Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation

Abstract

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.

Getting the message right on nature‐based solutions to climate change

“…However, relevant research that does not use the specific term ‘NbS’ has a much longer history, with published articles going back to at least 1988. These interventions are labelled using older green concept names (Table 1) or are simply described as protection, restoration or management of ecosystems, nature or biodiversity (Chausson et al, 2020).…”

“…There is now a substantive evidence base demonstrating that NbS can reduce exposure to climate impacts such as flooding, erosion, water scarcity and reduced agricultural productivity (Chausson et al, 2020). For example, restoring and protecting coastal ecosystems can defend against flooding and storm surges while restoration and protection of forests and wetlands can improve water security, and reduce risk of floods, soil erosion and landslides (see examples in Seddon, Chausson, et al, 2020); nature‐based agriculture (e.g.…”

“…It is important to note that many NbS for climate change mitigation also hold potential for climate change adaptation, and vice versa, although few studies report on both outcomes. In the systematic map by Chausson et al (2020), only 13% of studies investigating adaptation outcomes of NbS reported effects on GHG mitigation outcomes, but most of these (76%) were positive and none reported exclusively negative effects, while 22% reported mixed or unclear effects. For example, protection or restoration of mangroves or woodlands can enhance carbon sequestration as well as providing flood and erosion protection; while adding organic matter to soil will enhance soil carbon as well as conserving moisture during droughts.…”

“…NbS are actions that are broadly categorized as the protection, restoration or management of natural and semi‐natural ecosystems, sustainable management of working lands and aquatic systems, or the creation of novel ecosystems (Figure 1). Although more research is needed, a rapidly growing evidence base (Chausson et al, 2020; Hanson et al, 2020) demonstrates that well‐designed NbS can deliver multiple benefits (Seddon, Chausson, et al, 2020). For example, protecting and restoring habitats along shorelines or in upper catchments can contribute to climate change adaptation by protecting communities and infrastructure from flooding and erosion, at the same time as increasing carbon sequestration and protecting biodiversity (Smith et al, 2017).…”

“…In the context of climate change, concerns have been raised that NbS are being used to excuse business‐as‐usual consumption of fossil fuels (Anderson et al, 2019; Edwards, 2020); that there is an over‐emphasis on tree planting as a ‘silver‐bullet’ solution to climate change (Holl & Brancalion, 2020; Seymour, 2020) and that this is distracting from the urgent need to protect and connect a wide range of intact ecosystems across landscapes and seascapes (Solan et al, 2020; Watson et al, 2018). These issues arise partly from uncertainties in the underlying science, such as the limited set of contexts in which the broader benefits of NbS have been demonstrated (Chausson et al, 2020). They also arise as a result of miscommunications about the mitigation potential of working with nature, such as the recent meme that NbS can provide ‘30% of the climate solution’.…”