↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
8 policy sources
twitter
179 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
279 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1024 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mapping the effectiveness of nature‐based solutions for climate change adaptation
Published in
Global Change Biology, September 2020
DOI 10.1111/gcb.15310
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Chausson, Beth Turner, Dan Seddon, Nicole Chabaneix, Cécile A. J. Girardin, Valerie Kapos, Isabel Key, Dilys Roe, Alison Smith, Stephen Woroniecki, Nathalie Seddon

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 179 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,024 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1024 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 161 16%
Student > Master 119 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 115 11%
Student > Bachelor 69 7%
Other 42 4%
Other 156 15%
Unknown 362 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 240 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 114 11%
Engineering 44 4%
Social Sciences 42 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 38 4%
Other 124 12%
Unknown 422 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 226. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2024.
All research outputs
#172,390
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#139
of 6,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,284
of 429,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#6
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 429,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.