There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, ...combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO2eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing‐up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.
There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as “land challenges”). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that most practices deliver across all land challenges. Some practices could result in competition for land, but those that reduce demand for land conversion potentially free‐up land, creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important for addressing combined land challenge.
Land‐based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the ...mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO2eq) land‐based mitigation is 8–13.8 GtCO2eq yr−1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost‐effective sectoral estimate is about 40% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost‐effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost‐effective potential is approximately 50% from forests and other ecosystems, 35% from agriculture, and 15% from demand‐side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr−1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand‐side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co‐benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio‐cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land‐based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near‐term, low‐cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country‐specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.
We refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land‐based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing “bottom‐up” sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). The likely range of cost‐effective (available up to $100/tCO2eq) land‐based mitigation potential is 8–13.8 GtCO2eq yr−1 between 2020 and 2050. Mitigation potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75–4.8 GtCO2eq yr−1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60% of the global potential. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land‐based measures available, their potential co‐benefits and risks, and their feasibility.
The adoption of healthy diets with low environmental impact has been widely promoted as an important climate change mitigation strategy. Typically, these diets are high in plant-sourced and low in ...animal-sourced and processed foods. Despite the fact that their environmental impacts vary, they are often referred to as 'sustainable diets'. Here we systematically review the available published evidence on the effect of 'sustainable diets' on environmental footprints and human health. Eight databases (OvidSP-Medline, OvidSP-Embase, EBSCO-GreenFILE, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, OvidSP-CAB-Abstracts, OvidSP-AGRIS, and OvidSP-Global Health) were searched to identify literature (published 1999-2019) reporting health effects and environmental footprints of 'sustainable diets'. Available evidence was mapped and pooled analysis was conducted by unique combinations of diet pattern, health and environmental outcome. Eighteen studies (412 measurements) met our inclusion criteria, distinguishing twelve non-mutually exclusive sustainable diet patterns, six environmental outcomes, and seven health outcomes. In 87% of measurements (n = 151) positive health outcomes were reported from 'sustainable diets' (average relative health improvement: 4.09% 95% CI −0.10-8.29) when comparing 'sustainable diets' to current/baseline consumption patterns. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with 'sustainable diets' were on average 25.8%95%CI −27.0 to −14.6 lower than current/baseline consumption patterns, with vegan diets reporting the largest reduction in GHG-emissions (−70.3% 95% CI: −90.2 to −50.4), however, water use was frequently reported to be higher than current/baseline diets. Multiple benefits for both health and the environment were reported in the majority (n = 31576%) of measurements. We identified consistent evidence of both positive health effects and reduced environmental footprints accruing from 'sustainable diets'. The notable exception of increased water use associated with 'sustainable diets' identifies that co-benefits are not universal and some trade-offs are likely. When carefully designed, evidence-based, and adapted to contextual factors, dietary change could play a pivotal role in climate change mitigation, sustainable food systems, and future population health.
Energy and water scarcity are increasingly global challenges that should be addressed collaboratively. Accordingly, floating photovoltaic systems (FPV), which are mounted on the water's surface, are ...gaining global acceptance. This system offers several unique benefits over land-based ones, including land preservation, water saving, and enhancing system efficiency. This research seeks to experimentally assess and compare the performance of the FPV with those of a conventional land-based system (LPV) in a Mediterranean climate. To that aim, both the FPV and the LPV are analyzed in terms of electrical and thermal performance, evaporation mitigation, environmental and economic considerations at varied module tilt angles (10°, 15°, 20°, and 30°). The findings reveal that adjusting the FPV tilt to 10° reduces the module temperature by 7.24 °C, leading to a 16 % reduction compared to LPV due to the water surface proximity. The FPV deployment at a tilt of 10° reduced the evaporation by 83.33 %. The FPV surpasses the LPV installed at a tilt angle of 20° by 8.92 % in power generation. It's confirmed that the FPV system produces electricity with a LCOE of 0.059 $/kWh with the potential of saving 2.19 m3/m2 of water vapor annually, which mitigates 5.20 kg of CO2/m2/year.
•Floating PV system proven it's performance superiority over the land based PV system.•Floating PV module tilt should be between 10° and 20° in summer for energy water nexus.•Floating PV saves up to 447.15 $/m2 from water preservation in its lifetime.•Floating PV can save 2.19 m3 of CO2/m2 yearly, which mitigates 7.79 kg of CO2/year.
A multitude of actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems can have co‐benefits for both climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation. Reducing greenhouse ...emissions to limit warming to less than 1.5 or 2°C above preindustrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, can yield strong co‐benefits for land, freshwater and marine biodiversity and reduce amplifying climate feedbacks from ecosystem changes. Not all climate mitigation strategies are equally effective at producing biodiversity co‐benefits, some in fact are counterproductive. Moreover, social implications are often overlooked within the climate‐biodiversity nexus. Protecting biodiverse and carbon‐rich natural environments, ecological restoration of potentially biodiverse and carbon‐rich habitats, the deliberate creation of novel habitats, taking into consideration a locally adapted and meaningful (i.e. full consequences considered) mix of these measures, can result in the most robust win‐win solutions. These can be further enhanced by avoidance of narrow goals, taking long‐term views and minimizing further losses of intact ecosystems. In this review paper, we first discuss various climate mitigation actions that evidence demonstrates can negatively impact biodiversity, resulting in unseen and unintended negative consequences. We then examine climate mitigation actions that co‐deliver biodiversity and societal benefits. We give examples of these win‐win solutions, categorized as ‘protect, restore, manage and create’, in different regions of the world that could be expanded, upscaled and used for further innovation.
A multitude of actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural and modified ecosystems can have co‐benefits for both climate mitigation and biodiversity conservation. Reducing greenhouse emissions to limit warming to less than 1.5 or 2°C above preindustrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement, can yield strong co‐benefits for land, freshwater and marine biodiversity and reduce amplifying climate feedbacks from ecosystem changes. Not all climate mitigation strategies are equally effective at producing biodiversity co‐benefits, some are counterproductive. We examine climate mitigation actions that co‐deliver biodiversity and societal benefits that could be expanded, upscaled and used for further innovation.
Nature-based solutions (NBS) are increasingly recognized as a valid alternative to grey infrastructures - i.e. hard, human-engineered structures – as measures for reducing climate-related risks. ...Increasing evidences demonstrated that NBS can reduce risks to people and property as effectively as traditional grey infrastructures, but potentially offering many additional benefits, e.g. improving the natural habitat for wildlife, enhancing water and air quality, improving socio-cultural conditions of communities. The growing attention on the NBS, triggered an increasing interest in developing integrated and multi-disciplinary frameworks for assessing NBS effectiveness accounting for the co-benefits production. Starting from the analysis of the existing frameworks, this work claims for a more direct engagement of stakeholders – i.e. co-benefits beneficiaries – in developing NBS assessment framework. This work aims at demonstrating that differences in co-benefits perception and valuation might lead to trade-offs and, thus, to potential conflicts. An innovative methodology using a quasi-dynamic Fuzzy Cognitive Map approach based on multiple-time-steps was developed in order to assess NBS effectiveness, and to detect and analyze trade-offs among stakeholders due to differences in co-benefits perception. The developed methodology was implemented in the Lower Danube case study. The trade-off analysis among stakeholders shows that they are quite low in the short term. Most of the potential conflicts can be detected in the long term, involving mainly the stakeholders that assigned a high value to the agricultural productivity variable. The results demonstrated that accounting for the different stakeholders' perception of the co-benefits is key for reducing trade-offs and enhance NBS acceptability.
Display omitted
•Evidences regarding the NBS effectiveness in producing co-benefits are required in order to facilitate their implementation.•Engaging stakeholders in developing frameworks for assessing NBS effectiveness is key.•Differences in co-benefits perception and valuation might lead to trade-offs among stakeholders.•Including the time dimension in the trade-offs analysis allows to define when a potential conflict could emerge.
The United Nations has declared 2021–2030 as the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration to gear up the restoration of degraded ecosystems worldwide and thereby facilitating the timely realization of the ...UN‐SDGs and post‐2020 biodiversity targets. The UN Decade will also further the targets of the Bonn Challenge and several other ongoing restoration initiatives. While restoration is often viewed as a branch of applied ecology, transdisciplinarity is essential for implementing restoration on the ground successfully. The present article is therefore aimed to propose a transdisciplinary framework consisting of three defined phases ‐such as (1) the problem identification phase, (2) its analysis, and (3) finally the integration and application of transdisciplinary approaches for effective land restoration. This integrated framework would help in drawing strategic measures by crossing various disciplinary boundaries to accelerate land restoration efforts globally while deriving co‐benefits during restoration for maintaining the continuity of the restoration drive. We conclude that the implementation of the proposed framework along with due consideration of the regional and location‐specific attributes, management strategies as well as the successful involvement of various stakeholders will lead to a successful restoration Decade.
Climate change increases risks to natural and human systems. Green infrastructure (GI) has been increasingly recognized as a promising nature-based solution for climate change adaptation, mitigation, ...and other societal objectives for sustainable development. Although the climate contribution of GI has been extensively addressed in the literature, the linkages between the climate benefits and associated co-benefits and trade-offs remain unclear. We systematically reviewed the evidence from 141 papers, focusing on their climate benefits, relevant co-benefits and trade-offs, and the GI types that provide such climate (co-)benefits. This study presents a comprehensive overview of the links between climate benefits, co-benefits and types of GI, categorized along a green-grey continuum so that researchers/practitioners can find information according to their topic of interest. We further provide an analysis of trade-offs between various GI benefits. ‘Bundles’ of major co-benefits and trade-offs for each climate benefit can be identified with recommendations for strategies to maximize benefits and minimize trade-offs. To promote climate-resilient pathways through GI, it is crucial for decision-makers to identify opportunities to deliver multiple ecosystem services and benefits while recognizing disservices and trade-offs that need to be avoided or managed.
•Studies are strongly focused on climate adaptation benefits dominated by countries from Europe and North America.•Multiple climate benefits and associated co-benefits or trade-offs are often overlooked or implictly stated in the literature.•Results reveal that a wide range of positive links exists between climate co-benefits.•A comprehensive analysis of disservices and potential trade-offs of GI is highlighted.•The paper suggests recommendations with planning and design implications to maximize multiple benefits and minimize trade-offs in practice.
Green-blue infrastructures in urban spaces offer several co-benefits besides flood risk reduction, such as water savings, energy savings due to less cooling usage, air quality improvement and carbon ...sequestration. Traditionally, these co-benefits were not included in decision making processes for flood risk management. In this work we present a method to include the monetary analysis of these co-benefits into a cost-benefits analysis of flood risk mitigation measures. This approach was applied to a case study, comparing costs and benefits with and without co-benefits. Different intervention strategies were considered, using green, blue and grey measures and combinations of them. The results obtained illustrate the importance of assessing co-benefits when identifying best adaptation strategies to improve urban flood risk management. Otherwise green infrastructure is likely to appear less efficient than more conventional grey infrastructure. Moreover, a mix of green, blue and grey infrastructures is likely to result in the best adaptation strategy as these three alternatives tend to complement each other. Grey infrastructure has good performance at reducing the risk of flooding, whilst green infrastructure brings in multiple additional benefits that grey infrastructure cannot offer.
•We include co-benefits valuation into cost-benefits analysis of flood mitigation measures.•Co-benefits need to be considered in order to achieve efficient green measures.•Grey measures excel reducing flood risk while green measures provide co-benefits.•Mixing green-blue-grey options is the best strategy since they complement each other.•Flood mitigation should remain as the main objective when choosing the strategy.
There is an imperative worldwide need to identify effective approaches to deal with water-related risks, and mainly with increasingly frequent floods, as well as with severe droughts. Particularly, ...policy and decision-makers are trying to identify systemic strategies that, going beyond the mere risk reduction, should be capable to deal simultaneously with multiple challenges (such as climate resilience, health and well-being, quality of life), thus providing additional benefits. In this direction, the contribution of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) is relevant, although their wider implementation is still hampered by several barriers, such as the uncertainty and lack of information on their long-term behavior and the difficulty of quantitatively valuing their multidimensional impacts. The activities described in the present paper, carried out within the EU funded project NAIAD, mainly aim at developing a participatory System Dynamic Model capable to quantitatively assess the effectiveness of NBS to deal with flood risks, while producing a multiplicity of co-benefits. The adoption of a participatory approach supported both to increase the available knowledge and the awareness about the potential of NBS and hybrid measures (e.g. a combination of NBS and socio-institutional ones). Specific reference is made to one of the demos of the NAIAD project, namely the Glinščica river case study (Slovenia).
Display omitted
•Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) reduce water-related risks and produce co-benefits.•Valuing co-benefits is crucial to support NBS mainstreaming.•Participatory activities allow effective stakeholder involvement in NBS co-design.•System Dynamics Modelling (SDM) is used to perform NBS effectiveness assessment.•SDM supports scenario analysis and comparison among different measures.
PDF
