(C) PLOS One
This story was originally published by PLOS One and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Harnessing nature-based solutions for economic recovery: A systematic review [1]

['Alexandre Chausson', 'Nature-Based Solutions Initiative', 'Department Of Biology', 'University Of Oxford', 'Oxford', 'United Kingdom', 'Alison Smith', 'Environmental Change Institute', 'Ryne Zen-Zhi Reger', 'Department Of Economics']

Date: 2024-10

Nature-based solutions (NbS) involve working with nature to address societal challenges in ways that benefit communities and biodiversity locally. However, their role supporting economic recovery from crises, such as those arising from conflicts or pandemics remains underexplored. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic review of 66 reviews on the economic impact of nature-based interventions. Most demonstrated positive outcomes for income and employment, though those with critical appraisal of underlying studies reported more mixed outcomes. These varied results were influenced by factors such as the balance between short-term and long-term gains, market conditions, regional effects, reliance on subsidies, and discrepancies between expected and actual economic benefits. National-scale economic growth assessments were scarce. Half of the cases featured nature-based food production investments, with much evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and the Pacific. The few reviews comparing NbS with alternatives found that NbS delivered equal or better economic outcomes. NbS also provided broader benefits like food and water security, flood protection and community empowerment. We identified key factors influencing the delivery of benefits and trade-offs, finding that NbS must adhere to best practice standards, with community involvement being critical for equitable outcomes. Well-designed NbS can create diverse job opportunities at different skill levels, diversify income, and improve resilience, offering a rapid, flexible response to economic shocks that can be targeted at deprived communities. By integrating traditional, local and scientific knowledge, NbS can enable eco-innovation, and drive the transition to a clean and efficient circular economy, with high economic multipliers spreading benefits throughout economies. The evidence underscores the need to incorporate NbS in investment programs to concurrently address economic, environmental, and societal challenges. However, improved monitoring of economic, social and ecological outcomes and the development of comprehensive accounting systems are needed to better track public and private investments in NbS.

Funding: This work was supported with funding from the Oxford Martin School’s Biodiversity and Society Programme (University of Oxford) (to NS) and the Waterloo Foundation (to NS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Introduction

The vital role of nature-based solutions (NbS) for reducing vulnerability to climate change [1, 2] whilst also increasing carbon sequestration and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [3, 4] is now widely recognized. There is also growing awareness that NbS could play a key role in recovery from economic shocks, including those related to conflicts or pandemics. Indeed, the COVID pandemic raised awareness of the importance of nature in addressing root causes of zoonotic disease emergence (human encroachment in wildlife habitat) and improving human wellbeing (e.g. [5]). However, despite the focus on ‘building back better’, there has been limited attention to how investments in nature can also drive economic recovery. By 2020, only 3% of COVID-19 recovery spending appeared likely to support investment in nature, while up to 17% risked negatively impacting it through new infrastructure, defense spending, and other measures [6]. Several barriers hinder the mainstreaming of NbS investments, including path dependency [7], siloed government decision-making [8, 9], the pervasive misconception that environmental protection harms business [10], limited awareness [11], lack of skills, and uncertainty over the economic benefits of NbS compared to alternatives [36].

Fiscal policy (i.e. government spending and taxation) can be a powerful lever for influencing total demand for goods and services, particularly during economic downturn (see [12, 13]), thereby promoting recovery. Faced with the need to act rapidly, economists have advised that policy makers should respond with measures that are “timely, targeted, and temporary”. However, this implies little consideration for the long-term impacts of policy, meaning that the relative benefits of more socially useful or long-term activities might not be appropriately considered. Keynes suggested that priority investments during the latter stages of the US depression should be in “durable goods such as housing, public utilities, and transport”, noting that “the necessities for such developments were unexampled” [14]. Given limited funds and capacity to secure finance, it is important that policymakers consider how short-term fiscal measures might influence long-term outcomes [6, 15]. This is particularly important in emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs), where fiscal space is often tightly constrained and new debt is expensive. Put differently, policies that bring long-term debt servicing costs should deliver long-term assets that support well-being ([6]; see S3 Text for a glossary of terms). Biodiversity and long-term resilience are just some of the factors that might be harmed when recovery investments do not consider long-term needs [16].

In the context of post-pandemic economic recovery, it has been proposed that investments in measures reducing greenhouse gas emissions might offer economic benefits equivalent to, or perhaps greater than, traditional investments [6, 17–20]. Building on investigations into low-carbon energy and energy efficiency during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), [21–25], it was suggested that investing in nature could be an attractive option for rapid implementation [6, 19, 26].

NbS—formally defined by the United Nations Environment Assembly as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems, which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while supporting human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience, and biodiversity benefits [27]” —have several characteristics that make them well-suited to support economic recovery. First, once designed, some NbS can be deployed relatively quickly [6, 28]. Second, they can create demand for both skilled labor (e.g., for mapping, design, monitoring and evaluation) and low-skilled labor, making them particularly useful in addressing high unemployment among unskilled workers [6, 29]. Third, many NbS are viable in rural areas where populations are vulnerable [19, 30, 31], unlike with other low-carbon initiatives such as public transport investment that require high population density to be cost-effective. Fourth, NbS can support climate change mitigation and adaptation and can be integrated with built infrastructure [1, 3, 4, 32]. They also support many other sustainable development goals by helping to address pollution, food, and water security, while protecting and restoring biodiversity and human well-being [33–36]. However, realizing these benefits requires conscientious design and implementation, informed by a robust understanding of potential trade-offs and equitable distribution of costs and benefits. Therefore, alongside their economic potential, it is crucial to understand when, where, and how NbS can deliver biodiversity, climate, and social benefits, and ensure that these gains are distributed fairly across different groups.

Previous research suggests that investments in nature (e.g., restoration) deliver high gross value added and higher returns per unit of investment than other sectors [10, 29, 37]. However, existing research is mainly limited to project-specific or sector-specific outcomes with a lack of evidence synthesis across the full range of NbS. Existing reviews typically cover specific sub-types of NbS, specific geographical locations, or a subset of economic outcomes. The highly dispersed nature of the evidence challenges the uptake of NbS research to inform fiscal policy measures. Furthermore, recent assessments [38] have not investigated economic recovery potential at a high enough granularity to compare short versus long-term economic characteristics of NbS, and their risks and opportunities. There is also a need to frame the evidence to support systemic policy change, requiring comparison of NbS to other economic recovery options. Finally, there has been a lack of focus on how different benefits are delivered, and how these socially disaggregate. In the absence of such information, nature can be sidelined in economic recovery policies, locking in the continued destruction of nature, with severe impacts for climate, biodiversity, and livelihoods. Economic stimulus packages therefore require robust evidence-based guidelines around what good investments in NbS look like and the benefits they can bring.

To address these issues, we conducted a systematic review of reviews [39] on the economic outcomes of investments in nature, and the pathways by which these benefits are delivered, focusing on jobs and labor demand, household income and business revenue generation, and economic growth. Reviews of reviews, or “umbrella reviews”, predominantly carried out in health and medical fields, allow rapid assessment of the evidence across a broad range of outcomes, interventions, and contexts amidst a rapidly increasing number of primary research studies [40].

Our focus was guided by the recognition that decision-makers involved in fiscal policy —our prime target audience— focus on economic criteria such as fiscal multipliers (leading to GDP growth) and job creation. We recognize that GDP growth is an inadequate measure of human progress and well-being [41, 42], and that perpetual growth in a finite world severely jeopardizes progress towards addressing the climate and biodiversity crises [16, 43, 44]. A vast array of social and environmental factors shape well-being. These include material circumstances (e.g., income, livelihoods, health, the environment), social dynamics (e.g., community relations), and subjective wellbeing (e.g., psychological health) [45], many of which are closely tied to our relationship with nature, its ecosystems, landscapes, and nonhuman species [6, 46]. Therefore, although we focus on conventional economic outcomes for jobs, incomes and growth, we also discuss the vital role of NbS in supporting many of these wider societal benefits.

Our overarching questions are:

What is the distribution of the evidence on the economic impact of NbS between different regions, types of NbS, ecosystems and economic outcomes? What are the reported economic impacts of nature-based solutions? How do nature-based solutions contribute to economic impact? What are the reported trade-offs and win-wins between economic impact outcomes, and biodiversity or climate outcomes? How are costs and benefits distributed across social groups?

We address those questions by a) exploring the scope of NbS outcomes reported under the umbrella of ‘economic impact’ in the peer-reviewed literature; b) synthesizing this evidence with respect to geography, ecosystem, and type of intervention; c) highlighting trade-offs and win-wins in relation to biodiversity, climate, and social equity; and d) identifying how NbS deliver economic impacts (pathways and mediating factors). Unpacking when and where NbS deliver benefits, and for whom, is crucial to tailor and target NbS in fiscal policy measures to support broader climate and biodiversity objectives, including addressing potential trade-offs and win-wins for resilient development. Our primary method is a systematic review of the literature on the economic outcomes of NbS, but we supplement this with a review of the wider outcomes of NbS for sustainable development, and a detailed case study to add depth and nuance to our understanding. We also highlight knowledge gaps and biases in the literature, with recommendations for practitioners and researchers to support future evidence collection. In addressing these questions, our goal is to enable well-targeted scientific research on NbS to play a stronger role in informing fiscal policy. We conclude with a set of recommendations for policy makers.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000281

Published and (C) by PLOS One
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons - Attribution BY 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/plosone/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.