Assessing evidence on the impacts of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation: a systematic map of primary and secondary research from subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions
-
Published:2023-10-25
Issue:1
Volume:12
Page:
-
ISSN:2047-2382
-
Container-title:Environmental Evidence
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Environ Evid
Author:
Cheng Samantha H.ORCID, Costedoat SebastienORCID, Sigouin AmandaORCID, Calistro Gabriel F.ORCID, Chamberlain Catherine J.ORCID, Lichtenthal PeterORCID, Mills MorenaORCID, Nowakowski A. Justin, Sterling Eleanor J.ORCID, Tinsman JenORCID, Wiggins MeredithORCID, Brancalion Pedro H. S.ORCID, Canty Steven W. J.ORCID, Fritts-Penniman AllisonORCID, Jagadish ArundhatiORCID, Jones KellyORCID, Mascia Michael B.ORCID, Porzecanski AnaORCID, Zganjar Chris, Brenes Carlos L. MuñozORCID
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Nature-based interventions (NbIs) for climate change mitigation include a diverse set of interventions aimed at conserving, restoring, and/or managing natural and modified ecosystems to improve their ability to store and sequester carbon and avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent projections estimate that terrestrial NbIs can lead to more than one-third of the climate change mitigation necessary to meet the Paris Climate Agreement by 2030. Further, these interventions can provide co-benefits in the form of social and ecological outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the potential benefits, a clear characterization of the distribution and occurrence of evidence which supports linkages between different types of NbIs and outcomes for climate change mitigation, ecosystems, and people remains poorly understood.
Methods
This systematic map assesses the evidence base on the links between NbIs and climate change mitigation, social, and ecological outcomes in tropical and subtropical terrestrial regions. We searched three bibliographic databases, 65 organization websites, and conducted backward citation chasing within 39 existing evidence syntheses to identify relevant articles. Additionally, we reached out to key informants for additional sources of evidence. We then used machine learning to rank returned results by relevance at the title and abstract stage and manually screened for inclusion using predefined criteria at the title, abstract, and full text stages. We extracted relevant meta-data from included articles using an a priori coding scheme. Lastly, we conducted a targeted, complementary search to identify relevant review and synthesis articles to provide broader context for the findings of the systematic map.
Review findings
We included 948 articles in this systematic map. Most of the evidence base (56%) examined links between protection, natural resource management, and restoration interventions with changes to ‘proxy’ outcomes for climate change mitigation (changes to land condition, land cover, and/or land use). Other areas with high occurrence of articles included linkages between interventions within natural resource management and trees in croplands categories and changes to aboveground carbon storage and/or sequestration (17% of articles). A key knowledge gap was on measured changes in GHG emissions across all intervention types (6% of articles). Overall, articles in the evidence base did not often assess changes in co-benefits alongside direct or indirect changes for climate change mitigation (32%). In most cases, the evidence base contained studies which did not explicitly test for causal linkages using appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental designs.
Conclusions
The evidence base for NbIs is significant and growing; however, key gaps in knowledge hamper the ability to inform ongoing and future investment and implementation at scale. More comprehensive evidence is needed to support causal inference between NbIs and direct outcomes for climate change mitigation to better determine additionality, permanence, leakage, and other unintended consequences. Similarly, priorities emerging from this map include the need for coordinated and harmonized efforts to collect diverse data types to better understand whether and how other outcomes (e.g. social, ecological) of NbIs can be achieved synergistically with mitigation objectives. Understanding potential benefits and trade-offs of NbIs is particularly urgent to inform rapidly expanding carbon markets for nature.
Funder
Patrick J. McGovern Foundation
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Pollution,Ecology
Reference102 articles.
1. IPCC. Climate Change and Land. In: PR Shukla, J Skea, E Calvo Buendia, V Masson-Delmotte, HO Pörtner, DC Roberts, P Zhai, R Slade, S Connors, R van Diemen, M Ferrat, E Haughey, S Luz, S Neogi, M Pathak, J Petzold, J Portugal Pereira, P Vyas, E Huntley, K Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.). An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/11/SRCCL-Full-Report-Compiled-191128.pdf. Accessed 5 Feb 2023. 2. Mills M, Bode M, Mascia MB, Weeks R, Gelcich S, Dudley N, et al. How conservation initiatives go to scale. Nat Sustain. 2019;2(10):935–40. 3. IUCN. Global standard for nature-based solutions. A user-friendly framework for the verification, design and scaling up of NbS. 1st ed. Gland: IUCN; 2020. 4. Chausson A, Turner B, Seddon D, Chabaneix N, Girardin CAJ, Kapos V, et al. Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation. Glob Change Biol. 2020;26(11):6134–55. 5. UNEP. Resolution adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 2 March 2022: Nature-based solutions for supporting sustainable development. 2022. https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/39864/NATURE-BASED%20SOLUTIONS%20FOR%20SUPPORTING%20SUSTAINABLE%20DEVELOPMENT.%20English.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 27 Jun 2023.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|