our understanding of the use of soil-disturbing vertebrates for rehabilitating degraded ecosystems.
Natural climate solutions are being advanced to arrest climate warming by protecting and enhancing carbon capture and storage in plants, soils and sediments in ecosystems. These solutions are viewed as having the ancillary benefit of protecting habitats and landscapes to conserve animal species diversity. However, this reasoning undervalues the role animals play in controlling the carbon cycle. We present scientific evidence showing that protecting and restoring wild animals and their functional roles can enhance natural carbon capture and storage. We call for new thinking that includes the restoration and conservation of wild animals and their ecosystem roles as a key component of natural climate solutions that can enhance the ability to prevent climate warming beyond 1.5 °C.
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are widely regarded as cost-effective responses to climate change and environmental degradation that also provide numerous co-benefits. However, despite significant policy attention, NBS plans often fail to materialize due to public budget shortfalls. Alongside traditional public finance, the international debate increasingly urges the mobilization of private capital for NBS through alternative financing (AF) techniques. In this scoping review, we examine the literature on a) the AF models connected to NBS and b) the drivers and barriers associated with these AF models in terms of their financial technicity and their embeddedness in the political, economic, social, technological, legal/institutional, and environmental/spatial (“PESTLE”) context. Although many models are discussed, the results indicate that none can be considered full substitutes for traditional public finance. Barriers and drivers converge around seven overarching tensions: new revenue and risk distribution vs. uncertainty, budgetary and legal pressure vs. political willingness and risk aversion, market demand vs. market failures, private sector engagement vs. social acceptance and risks, legal and institutional conduciveness vs. inertia, and upscaling potential vs. environmental risks and land use. Future research should focus on a) how to further integrate NBS monitoring, quantification, valuation, and monetization into AF models, b) systemic and empirical approaches to improve the understanding of the applicability and transferability of AF models, and c) an exploration of the potential qualities and social risks of AF models in NBS governance arrangements.
Background
High ambient temperatures are associated with many health effects, including premature mortality. The combination of global warming due to climate change and the expansion of the global built environment mean that the intensification of urban heat islands (UHIs) is expected, accompanied by adverse effects on population health. Urban green infrastructure can reduce local temperatures. We aimed to estimate the mortality burden that could be attributed to UHIs and the mortality burden that would be prevented by increasing urban tree coverage in 93 European cities.
Methods
We did a quantitative health impact assessment for summer (June 1–Aug 31), 2015, of the effect of UHIs on all-cause mortality for adults aged 20 years or older in 93 European cities. We also estimated the temperature reductions that would result from increasing tree coverage to 30% for each city and estimated the number of deaths that could be potentially prevented as a result. We did all analyses at a high-resolution grid-cell level (250 × 250 m). We propagated uncertainties in input analyses by using Monte Carlo simulations to obtain point estimates and 95% CIs. We also did sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our estimates.
Findings
The population-weighted mean city temperature increase due to UHI effects was 1·5°C (SD 0·5; range 0·5–3·0). Overall, 6700 (95% CI 5254–8162) premature deaths could be attributable to the effects of UHIs (corresponding to around 4·33% [95% CI 3·37–5·28] of all summer deaths). We estimated that increasing tree coverage to 30% would cool cities by a mean of 0·4°C (SD 0·2; range 0·0–1·3). We also estimated that 2644 (95% CI 2444–2824) premature deaths could be prevented by increasing city tree coverage to 30%, corresponding to 1·84% (1·69–1·97) of all summer deaths.
Interpretation:
Our results showed the deleterious effects of UHIs on mortality and highlighted the health benefits of increasing tree coverage to cool urban environments, which would also result in more sustainable and climate-resilient cities.
A confluence of concerns about tropical forest loss, global warming, and social inequality drive calls to transform land use governance. Yet there is widespread debate about what must be transformed, by whom, and how. The increasing equation of transformation with ambitious, quantitative global targets, such as “net zero emissions” or “zero deforestation” has gained widespread appeal as a means to inspire action and hold powerful actors to account. However presenting targets themselves as the end goals of transformation, obscures both the means of achieving them and the social and environmental values that legitimate them. The escalation of targets for land use, in particular, is disconnected from targeted geographies, lacks accountability to socially diverse knowledge and priorities, and is readily appropriated by powerful actors at multiple scales. This paper argues instead, for an equity-based approach to transformation that reveals how unequal power distorts both the ends and the means of global governance. We illustrate this argument with five case-study “vignettes” in Indonesia, Ghana, Peru, and Brazil that reveal how de-contextualized, target-based thinking has reinforced state and corporate control over resources at the expense of local access, while largely failing to deliver the promised environmental outcomes. We conclude that equity-focused, case study research is critical not only to unpack the local consequences of pursuing global targets, but also to make visible alternative efforts to achieve deeper socio-environmental transformations.
The Brazilian Atlantic Forest (BAF) is a global biodiversity hotspot, but its carbon sink capacity, especially in the subtropical portion, is poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between biodiversity measures (i.e., taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity) and net carbon change across subtropical BAF, testing whether there is a win–win situation in the conservation of biodiversity and carbon sink capacity across forests of distinct ages. We obtained the net carbon change from 55 permanent plots, from early successional to old-growth forests, by combining the carbon gains and losses across two censuses. We found that subtropical BAF are on average acting as a carbon sink, but carbon gains and losses varied a lot across plots, especially within late successional/old-growth forests. The carbon sink was consistent across different forest ages, and we did not find a relationship between biodiversity and net carbon change in subtropical BAF. Therefore, conservation programs should aim at both targets in order to maximize the protection of biodiversity and carbon capture across the secondary and old-growth subtropical BAF, especially in a scenario of global changes.
The globally important carbon sink of intact, old-growth tropical humid forests is declining because of climate change, deforestation and degradation from fire and logging1,2,3. Recovering tropical secondary and degraded forests now cover about 10% of the tropical forest area4, but how much carbon they accumulate remains uncertain. Here we quantify the aboveground carbon (AGC) sink of recovering forests across three main continuous tropical humid regions: the Amazon, Borneo and Central Africa5,6. On the basis of satellite data products4,7, our analysis encompasses the heterogeneous spatial and temporal patterns of growth in degraded and secondary forests, influenced by key environmental and anthropogenic drivers. In the first 20 years of recovery, regrowth rates in Borneo were up to 45% and 58% higher than in Central Africa and the Amazon, respectively. This is due to variables such as temperature, water deficit and disturbance regimes. We find that regrowing degraded and secondary forests accumulated 107 Tg C year−1 (90–130 Tg C year−1) between 1984 and 2018, counterbalancing 26% (21–34%) of carbon emissions from humid tropical forest loss during the same period. Protecting old-growth forests is therefore a priority. Furthermore, we estimate that conserving recovering degraded and secondary forests can have a feasible future carbon sink potential of 53 Tg C year−1 (44–62 Tg C year−1) across the main tropical regions studied.
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).
Wildlife conservation in Africa has been dominated by protected areas (PAs) that largely excluded the interests of local communities. While this “fortress conservation” has succeeded in securing natural habitat and wildlife populations, it has come at a cost to local communities who forego access to natural resources on which their livelihoods depend and who obtain few direct benefits from the designated PAs. Concomitantly, climate change poses formidable challenges that require urgent attention to meet global climate goals. Combining finance mechanisms primarily intended for climate outcomes with community-based conservation models presents opportunities to integrate nature conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation while providing direct income to local communities. In this chapter, we present an example of a results-based system of payments for ecosystem services – the purchase of verified emission reductions for use as carbon offsets. We outline the key steps for planning and implementing the REDD+ project of Makame Wildlife Management Area, and emphasize the monitoring of key parameters associated with climate, community and wildlife benefits. Our case study depicts an innovative, nature-based solution to climate change, wildlife conservation, and rural livelihoods for an African savannah rangeland where conventional approaches are insufficient to meet the costs of conservation.
Designing restoration projects requires integrating socio-economic and cultural needs of local stakeholders for enduring and just outcomes. Using India as a case study, we demonstrate a people-centric approach to help policymakers translate global restoration prioritization studies for application to a country-specific context and to identify different socio-environmental conditions restoration programs could consider when siting projects. Focusing, in particular, on poverty quantified by living standards and land tenure, we find that of the 579 districts considered here, 116 of the poorest districts have high biophysical restoration potential (upper 50th percentile of both factors). In most districts, the predominant land tenure is private, indicating an opportunity to focus on agri-pastoral restoration over carbon and forest-based restoration projects.
While the amount of research on NBS is growing rapidly, there is a lack of evidence on community experiences of NBS design and implementation, particularly from low-income and informal settlements of African cities. This article adds new empirical evidence in this space through grounded analysis of NBS “niche” projects co-developed by intermediary organizations and communities in five sites across three settlements in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Findings are organized around four established NBS knowledge gaps: (1) NBS-society relations; (2) Design; (3) Implementation; (4) Effectiveness. We find that across the five studied sites, residents’ perceptions and valuation of urban nature has changed through processes of co-design and co-implementation, enabling community ownership of projects, and hence playing a crucial role in NBS effectiveness over time. The integration of gray components into green infrastructure to create hybrid systems has proven necessary to meet physical constraints and communities’ urgent needs such as flood mitigation. However, maintenance responsibilities and cost burdens are persisting issues that highlight the complex reality of NBS development in informal settlements. The cases highlight key considerations for actors involved in NBS development to support the replication, scaling up and institutionalization of NBS. These include the need to: (i) develop forms of engagement that align with co-production values; (ii) capture communities’ own valuation of and motivations with NBS development for integration into design; (iii) elaborate technical guidance for hybrid green-gray infrastructure systems that can be constructed with communities; and (iv) help define and establish structures for maintenance responsibilities (especially governmental vs. civil society) that will enhance the environmental stewardship of public spaces.
Transformation towards low carbon development needs action to transform our economy and energy simultaneously. India has taken several noble aims for continuing to increase renewable energy since an efficient energy transition will help to mitigate climate change. Socio-economic consequences like a considerable loss of livelihood will also occur. The ‘just transition’ concept emphasises delivering the transition fairly to high carbon concentrated workers’ communities’ livelihood and fossil fuel-based economy towards the regenerative economy and addressing inequality and poverty issues. While nature-based solutions are initiatives taken to restore, protect, and sustainably manage nature to tackle societal problems such as changing climate, challenges originating from urban expansion and livelihood support. There is a substantial research gap on why efforts to address just transition should support nature-based solutions (NbS). This research paper tries to offer a detailed perspective regarding the possibilities of delivering just transition and relate it to nature-based solutions based on available literature and various examples worldwide.
During the past century, semi-natural grasslands, once widespread throughout Europe, have largely been converted into intensively managed agricultural areas, abandoned or afforested. These large-scale land-use changes have already resulted in considerable biodiversity loss but can also lead to decline in ecosystem service provision and ecosystem multifunctionality. We assessed the impact of afforestation and abandonment of semi-natural grasslands on the supply of ecosystem services in Western Estonia. We compared a wide array of services provided by open grasslands, abandoned grasslands, and afforested grasslands. Additionally, we analysed the impact of land-use change and species richness on ecosystem multifunctionality. Significant declines in the supply of pollination services, natural pest regulation, forage production, soil quality, wild food and cultural appreciation of landscape were detected as a result of overgrowing or afforestation. There was significant positive relationship between species richness and ecosystem multifunctionality, i.e. more biodiverse grasslands were able to support more services at higher capacity. Results show that both grassland degradation due to abandonment, as well as grassland afforestation, have significant negative impacts on biodiversity, on the supply of multiple important ecosystem services and on the ecosystem multifunctionality. Synthesis and applications. Temperate semi-natural grasslands have high biodiversity and capacity to deliver multiple important ecosystem services simultaneously. Conservation and restoration of grassland habitats must be considered as an important part of sustainable landscape planning.
Climate-related benefits of afforestation depend on the balance of the often-contrasting effects of biogeochemical (carbon sequestration) and biogeophysical (radiation balance) effects. These effects are known to vary at the continental scale (e.g., from boreal to tropical regions). Here, we show in a four-year study that the biogeochemical vs. biogeophysical balance in paired forested and non-forested ecosystems across short distances (approximately 200 Km) and steep aridity gradient (aridity index 0.64 to 0.18) can change dramatically. The required time for the forestation cooling effects via carbon sequestration, to surpass warming effects associated with the forests’ reduced albedo and suppressed longwave radiation, decreased from 213 years in the driest sites to 73 years in the intermediate and 43 years in the wettest sites. Climate-related benefits of forestation, previously considered at large-spatial scales, should be considered at high-spatial resolutions in climate-change mitigation programs aimed at taking advantage of the vast non-forested dry regions.
Tropical forests play a critical role in the hydrological cycle and can influence local and regional precipitation. Previous work has assessed the impacts of tropical deforestation on precipitation, but these efforts have been largely limited to case studies. A wider analysis of interactions between deforestation and precipitation—and especially how any such interactions might vary across spatial scales—is lacking. Here we show reduced precipitation over deforested regions across the tropics. Our results arise from a pan-tropical assessment of the impacts of 2003–2017 forest loss on precipitation using satellite, station-based and reanalysis datasets. The effect of deforestation on precipitation increased at larger scales, with satellite datasets showing that forest loss caused robust reductions in precipitation at scales greater than 50 km. The greatest declines in precipitation occurred at 200 km, the largest scale we explored, for which 1 percentage point of forest loss reduced precipitation by 0.25 ± 0.1 mm per month. Reanalysis and station-based products disagree on the direction of precipitation responses to forest loss, which we attribute to sparse in situ tropical measurements. We estimate that future deforestation in the Congo will reduce local precipitation by 8–10% in 2100. Our findings provide a compelling argument for tropical forest conservation to support regional climate resilience.
Increasing pressure on land resources necessitates landscape management strategies that simultaneously deliver multiple benefits to numerous stakeholder groups with competing interests. Accordingly, we developed an approach that combines ecological data on all types of ecosystem services with information describing the ecosystem service priorities of multiple stakeholder groups. We identified landscape scenarios that maximize the overall ecosystem service supply relative to demand (multifunctionality) for the whole stakeholder community, while maintaining equitable distribution of ecosystem benefits across groups. For rural Germany, we show that the current landscape composition is close to optimal, and that most scenarios that maximize one or a few services increase inequities. This indicates that most major land-use changes proposed for Europe (for example, large-scale tree planting or agricultural intensification) could lead to social conflicts and reduced multifunctionality. However, moderate gains in multifunctionality (4%) and equity (1%) can be achieved by expanding and diversifying forests and de-intensifying grasslands. More broadly, our approach provides a tool for quantifying the social impact of land-use changes and could be applied widely to identify sustainable land-use transformations.
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.
This study explores the gap between theoretical frameworks of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) and current NbS interventions. Despite the existence of well-established definitions and practical tools, there are still organizations that implement NbS according to their own interpretations, creating gaps in the way practitioners apply these solutions. Four main gaps were identified: Framing of priorities to address an outcome, measurability and effectiveness of interventions, alignment with transformational governance processes, and understanding of trade-offs. By collecting the perception of NbS practitioners mainly focused on Africa, Europe, Latin America through a structured online survey, the results showed that five main ideas can help close these gaps: (1) designing NbS to address local problems that subsequently address societal challenges may be a more effective framing than targeting interventions to societal challenges that may not capture local stakeholder priorities; (2) interventions should consider both qualitative and quantitative impact-oriented indicators to learn from practice, and establish robust interventions and confidence in NbS; (3) transformative NbS processes must incorporate pluralistic assessment in interventions, attending to distributive, recognition, and procedural justice; (4) systemic socioeconomic and institutional barriers are not exclusively within the power of practitioners to fix but they must be addressed to achieve transformative NbS processes; (5) certain types of governance, scale, and cost-benefit trade-offs may not be fully understood and remain elusive, but they are still important to identify, to integrate and negotiate trade-offs in NbS implementation. We urge NbS practitioners and formulators of the concept to consider these ideas when implementing NbS.
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being promoted as an ocean-based climate solution. However, such claims remain controversial because of the diffuse and poorly synthesized literature on climate benefits of MPAs. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of 22,403 publications spanning 241 MPAs and analyzed these across 16 ecological and social pathways through which MPAs could contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that marine conservation can significantly enhance carbon sequestration, coastal protection, biodiversity, and the reproductive capacity of marine organisms as well as fishers’ catch and income. Most of these benefits are only achieved in fully or highly protected areas and increase with MPA age. Although MPAs alone cannot offset all climate change impacts, they are a useful tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation of social-ecological systems.
