Can Nature-Based Solutions Deliver a Win-Win for Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation?

Nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly recognised for their potential to address both the climate and biodiversity crises. These outcomes are interdependent, and both 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 function normally despite environmental change. However, while understanding of ecosystem health outcomes of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation is growing, the outcomes of those implemented for adaptation remain poorly understood with evidence scattered across multiple disciplines. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of 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 functioning and population dynamics). We showed that 88% of interventions with positive outcomes for climate change adaptation also reported measurable benefits for ecosystem health. We also showed that interventions were associated with a 67% average increase in local species richness. All eight studies that reported benefits in terms of 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 major limitations of research to date. First, only a limited selection of metrics are used to assess ecosystem health and these rarely include key aspects such as functional diversity and habitat connectivity. Second, taxonomic coverage is poor: 67% of outcomes assessed only plants and 57% did not distinguish between native and non-native species. Future research addressing these issues will allow the design and adaptive management of NbS to support healthy and resilient ecosystems, and thereby enhance their effectiveness for meeting both climate and biodiversity targets.

Download Full-text

From Dichotomy to an Integrated Approach: Cities’ Benefits of Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Sustainability ◽

10.3390/su12187591 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 12 (18) ◽

pp. 7591

Author(s):

Jo-Ting Huang-Lachmann ◽

Edeltraud Guenther

Keyword(s):

Climate Change ◽

Climate Change Mitigation ◽

Research Question ◽

Integrated Approach ◽

Extreme Weather Events ◽

Future Research ◽

Endogenous Risk ◽

Mitigation And Adaptation ◽

Entry Points ◽

Change Mitigation

Cities are facing impacts of climate change and encountering risks such as extreme weather events, while cities are also aiming to contribute to their mitigation goals by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the differences in characteristics of climate change mitigation and adaptation have shown the possible reasons for a dichotomy in climate policy. This has motivated us to further look into whether cities could integrate their actions in climate change mitigation and adaptation in their planning and how they achieve benefits to overcome the dichotomy. To answer our research question, we have developed an analysis framework built on the endogenous risk theory to analyse how cities overcome the different characteristics to integrate their climate strategies and obtain benefits. The theory of endogenous risk involves seeing both climate change mitigation and adaptation as risk reduction strategies because both of them aim to reduce climate risks and can be carried out by actors who perceive such risks. Therefore, the actors will be more willing to integrate and implement both mitigation and adaptation policy. Our results show that mitigation and adaptation in cities are interlinked and that benefits of an integrated climate change policy exist. A list of entry points how cities overcome the dichotomy are also identified. Our research outcomes also provide a list of benefits identified by the cities in their integrated climate strategies and we call for more public disclosed data for future research and policy assessments.

Download Full-text