Nature‐based solutions (NbS)—solutions to societal challenges that involve working with nature—have recently gained popularity as an integrated approach that can address climate change and biodiversity loss, while supporting sustainable development. Although well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits for people and nature, much of the recent limelight has been on tree planting for carbon sequestration. There are serious concerns that this is distracting from the need to rapidly phase out use of fossil fuels and protect existing intact ecosystems. There are also concerns that the expansion of forestry framed as a climate change mitigation solution is coming at the cost of carbon rich and biodiverse native ecosystems and local resource rights. Here, we discuss the promise and pitfalls of the NbS framing and its current political traction, and we present recommendations on how to get the message right. We urge policymakers, practitioners and researchers to consider the synergies and trade‐offs associated with NbS and to follow four guiding principles to enable NbS to provide sustainable benefits to society: (1) NbS are not a substitute for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels; (2) NbS involve a wide range of ecosystems on land and in the sea, not just forests; (3) NbS are implemented with the full engagement and consent of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in a way that respects their cultural and ecological rights; and (4) NbS should be explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity. Only by following these guidelines will we design robust and resilient NbS that address the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, sustaining nature and people together, now and into the future.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised for their potential to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. Both these outcomes rely on the capacity of NbS to support and enhance the health of an ecosystem: its biodiversity, the condition of its abiotic and biotic elements, and its capacity to continue to function despite environmental change. However, while understanding of ecosystem health outcomes of NbS for climate change mitigation has developed in recent years, the outcomes of those implemented for adaptation remain poorly understood. To address this, we systematically reviewed the outcomes of 109 nature-based interventions for climate change adaptation using 33 indicators of ecosystem health across eight broad categories (e.g., diversity, biomass, ecosystem composition). We showed that 88% of interventions with reported positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported benefits for ecosystem health. We also showed that interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits for both climate change mitigation and adaptation also supported ecosystem health, leading to a “triple win.” However, there were also trade-offs, mainly for forest management and creation of novel ecosystems such as monoculture plantations of non-native species. Our review highlights two key limitations in our understanding of the outcomes of NbS for ecosystem health. First, a limited selection of metrics are used and these rarely include key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Second, taxonomic coverage is limited: 50% of interventions only had evidence for effects on plants, and 57% of outcomes did not distinguish between native and non-native species. We make suggestions of how to improve assessments of the ecosystem health outcomes of NbS, as well as policy recommendations to enable the upscaling of NbS that support flourishing and resilient ecosystems, and are effective in addressing both climate and biodiversity goals.

Nature-based solutions (NbS); working with and enhancing nature to address societal challenges, increasingly feature in climate change adaptation strategies. Despite growing evidence that NbS can reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts in general, understanding of the mechanisms through which this is achieved, particularly in the Global South, is lacking. To address this, we analyse 85 nature-based interventions across the rural Global South, and factors mediating their effectiveness, based on a systematic map of peer-reviewed studies encompassing a wide diversity of ecosystems, climate impacts, and intervention types. We apply an analytical framework of people's socialecological vulnerability to climate change, in terms of six pathways of vulnerability reduction: social and ecological exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Most cases (95%) report a reduction in vulnerability, primarily by lowering ecosystem sensitivity to climate impacts (73% of interventions), followed by reducing social sensitivity (52%), reducing ecological exposure (36%), increasing social adaptive capacity (31%), increasing ecological adaptive capacity (19%) and/or reducing social exposure (14%). Our analysis shows that social dimensions of NBS are important mediating factors for equity and effectiveness. This study highlights how understanding the distinct social and ecological pathways by which vulnerability to climate change is reduced can help harness the multiple benefits of working with nature in a warming world.