当前位置：
X-MOL 学术
›
Glob. Change Biol.
›
论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your
feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Mapping the effectiveness of nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation.
Global Change Biology ( IF 10.8 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-09 , DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15310 Alexandre Chausson 1 , Beth Turner 1 , Dan Seddon 1 , Nicole Chabaneix 1 , Cécile A J Girardin 2 , Valerie Kapos 3 , Isabel Key 1 , Dilys Roe 4 , Alison Smith 2 , Stephen Woroniecki 1, 5 , Nathalie Seddon 1
Global Change Biology ( IF 10.8 ) Pub Date : 2020-09-09 , DOI: 10.1111/gcb.15310 Alexandre Chausson 1 , Beth Turner 1 , Dan Seddon 1 , Nicole Chabaneix 1 , Cécile A J Girardin 2 , Valerie Kapos 3 , Isabel Key 1 , Dilys Roe 4 , Alison Smith 2 , Stephen Woroniecki 1, 5 , Nathalie Seddon 1
Affiliation
|
Nature‐based solutions (NbS) to climate change currently have considerable political traction. However, national intentions to deploy NbS have yet to be fully translated into evidence‐based targets and action on the ground. To enable NbS policy and practice to be better informed by science, we produced the first global systematic map of evidence on the effectiveness of nature‐based interventions for addressing the impacts of climate change and hydrometeorological hazards on people. Most of the interventions in natural or semi‐natural ecosystems were reported to have ameliorated adverse climate impacts. Conversely, interventions involving created ecosystems (e.g., afforestation) were associated with trade‐offs; such studies primarily reported reduced soil erosion or increased vegetation cover but lower water availability, although this evidence was geographically restricted. Overall, studies reported more synergies than trade‐offs between reduced climate impacts and broader ecological, social, and climate change mitigation outcomes. In addition, nature‐based interventions were most often shown to be as effective or more so than alternative interventions for addressing climate impacts. However, there were substantial gaps in the evidence base. Notably, there were few studies of the cost‐effectiveness of interventions compared to alternatives and few integrated assessments considering broader social and ecological outcomes. There was also a bias in evidence toward the Global North, despite communities in the Global South being generally more vulnerable to climate impacts. To build resilience to climate change worldwide, it is imperative that we protect and harness the benefits that nature can provide, which can only be done effectively if informed by a strengthened evidence base.
中文翻译：
绘制基于自然的解决方案对气候变化适应的效果图。
目前，基于自然的解决方案（NbS）对气候变化具有相当大的政治吸引力。但是，国家部署NbS的意图尚未完全转化为基于证据的目标和实地行动。为了使科学更好地了解NbS政策和实践，我们制作了第一个全球系统证据图，说明了基于自然的干预措施在应对气候变化和水文气象危害对人的影响方面的有效性。据报告，对自然或半自然生态系统的大多数干预措施已减轻了不利的气候影响。相反，涉及已建立的生态系统（如造林）的干预措施与权衡取舍有关；这些研究主要报道了减少的土壤侵蚀或增加了植被覆盖率，但可用水量较低，尽管此证据在地理位置上受到限制。总体而言，研究表明，在减少气候影响与扩大生态，社会和气候变化缓解成果之间的权衡取舍方面，协同作用更大。此外，基于自然的干预措施通常在解决气候影响方面比替代性干预措施更有效或更有效。但是，证据基础存在很大差距。值得注意的是，与替代方案相比，干预措施的成本效益研究很少，而考虑到更广泛的社会和生态结果的综合评估也很少。尽管全球南方的社区通常更容易受到气候影响，但对全球北方的证据也存在偏见。为了增强全球应对气候变化的能力，
更新日期：2020-10-19
中文翻译：
绘制基于自然的解决方案对气候变化适应的效果图。
目前，基于自然的解决方案（NbS）对气候变化具有相当大的政治吸引力。但是，国家部署NbS的意图尚未完全转化为基于证据的目标和实地行动。为了使科学更好地了解NbS政策和实践，我们制作了第一个全球系统证据图，说明了基于自然的干预措施在应对气候变化和水文气象危害对人的影响方面的有效性。据报告，对自然或半自然生态系统的大多数干预措施已减轻了不利的气候影响。相反，涉及已建立的生态系统（如造林）的干预措施与权衡取舍有关；这些研究主要报道了减少的土壤侵蚀或增加了植被覆盖率，但可用水量较低，尽管此证据在地理位置上受到限制。总体而言，研究表明，在减少气候影响与扩大生态，社会和气候变化缓解成果之间的权衡取舍方面，协同作用更大。此外，基于自然的干预措施通常在解决气候影响方面比替代性干预措施更有效或更有效。但是，证据基础存在很大差距。值得注意的是，与替代方案相比，干预措施的成本效益研究很少，而考虑到更广泛的社会和生态结果的综合评估也很少。尽管全球南方的社区通常更容易受到气候影响，但对全球北方的证据也存在偏见。为了增强全球应对气候变化的能力，
京公网安备 11010802027423号