Are Nature-Based Solutions A Waste Of Money?

Spending money on nature-based solutions is proven to be cost-effective and beneficial for mitigating disaster risks and providing long-term environmental and socio-economic gains

After I quit my university professor job and before I joined the public sector, I was privileged to work for a non-profit dedicated to the conservation of the Amazon and its diverse ecosystems. As most NGOs do nowadays, we dedicated much effort to designing projects that would allow indigenous people in the Amazon to develop their local economies while protecting their natural resources.

It wasn’t easy. There were many variables to consider: local populations in the Amazon want to develop a sustainable economy that provides them with the educational and healthcare resources they need. At the same time, some local actors engage in illegal highly profitable activities that promote deforestation and pollution, preventing future economies from developing.

But perhaps our worst enemy was skepticism. Indeed, economic activities are not only difficult to design properly but also difficult for external actors to grasp. Are they truly “nature-friendly”? Will their benefits outweigh those of more destructive practices in the long run?

As usual, science had something to say, and a research team got hands on at answering these questions for us.

As climate change and biodiversity crises intensify, the search for effective strategies to mitigate their impacts is more crucial than ever. A recent study led by researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst provides compelling evidence that nature-based solutions (NbS) are effective and cost-efficient in reducing disaster risks.

This finding challenges the skepticism of some climate change deniers who argue that investing in NbS wastes resources. But how did the authors reach these conclusions?

As you can see in the graphical abstract above, the research team conducted a comprehensive global assessment of over 20,000 peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2021. These studies focused on the economic evaluations of NbS for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA). The researchers aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of NbS compared to traditional engineering-based solutions and to explore their additional environmental and socio-economic benefits.

The study’s findings are promising. NbS, which involves preserving, sustainably managing, or restoring ecosystems, was consistently found to be cost-effective in mitigating a variety of hazards. Specifically, 71% of the reviewed studies concluded that NbS is a reliable approach to hazard mitigation, while 24% found them cost-effective under certain conditions. Mangroves, forests, and coastal ecosystems were the most frequently cited examples of effective NbS, with success rates of 80%, 77%, and 73%, respectively.

Moreover, when comparing NbS to engineering-based solutions, the results were striking. “65% of studies found that NbS are always more effective in attenuating hazards compared to engineering-based solutions,” noted Dr. Marta Vicarelli, the study’s lead author. Another 26% found NbS to be partially more effective. Importantly, no study reported NbS as being consistently less effective than engineering solutions.

These findings have significant implications. For one, they debunk the notion that NbS is a fruitless expenditure. Instead, the evidence points to NbS as a financially sound investment that can provide substantial returns regarding disaster risk mitigation. In other terms, they have a high return on investment when considered all the involved economics.

Further, the researchers note that one of the key advantages of NbS is their ability to deliver multiple benefits beyond hazard mitigation. These include improving air and soil quality, enhancing biodiversity, and supporting local communities, particularly those underserved.

However, as you can imagine, these additional benefits are often underestimated because they are challenging to quantify. “How should we value improvements in air quality or in soil quality?” Vicarelli asks. “How should we value the protection of an endangered species or the overall increase in biodiversity after the implementation of an NbS?”

Off course, these provide benefits in the long run, but as noted by the authors are not necessarily obvious or easy to calculate. Too much goes into the equation.

However, despite these challenges, the study highlights the need for comprehensive assessments that capture the full spectrum of NbS benefits. By doing so, we can better appreciate their true value and make more informed decisions about their implementation.

The study also sheds light on something more critical: the financing of NbS. Historically, these initiatives have been primarily funded by the public sector. However, to achieve a transformative impact on a global scale, increased private sector involvement is necessary.

Dr. Vicarelli emphasizes, “A transformative upscaling of nature-based solutions requires both public and private financing.” Indeed, as noted in their research, innovative financial instruments, such as nature-based insurance and investment solutions, are crucial for attracting private capital and ensuring the scalability of NbS.

This study provides sought-after evidence that NbS is a cost-effective and multifaceted approach to mitigating disaster risks.

More importantly, these findings challenge the arguments of climate change deniers who claim that spending on NbS is unproductive. By demonstrating the economic viability and additional benefits of NbS, the study advocates for its broader adoption and integration into disaster risk management and climate adaptation strategies, especially now that we know it is cost-effective.

As the world confronts escalating environmental challenges, investment in NbS provides a hopeful way forward. While not a magic bullet, it addresses the immediate threats posed by natural disasters and contributes to long-term environmental sustainability and socio-economic resilience, something most needed right now.

Moving forward, we need to support and scale up these solutions through innovative financing and comprehensive assessments that fully capture their diverse benefits. Doing so can build a more resilient and sustainable future for all. One that is backed up by scientific research.